It’s sad when someone dies young and suddenly. There’s a strong temptation when that happens to lionize that person. So it is that with Tim Russert people are now saying that he was some kind of special journalist. Not so. He was a toady.

Broadcast journalism is a tough world – those people have to fill air time within narrow constraints. They cannot confront the powerful, and so have to idle away the hours talking about minutia and attacking the smaller people in public life. But if they are pretty and add an air of serious discourse to the job, they often take on an air of professionalism and intellectual rigor. Tom Brokaw is a toady – he has spent his entire career reporting to us with deference on the activities of the powerful without upsetting them. He’s typical, and revered. He was allowed to ascend the alter, to perform the pièce de résistance of the profession – the presidential interview. That’s because he was dependable. So too was Russert.

Dan Rather was the same way – he earned a reputation during Watergate for challenging the powerful when that was the thing to do, and then settled into a comfortable career in the Brokaw mode, using respect and deference and humor to repeat to us those things that those in power wanted to know. But he crossed the line a few years back and did a hard-hitting, confrontational piece about George W. Bush, and paid the price. That’s a lesson they all take to heart – if you really do journalism in that world – if you investigate and confront, you’re out.

But how do we have news? Well, we don’t have much of it. We have 24 hour news channels now, but they fill their hours with the non-confrontational and trivial – missing white women and OJ and natural disasters. Politicians come and go, and depending on their stature, they might be challenged. Dennis Kucinich, if he ever got air time, was taken for a rocky ride. He’s low-stature. John McCain will have an easy time. If indeed anyone is asked a hard question, there will be head scratching and wonderment, and the credentials of the person asking the question will be called to task.

This is the world that Tim Russert thrived in. He was perfect for the job – low key, respectful, yet erudite and polished. He was an odd looking man for a TV centerpiece – usually they are movie-star pretty folks, and Russert wasn’t that. But he had all of the other qualifications. He brought gravitas to a trivial job. He made it look like journalism.

Here’s Glen Greenwald on Russert, pre-death, when you could say things about him that were true:

Or they’ll point to “liberal” Tim Russert — Tim Russert — about whom Cheney press aide Cathy Martin said: “I suggested we put the vice president on ‘Meet the Press,’ which was a tactic we often used. It’s our best format, as it allows us to control the message.” That’s the same “liberal” Tim Russert who confessed that he operates by the defining law of the Government propagandist: “When I talk to senior government officials on the phone, it’s my own policy — our conversations are confidential. If I want to use anything from that conversation, then I will ask permission.”

We don’t have much journalism in this country. With the passing of Tim Russert, well, you never know, depending on who takes his place, we might have a little more. But don’t bet on it.

Rolling Stone Magazine has a nice article in its current edition by Tom Dickinson called “The Senate Caves“. It’s an inquiry into the inability of the majority of the United States Senate to legislate their will. Dickinson focuses on Charles Shumer (D-NY), and has quite a few unkind words for him. Schumer recently patrolled fences for the hedge fund industry. Hedge fund managers are people who make their money from capital gains (the increase in the value of stock held more than one year), as opposed to salaries and wages. Under Bush, capital gains have been set aside for special tax treatment, paying a maximum tax of 15% (as opposed to as much as 39% for a middle class working person).

Hedge fund managers get virtually all of their income from capital gains. That’s what they do – buy and sell securities and commodities. Therefore, they pay that 15% federal tax, and no more. Simple fairness and equity would dictate that they pay the same rate as everyone else – they are no more special or important than Joe the plumber. But congress refused to block that special treatment, and Schumer led the charge.

Schumer’s love of his made-up friends in the middle class didn’t stop him from championing one of the biggest tax breaks for billionaires in the history of the republic. Last year, Democrats in the House fought to close a loophole that levies a tax rate of only 15 percent — barely half what real-life versions of [Schumer’s fictional middle class couple] the Baileys pay — on hedge-fund managers who make as much as $3.7 billion a year. But when the debate reached the Senate, Schumer broke with his fellow Democrats and sided with Wall Street — inspiring the hedge-fund industry to hail him as its “guardian.”

It’s an interesting article and does a fairly decent job of surface-skimming a phenomenon that has been with us for so long as the wealthy have been subjected to democratic rule, which I call the rule of “faux liberals” and “crypto-conservatives”. These are the “faux-cryptos”.

As the hedge-fund fiasco demonstrates, Democrats have turned the Senate into the chamber where good legislation goes to die. Since regaining the majority in 2006, the Democrats have granted the Bush administration and big telephone companies immunity for illegal wiretapping, declared a branch of the Iranian military a terrorist organization and stuffed the recent Foreclosure Prevention Act with far more goodies for big lenders than for struggling homeowners. They also confirmed Attorney General Michael Mukasey despite his refusal to disavow torture — a move engineered by Schumer. “You really want to like the Democrats,” says Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Then they go and do shit like this.”

There’s a widespread perception now that the Democrats would do more, would be a more progressive party if only there were more of them, and especially if one of them occupied the White House. (That millions of Democrats think that Hillary Clinton satisfied the quest for a liberal president is another part of the problem – dumb-assedness – which is a significant part of the faux-crypto phenomenon.) But it begs the question – if faux-cryptos are the problem, how on earth is having more of them aboard going to solve anything? Will Schumer suddenly be emboldened if there are 58 Democratic senators instead of 51? Will Harry Reid grow a set?

Not likely. The problem is one that speaks to the nature of our political system, which is sponsored by and indebted to the wealthy classes. It’s not enough that so-called liberals and progressives are compromised. If that were the case, they might indeed come around with enough public support and more colleagues-in-arms. It’s much more basic – faux-cryptos are protected by the people who finance our political system. They receive campaign perks and contributions from the same sources, and are slaves to the same media that vets all politicians. If they want money, if they want favorable press, they had better play ball.

It’s no good to have a two party system financed by the same people if one of the parties actually fights for ordinary people. So we are given something different – a perceived two party system. I see the fire in the eyes of conservatives – I know they hate Democrats. I know they think Democrats are really socialists who want to enslave us all via the welfare state. And it’s good that conservatives believe that because it reinforces the false division that we have between Democrats and Republicans, and maintains the perception that there are significant divisions between the parties.

There are a few good Democrats who fight hard for ordinary people. Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd come to mind, as do Dennis Kucinich and George Miller. They are a distinct minority. Far more often we liberals are represented by the likes of Schumer, Diane Feinstein and Max Baucus. These are people who know the boundaries and play safe and, when it comes right down to an important issue where their votes make a difference, vote with the opposition. These are not liberals – they are merely playing liberals. What better way to have a debate than to have all parties to the debate owned by the same moneyed interests?

Election fraud aside, it appears as though Democrats will make significant gains this November. They might even capture the White House, though that is a long shot. I look around and see that most Democrats are bought into the notion that the coming changes will break the dam, and that progressives legislation, long bottled up by Republicans and faux-cryptos, will be set free. It won’t happen. And when it fails to materialize new excuses will pop up. Probably it will be the fraudulent argument that Democrats are stymied by Senate debate rules that require a majority of sixty to make things happen. Says Dickinson,

In reality, the Democrats have everything they need right now to assert their own agenda and put a stop to Bush’s abuse of power — most important, the backing of a wide majority of Americans on issues ranging from the Iraq War to children’s health care. But instead of scratching and fighting to make good on the promises that got them elected — or at the very least, turning up the heat of the obstructionism of the GOP minority — they continue to make excuses.

So here I am again, Mr. Negative. Always trash-talkin’ Democrats. Why can’t I see that the Democrats, while a weak answer, are the only answer available to us? Well, it’s because the Democrats are not a weak answer. They are the wrong answer. They are the ones who make it look like we’re having a real debate, while all the while it’s just a diversionary tactic. They do the real work of the Republicans. They take all of the fervent belief and hard work of everyday people, and make sure it goes nowhere. They are like that famous parade at the end of the movie Animal House. The baton was stolen, the marching band was led down an alley and hit a wall, and they kept right on marching and playing their instruments.

So let’s get on now with American politics. Let’s have our furious debates, complete with political organizing and debates where people sit in bars and cheer just like it was a sporting event. Politics can be fun. “Laugh about it, shout about it when you’ve got to choose. Any way you look at it you lose.”

That’s negative, I know, and this is a year for hope and change. But the only real change that is ever going to happen is still years away, and will only come about when people abandon not Republican politics, but faux-crypto Democrats as well.

1. One in four New Yorkers has genital herpes. The study refers to New York City, and not the wider state. But here’s the kicker – nationwide, 19% of us have the virus. If ever there were a gold mine for some pharmaceutical company, this is it. It’s an incurable condition and the symptoms are usually hidden. It calls for a drug that does nothing that has to be taken on a regular basis and costs lots of money. And big pharma has delivered. It’s called Famvir. It costs about $300 a month. Meanwhile, millions of cases of malaria go untreated. No money in that.

2. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, an evil demon, can park his big arse on a bicycle and make it go. That in itself is a story. But it gets worse – the bike he was riding was made in a factory that is a joint venture between the governments of Venezuela and Iran. It gets worse. Chavez – did I say he was an evil demon? – took the opportunity of riding the bike to make fun of George W. Bush. He said “My dear friend, president of the United States, I offer you this bicycle, see the bomb. See it… you think that is a bottle of water, no, that’s the bomb.” We must put an end to this disrespect. We must put Venezuela on the list of countries we wish to bomb. Bombs, unlike bicycles, are something we actually make in this country.

3. Two of 109 historians think that George W. Bush is not the worst president ever. The survey failed to give the name of the two, fearing retribution. Bush likes to point to the fact that he, along with Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln were also very unpopular during parts of their terms. Give the man his due – indeed he does have that in common with those great men.

4. Vanity Fair has insinuated, and Gina Gershon has vigorously denied that she and former president Bill Clinton had an affair. I don’t know if that is true, but I feel more than I know that Bill Clinton is still at it. As Pat Buchanan said on MSNBC last week, Bill is a dog that does not stay on the front porch. If Hillary Clinton were elected Republicans would have had fun trying to figure out how to impeach the First Gentleman.

5. In an an exchange that typifies the witty repartee that so often takes place on capitol hill, Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) referred to FEMA officials as a “bunch of buttheads”. FEMA was quick to retort that Taylor was a fartfaced liar.

6. Somewhere some conservative blog commenter or poster has made reference to the fact that Ted Kennedy is a liberal and has had brain surgery. I feel this more than I know it.

We were lucky enough while out in San Francsco this spring to catch an exhibit by photographer Annie Liebovitz. I can’t begin to describe it. But here are two of her more powerful images – Willie Shoemaker and Wilt Chamberlain, and Mick Jagger.

I’m no amateur, dammit. I know my politics, and when it comes to elections, I put up many worthy comments and ideas. Here’s just one from a post I put up here last month: “Bob Kelleher is a force to be reconciled. He could sneak up and win if Republicans are not careful.” Can’t find the link right now.

It’s kind of funny now to watch as the blog and newspaper pundits try to make sense of it all. What are the voters telling us? What wisdom can we glean from this?

I thought I would share my experience from running for office in 1996. I ran against Peggy Arnott and got trounced, and stubbornly did everything wrong. The problem was that to do all the right things, I would have had to have been a different person.

Just one example: All of the Democratic candidates in Billings were marching and holding signs at a Republican event on First Avenue South to generate some publicity, and I was handed a script and told to read it for the TV cameras. It talked about the wonders of the fearless leader, Bill Clinton. It talked about how he was putting more cops on the street to fight crime, among other right wing ideals. I couldn’t read it. I just couldn’t. I handed it back to the organizer and said have someone else do it. And someone else did it.

I just can’t be a party boy. It’s not in my makeup. But to win that election I needed to soften up my stances, say things I didn’t believe, and play ball. Peg was a smart politician (and a nice lady of integrity too). I talked to people who voted for her of various stripes after the election. I asked them if, when she came to the door, she left the impression that she agreed with them on the issues of importance. Without fail, liberals and conservatives alike, Peg was there for them. Except on the abortion issue. She stood her ground there.

And that was the key. Let people validate their emotions through you, the candidate. If they are upset about Iraq, you’re concerned too. If they are behind the invasion, so are you. If they are upset about gas prices, you pay them too and want to bring them down. If they want clean air, so do you, and if they want jobs that cost us clean air, you want that too. No matter the issue, you can forge a position to support them. After all, once the election is over, the public loses interest, and you’re free to do as you wish. Peg knew this. I was naive.

But I knocked on doors for months on end, tracking every household, revisiting the ones I thought would vote for me. (People lie! If all those people who said they were going to vote for me did, I would have won.) I talked to thousands of people. In the beginning, I was carrying petitions for raising the minimum wage and Clean Water initiatives, and using them to put a friendly foot in the door. There was natural support for both these issues, people were warm and accepting, and I thought the strategy was a good one. But along about October, television campaigns against these initiatives came out. Neither initiative had much financial backing – only grassroots support.

In the wake of the TV ad campaigns, the doors turned ugly – I stopped talking about clean water and minimum wage. It just made people mad. But I had hitched my wagon. Both initiatives, which enjoyed huge early support, went down to defeat. This is when I learned that no matter your reasonable stance on an issue, no matter your literature or talking points, TV rules. And it’s not a rational medium. It’s a visual one. The Clean Water initiative went down because a mining company shill pretended to drink water from a stream below a mine near Cardwell. It was phony, but a powerful visual image, and that is all it took to defeat months of door knocking and signature gathering.

That’s politics. One vote is not very much, won’t change the outcome, and people are busy. They are not stupid, and are not going to invest any time in studying issues. There’s no reward. They want quick and dirty, and TV fits the bill. Candidates are free to say anything they want on any issue, and to do anything they want once elected. That’s why our campaigns are so shallow and the results so confusing.

(Just don’t make the mistake of giving the television people a bad image, like Mike Lange did. People remember stuff like that.)

This particular election featured some neophytes. Jim Hunt thought he could skip the primary, and focused on beating Rehberg in the fall. But he hadn’t built name recognition, and went down. The Republicans took a pass on running against Baucus, and Bob Kelleher snuck in the back door. Now they are saddled with a cantankerous 85 year progressive parliamentarian.

This is bonehead stuff. Manage your base. It’s about images, TV exposure, and name recognition. The parties right now, Republicans especially, appear to be run by amateurs. The old hands are gone, and the new ones don’t know what they are doing.

I delight to see that John Driscoll and Bob Kelleher won. This race lacked glitzy names and ad campaigns, and voters put up a picture that looks like a monkey throwing paint at a canvas. The parties failed to manage the voting public. Heads oughtta roll.

One thing people have noticed about Hillary is that she suffers from a sense of entitlement. She felt she deserved the Democratic nomination simply because she was a Clinton. Never mind that Bill only served for eight years due to the good graces of Ross Perot, that he never got even 50% of the vote, that he more resembled a Republican than a Democrat, that under his rule the Democrats lost control of Congress – never mind any of that. And screw issues. Hillary was supposed to be it, and we were not to expect more.

But it’s not just Hillary. Democrats in general feel that sense of entitlement. They presume to represent progressives without offering truly progressive alternatives. And they go postal if true progressives challenge them.

Well, Hillary’s gone now, and it’s time to take a closer look at this Obama character. For this I turn to Ralph Nader, Mr. Spoiler, and an interview by Tunku Varadarajan published in the Wall Street Journal last weekend, “Don’t Call Him Spoiler“. His insight, per usual, is cutting edge.

Varadarajan: Mr. Obama has opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement, and said that he wants it renegotiated; he’s chastised the Big Three in Detroit for opposing higher CAFE standards; he emphasizes at every opportunity that he takes no money from lobbyists. What [do you] think of that?

Nader: You see, that’s all permissible populist rhetoric that the corporations understand and wink at. Look at who gets the corporate money. Six out of seven industries giving money, through PACs and individual executives, etc., are giving more money to the Democrats than to the Republicans. I mean, John McCain’s having trouble raising money, even now.

Obama’s taking large money from the securities industry, the health insurance industry . . . I’ve gotten used to this ritual where the companies give Democrats this leeway, and say, ‘Well, Obama’s gotta say that stuff, but he’ll come around. There’s no way he’ll touch Nafta or touch the WTO.'”

Varadarajan: So is it all just a charade?

Nader: Yes, a charade. His health-insurance plan lets the health insurance companies continue their redundant, wasteful, often corrupt – in terms of billing fraud – ways, ripping off Medicare.

I think he’s on to something. We do have the semblance of a two-party system. It just never works out that we are offered two substantially differing policies on issues. But people would not put up with a one-party system in a representative democracy, and we do have different temperaments. (Temperamental differences are really the essence of the two-party structure.) So corporations tolerate Democrats, like the Clintons and Obama, so long as they don’t go too far. In the meantime, progressives are ignored, ridiculed, demeaned. Even by Democrats.

So is Obama a corporate shill?

“He’s not an agent,” Mr. Nader grants, “but he moves in an environment that’s conditioned by corporate power. If he wins, you’ll see his appointments in the Defense department, the Treasury and so on, they’ll be pretty much what the lobbies and PACs want.”

All is not lost with Obama, says Nader, and I take slight comfort:

Mr. Nader is clear that he prefers Mr. Obama to Hillary Clinton. “With her, we’ll just get what Bill gave us. I think she’s like Bill Clinton. With Obama, there’s the possibility of some fresh start, just like Kennedy did the Peace Corps. You see, when Obama got out of Harvard Law School, he went to work for a short period with a group I started in New York, the New York Public Interest Research Group. Then he went and did neighborhood work in Chicago, so it’s not like he’s coming off some corporate mountain.

“But he’s made up his mind to be a very conciliatory, concessionary, adaptive politician to the reality of corporate power. And people like him are told, ‘Look, if you don’t adhere to certain parameters and expectations, you’re going to have a hard time winning any nomination or election.’ And Obama’s made his peace with that.”

Perhaps this is why Obama manages to inspire so many people without every really saying much … people are hungry for change, and Obama is smart enough and sly enough to know he’s got to appease the corporations who finance the parties and own the media. He’s learned the system.

He’s not a transforming leader. He was not a transforming senator. He was not a challenging senator, the way [the late Paul] Wellstone was.

So what exactly does Nader want? It is at this point that most Democrats fall on the rejoinder that we should settle for incremental progress, and that Nader is just feeding his ego. But Nader offers up a host of policy suggestions that few Democrats would even recognize, much less advocate:

Labor reform, repealing Taft-Hartley. You see, the labor unions line up in favor of the Democrat Party and they get nothing. For heaven’s sake, they went ‘x’ number of years without even adjusting the minimum wage to inflation. I’ve never seen a less demanding organized labor movement, but what have the Democrats given them? … lip service on [ending] Nafta and the WTO, and better protection of individual investors’ rights, rights that corporate capitalism violates repeatedly.

On health care, “we believe in single-payer health, full Medicare for all.”

He is also “opposed unalterably to nuclear power. We think the country should go solar, in all of its different manifestations, including passive solar architecture.”

Mr. Nader wants to slash “the bloated, wasteful military budget. This thing is so out of control that it’s unauditable. But Obama wants to increase the military budget, which is currently distorted away from soldiers and towards these giant weapons systems, and keeping troops in Korea and Japan.”

And as for the tax system, Mr. Nader wishes that the Democrats would adhere to his philosophy, which is that “we should first tax things that we like the least, or dislike the most, as a society, before we tax human labor, and necessities . . . through a sales tax. “So we should tax securities speculation first, before we tax labor. If you go to a store and buy $1,000 worth of products, you pay a sales tax. You buy $1 million worth of derivatives, you pay no sales tax!”

I hear the scurrying of little feet, Democrats running for cover. Don’t even think of asking them to be advocates for such policies.

No matter. The Nader effect is gone, he’ll have no impact on elections ever again. Democrats will sue to keep him off the ballot (the DNC filed 24 lawsuits in 18 states in 12 weeks to prevent choice in 2004). And he’ll get no media coverage, save from FOX, and the Wall Street Journal, who rejoice in his candidacy, feeling it will help Republicans.

Since I announced my run, I can’t get on Charlie Rose. Or Diane Rehm or Terry Gross [of NPR]. I haven’t been on Jim Lehrer yet. I got on Wolf Blitzer twice, on CNN. Fox News calls me more than anybody. They have the same attitude, of course – ‘Here comes the spoiler!’ But how can you spoil something that’s spoiled already?

“I don’t complain much publicly. I’ve been told by a lot of the television bookers around the country, ‘Ralph, they don’t like you.’ So the door is shut.

Which goes to reinforce the notion that the media, which is owned by giant corporations with an interest in almost all policy issues, runs these campaigns, decides who is viable, who is not, and who will be allowed to have access to the public mind. And it is clear that anyone who advocates for progressive causes such as those set forth by Nader above need not bother.

But I say to myself, ‘Should we close down and go to Monterey and watch the whales?’ No. Better to fight when you have a small chance, than to fight later when you have no chance at all.”

Indeed. Fight on, Ralph. Things must get much worse before they get better, but things will get better. Too bad you won’t be around to enjoy it.

I hope I’m not too late! I take this inopportune moment to overrule your judgment with mine. Election races depend on it!

President of the United States of America: I was going to vote for Obama, but then Anna convinced me that Hillary was a woman, and Wulfy made it clear that we are not to oppose Democrats, so I voted for Hillary, who is a Democrat woman. You should too.

Senator from the Great State of Montana Isn’t it amazing that a podunk outpost like this, with less than a million people, has 1/50th of the voting power in the senate? That’s a deal. People take us for simpletons who can be bought with glitzy TV campaigns, and we prove it by sending filberts like Burns there for eighteen years.

Representative to the U.S. Congress from the Great State of Montana: This Rehberg character is a tough nut to crack – you think because he’s a trust baby and has never held a job in the private sector, that he’s kind of a Burnsian character. But he’s not. He’s formidable. It’s nice the Democrats put up people to oppose him now and then.

Supreme Court Justice: What you say? It’s non-partisan? Still, it’s never too soon to make this point: Mike McGrath does not belong on a bench of any kind except a park.

Governor of the Great State of Montana: This one’s easy. Pogreba, for openness in government. Never, ever let your motives be hidden.

My Local Representative: Roger Koopman is not running. I’m not voting in protest. What am I to do for material for this blog?

There you have it. Now, as a good American, follow my lead. Always look up for advice before you look down on your ballot. Your thoughts are good. But mine are better.

On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said,

“I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we’re going to make to have a short-term economic strategy.”

On Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said,

“From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. I never did meet any voter who thought that.”

Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign was the last time he ever talked about a middle class tax cut. Ever. I notice now that Hillary Clinton is promising a middle class tax cut. Two possibilities: 1) she means to make good on her husband’s broken promise, or 2) she’s merely borrowing his strategy.

Will Hillary pull a Lieberman on us and run a third party ticket? At first blush, the answer is obviously no, but as I thought about it, about her rabid supporters who don’t know squat about her stands on issues, about her own quixotic refusal to bow to reality, about her flaming ambition, I thought maybe … just maybe.

She’s a Clinton. She’ll do anything.

This brings up the obvious question – I supported Ralph Nader in 2000 against conservative Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. Isn’t it the same? Wasn’t Ralph just an egotist?

Well, no, not quite. Ralph was doing something that Democrats just don’t seem to understand – he was trying to bargain with the right wing of his party, to take his small cadre of supporters and leverage them to force the hand of Gore – to make him take leadership on liberal causes. Nader had ten planks in his platform – had Gore chosen to take leadership on just one … Gore was stubborn to then end. I think it was his ego made him so …

Hillary is different. She’s not about principled stands on issues. She and Obama differ very little on anything – a fact overlooked my most Democrats. (They could be triangulatin’ on us again.) What is Hillary’s ’cause’? What does she believe in? She’s taken more money from the health care sector than any candidate of either party, so she ain’t about fixing health care. She voted for the war in Iraq, even as contrary facts were available to her … if only she could listen to dissent. She now claims it was a mistake … what else is she going to say when the public says it was a mistake? But does she mean it? She was very much behind NAFTA when she was First Lady, now says she opposed it. Convenience store politics, anyone? Her support of NAFTA has been marked down! A sale! A sale!

Oh, I know the Democratic mantra – I’ll chant along with you. Yeah, she’s not all that, but ‘marginally’, she’s better…’marginally’, hummmmmm …she’s better…hummmm … ‘marginally’, she’s better…’marginally’ …. Some have said to me that I just don’t understand politics – that you have to work in increments, take small victories. You can’t win big. Oh, I get all of that, and I would vote for Hillary for one reason only – she would likely appoint pro-abortion judges. That’s a marginal point.

Point is, I don’t trust her. I know I’m conflating two personalities, but I don’t trust her husband either. I’ll never forget that he wanted to privatize Social Security, that he was working behind the scenes to make that happen. I’ll never forget his starving of 500,000 Iraqi kids, of his eight years of bombardment and harassment of people in that country.

I was deeply involved in environmental causes back when he was president. There was a bill before the congress called “salvage logging” (since renamed “Healthy Forests”). It was an attempt by the logging barons to get into roadless lands they previously had not been able to access. It was bad policy run through a public relations firm, as most initiatives are. Clinton was against it. He unified us, he had us all in one place … “not gonna sign it….not gonna sign it … not gonna sign it …” – the bastard signed it. The environmental community was up in arms – I think it was this, and his sellout on northern spotted owl lands (done incrementally … step by step…) and the sellout to Charles Hurwitz in California (with critical support from Diane Feinstein) that convinced Clinton that he had better do something glitzy to pacify environmentalists, who were not trusting him anymore.

He came up with some form to hide his ugly substance – he decided to take some marginal issues and make them his cause celebre – we got monuments. Gutted forests, and monuments on marginal lands. Oh, and before he left office, he lowered the arsenic standard for drinking water, probably knowing full well that Bush would reverse him. (He did.) And he attempted to protect roadless lands, knowing full well that Bush would reverse him. (He did.) He had eight years to do these things, and decided to cram it all into his last few months. Symbolism, anyone? False leadership? Manipulation?

That’s how Democrats work. They need our support, but they can’t give us substance. But they are clever. They know how to manipulate. Clinton was at best, at best, a moderate Republican. I look at his Iraq record, his unprovoked attack on Serbia, and I say he was a rabid right winger on foreign policy. But give him the benefit. A moderate Republican.

Now comes Hillary. What’s different? Has she led on any progressive issues? Well, one thing – she wants to corporatize the health care system and expand private insurance which is at the heart of the problem, and this is passing for reform. When we needed her on Iraq, where was she? When we needed leadership to block bad judges, did she do more than vote? Did she rally her fellows, form a voting bloc, put up stiff resistance? Did she lead? She could have stopped Alito – dynamic leaders do ths – they make deals, inspire, form coalitions. They do more than cast symbolic votes.

Nah – she voted no, made a nice little speech – she totally Baucused on us.

And that’s my problem with Hillary. She’s not about coalitions, or organizing, or taking public opinion and making it into a political force. She’s about Hillary. Period. And if she’s anything like her husband, there will be that incremental progress that Democrats love to brag about. The only problem is that it will be for the other side. She’s not one of us. She’s a faux-liberal, a crypto-conservative.

Will she run a third party candidacy? Not likely, but I wouldn’t put it past her. I wouldn’t put anything past her.