Wow,could you turn down the snark please.

C. Key Initiatives with a Net Positive Impact
16. Innovative methods of stress removal in the Oval Office.

D. Key Presidential Vetoes with a Net Positive Impact

E. Key Presidential Vetoes with a Net Negative Impact

Google turned up nothing for a potential "E" column?

"I thought it would be useful to take an objective look..... The groupings are based on my opinion"

At least you gave all the readers a fair warning that you were going to contradict the statement from your first paragraph by the end of the article. Oh wait, I forgot. "Progressive" opinions are the definition of objective, everything else is subjective.

Let me get this straight: Are you saying that America can not function unless Hillary is elected. We know what happened in the past and I will agree that many of the years were good...but many of them were bad that I will describe in a couple of words, impeachment and indictments!

I don't buy that we need to turn to the past to go forward.

Are you saying that America can not function unless Hillary is elected.

Huh. I musta missed that paragraph. Can you point it out?

I don't buy that we need to turn to the past to go forward.

So, ignoring the past or worse, buying the Hillaryhaterz-revised version of the past is helpful in moving forward? I think this post is a good reminder that the Clinton admin produced a lot more than just the DOMA and NAFTA and that a lot of progressive issues were addressed positively despite the pretense on the left these days that Clinton is Republican Lite.

16. Innovative methods of stress removal in the Oval Office.

TIKI, too bad Chimpy didn't try this one; maybe we wouldn't have attacked Iraq! Sadly, he had no choice when no volunteers stepped forward due to a sudden wave of nausea throughout DC, and the program was scrapped (except for the Tom Delay/Duke Cunningham lobbyist heaven at the Watergate.) Which is why, years later, Larry Craig was forced to look for relief in a bathroom in MN! Stress is the mind-killer, you know.

...Clinton-Gore administration...

Yeah... I'm still pissed that Gore isn't running!

Gee, I guess the Clinton Administration wasn't so bad.

However, NAFTA, GATT, etc., hollowed out the working class and pretty much drove a stake through manufacturing in the U.S. Additionally, NAFTA's agricultural policies flooded Mexico with American corn, which in turn destroyed the economic viability of small Mexican farmers which in turn sped up the migration of Mexicans into the U.S. Because of their tentative situation, some being illegal, these new workers, because they cannot assert their rights under labor laws, are an underclass much as how African Americans have been used, to undercut working class and thus drive down wages.

All of this was foreseen before it happened. I used to write editorials about this in the early 90s.

The Clinton Administration certainly benefitted from the high tech boom, too.

Hey, it was better than Bush.

Thanks for this extensive post.

There were numerous acts reducing New Deal regulations on the banking and financial industry signed by Clinton that permitted the very crisis we are now faced with, such as the repeal of Glass Steagall---Bill required no new govenment oversight as part of the "deal" as far as I know.

Why do you think the finance boys support the Clintons now? I'll bet the Clintons will really warm to doing the things necessary to bring these jackals under control, based on his record.

Where's the bill permitting increased media consolidation? Where's the observation that he didn't say one word about the absurd fall in vehicle mpg ratings? And he sure led the charge on defending Kyoto, he really should get credit for being a strong voice against global warming.

Think Bill the wonk never read anything about Peak Oil? That he never heard or saw the phrase? I don't. Energy policy---nothing. Foreign Oil dependence---nothing. Alternate energy----very little.

On many of the really big ticket items that our future will turn on, he didn't utter a peep. And you're missing his focus on enabling global capitalists to do their will everywhere they want. That's what was really behind the Repub "free trade" campaign which he enabled.

He did a lot of good. He cared about wilderness. He appointed excellent judges. The government functioned. But he was not a committed progressive; his "vision" was very limited, and to the extent he trusted the global capital boys and made the world "safe" for them (which both Clintons are still fine with), he ushered in the disaster we're now experiencing.

Sorry, but the Clintonian "Third Way" looks alot closer to lassez faire conservative capitalism than the New Deal to me.

It's axiomatic that Bill team was head and shoulders above a corrupt, warmongering, lawbreaking, crony capitalist regime of authoritarian thugs----every adminstration looks great compared to Bushco, including (without question) Nixon's.

TIKI AL,

I could not find anything that fit category E that you suggested (I've updated the post indicating as such). If you find something let me know and I'll add it. Also, remember, all of the good bills and policies were pushed through despite the most significant Republican opposition that a Democrat had faced in decades.

Jay,

Good catch. That's what happens when I'm trying to post something in the wee hours of the morning. What I meant was "categorizations", not "opinions" and I've updated the post to reflect that. If you want to challenge the categorization in some specific case, feel free to do so in the comment thread and I'll evaluate it on the merits.

Angryman,

Which part of the post says we should vote for Hillary? If you want to have real debate, let's not do that over your imagined fictions.

Second, if you seriously think that the victim should be blamed for what the Republican Congress did - impeaching a President over an affair and conducting massive investigations into the Clintons which were based on myriad bogus assertions about them, be my guest. Clinton screwed up with Monica but that is no excuse to blame him for impeachment.

He did a lot of good. He cared about wilderness. He appointed excellent judges. The government functioned.

euzoius, He did do a lot of good! His appointment of qualified people to government positions was probably his best quality. Most were extremely competent.

Certainly not like the assclowns we have now... thinking first of pilfering the treasury and how profitable their position can be to themselves.

Eriposte, those domestic policies are just so ducky, aren't they? You shouldn't have crossed out the word "my opinion" about your so-called categories. They look fancy and scientific, but they really are just your opinion: "...the real negative effects of NAFTA did not really manifest themselves until we were in the Bush II era...." Says who? Says you! Twenty-two million jobs built out of smoke and mirrors -- the dot com bubble -- and line cooking at Mickey D's don't make up for the loss of our manufacturing base. Let's talk about the immediate effects of NAFTA on U.S. union job loss in the manufacturing sectors due to the growth of non-union "maquiladoras" in Mexico along the U.S. border. But then, I wouldn't expect long-time friends of Wal-Mart like Bill and Hill to be too friendly with the unions, and I am aware union leadership repeatedly sells out, it's a two-way street to some degree.

And what about the foreign policies?

Bush's policies flowed logically from Clinton's policies, particularly on Iraq. Do we want to talk about the estimated half-million Iraqis who starved and unnecessarily died from what should have been treatable medical conditions under the Clinton-led, U.S.-enforced, UN "oil-for-food" sanctions regime? People scream bloody murder about Bush's half-million to million Iraqi dead. What about Bill Clinton's half-million Iraqi dead? Was Clinton starving the Iraqis to death somehow better than Bush's bombing them to death? Do we even want to talk about the 2 major bombing campaigns Bill Clinton conducted against Iraq?

What about basic honesty? Forget the politically motivated impeachment, that was wrong by the Republcians. But let's talk about simple honesty with the people who elected that administration: "I. Did. Not. Have. Sex. With. That. Woman!" Liar, liar, pants on fire! She may not have known it went down when it did, but no way in hell was Hillary so stupid, naive or so far into denial that she didn't know that was a lie at the time he said it. Yet she defended the lie.

If you want Hillary to stand on her own, then talking about her experience as a part of the previous Clinton administration undercuts that logic. And if you want Hillary to run on the previous Clinton administration's record, well, that's definitely a double-edged sword, at best, too. It's not just about being better than Bush. It's about being a real Democrat with real liberal policies and being qualitatively and quantitatively better than the entire current crop of Republican candidates. Bush is gone. Hillary isn't really running against Bush. A dead cat looks better than Bush. Hillary needs to do better if she wants my vote and millions of other votes besides.

You forgot these:

1) The Clinton innitiative to add 100,000 local policemen to cities in need. This helped lead to a reduction in crime.

2) The Clinton innitiative to provide substantial funds for after school programs for inner city kids to keep them out of trouble. This was derided by conservatives as 'midnight basketball' but it was a good idea and had a postitive impact.

3) Also I remember Clinton praising the Long Beach CA school system for it's innovative programs. I think this was in conjuction with one of his programs to improve the nations schools but I cannot remember which one it was.

Uh, Brian, say it, don't spray it. We get it! You hate the Clintons and therefore nothing nice can ever, ever be said about them. Sean Hannity welcomes you to the dark side with this shit:

Bush's policies flowed logically from Clinton's policies, particularly on Iraq.

Riiiight. Looks like revisionist history isn't just for rightwing tools anymore, eh?

Also NAFTA is not the cause of our loss of manufacturing jobs.

NAFTA was a North American free trade agreement. It had nothing to do with China taking over our manufacturing jobs.

NAFTA is a pioneering progressive economic document. It is the first step on the way to a unified North American economy. It is modeled on the European Union which had a fifty year head start on working out the details of unification.

And keep in mind it is the pioneers that take the arrows so the rest can follow along safely.

Coyote, are you denying that Bill Clinton killed a half-million Iraqis through the U.S. led sanctions against Iraq? Because that is what happened. Any serious and logical examination of U.S. policy on Iraq shows that we spent more than 10 years softening Iraq up with sanctions and "limited" bombing campaigns before outright invading, and Clinton was a part of thatI notice Hillary following in that tradition with her support for the Iraq war and the vote on Iran.

Also, I don't watch Hannity because I'm liberal on most issues, unlike Hillary.

Tell you what, though, I might vote for Hillary, along with a lot of other people, if she makes Obama her running mate, or if she made promises to really extract ourselves from the Mid-East, talk to Iran and Syria without asinine "conditions," leave the WTO and dump NAFTA. Those kinds of things would be a start, and I am aware Obama didn't promise the last couple, but doesn't Hillary want to be a better candidate than any other Dem?

Why are you so bitter Brian?

Ken, that's a load of hooey. NAFTA sent millions and millions of formerly union jobs to newly created non-union shops in Mexico owned by the same people who shuttered their plants here in the U.S. China is only half the equation. There's NOTHING progressive about NAFTA, it's just an accumulation of power among the ruling elites. It has destroyed jobs in Canada and the U.S. and hindered the expansion of jobs paying livable wages in Mexico.

Snark, good question. The answer is because I've watched one of my favorite sites go from a reliable, liberal site, willing to look at and fairly discuss all Democratic candidates, into practically a propaganda arm for the Clinton campaign, filled with nothing but bile for Obama. Worse still, there's no actual analysis going on here, just a news snippets here and there followed by "article" after "article" proclaiming how great the Clintons are. There's not even a half-hearted attempt at balance. In 2004, Kerry and even Gephardt didn't get this kind of treatment over what was done to Dean. The uniting of the party occurred before the races were even over. This makes me rather sad. I expect that once the nomination is over, if Hillary doesn't offer Obama the VeeP slot, I'll probably be out of here, as well as most Democratic blogs. I don't see much point in hanging around a party that doesn't value my input.

Hillary supporters ought to hope to God African-Americans don't take the same attitude as an embittered "lib'rul" like me. Continually bringing up the Bush Boogeyman -- when he's gone in a year and only one of his potential successors seems even close to as crazy-stupid as Dubya is -- won't scare people into voting for Hillary. She needs to reach out and promise to change policies in profound ways if she wants more votes.

Again, I won't be listened to, so I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to mention it.

Also on NAFTA,

It has been somewhat rough. But mostly because of the incompetence of the Bush admininistration in the US and the contempt Mexican politicians have for their own people.

The US and Canada should have put pressure on Mexico since NAFTA's passage to improve labor, industrial safety, and environmental laws. Mexican land use laws need reform. Mexican oil policy needs reform. Mexican banking system needs reform.

Just as an example look at a map of the North American oil and gas pipelines. They pass freely between the US and Canada but stop short at the Mexican border.

Another example is the fact that Mexican interior railroads use a different gauge track than does the US and Canada which prevents the use of those miles long container trains from travelling uninterupted from the port of LA to Mexico city or from the farmlands of interior Mexico to Chicago.

The improvement in trade between the US and Canada has been a boon to both countries. The boon in trade between the US and Mexico has been more troubling as most of the benefit has accrued to the Mexican oligarchs and has been spread unevenly in the US as well.

That said since the passage of NAFTA the Mexican stock market has outpaced the rise in the US markets. Also there has been a rise of the Mexican middle class by not as quickly as is needed.

Mexico's problems, whatever you see them to be, have been caused mostly by Mexican policitions unwilling to challenge the ruling oligarchs of the country.

And the oligarch's on our side of the border, Ken? Let's talk about how those jobs couldn't have crossed the border in the quantities they did before NAFTA. Trade with Canada? We had a long, very long history of continually growing trade with Canada before and after NAFTA.

Again, I won't be listened to,

Here's your answer, snark. He thought he could come in and insult anyone who didn't agree that Obama was the second coming and we'd all just jump on his bandwagon anyhow. Now he's mad that no one's finding his bitter bandwagon schtick a barrel of laughs either. And then nobody bought his explanation for trying to say that Hillary's unstable because of menopause, because someone made the analogy that Obama was like a kid throwing a tantrum in a playground so it's a "natural reaction" not a sexist insult. And now that Brian's managed to piss off just about everyone here, he's bitter that no one will listen to him when he tries to have it both ways by saying Hillary was only the first lady, so her claims of experience don't count, yet she's responsible for every bad policy coming out of the Clinton years. Poor, poor Brian, so misunderstood, so bitter.

Brian Bell,

NAFTA is indeed a very progressive economic document. It is a first step in tearing down the borders between the three North American signitories. The problem is not the concept but in its implementation. And the responsibility for ensuring fair implementation rest on governments of the signitory countries.

With conservative governments in both Washington and Mexico City it was inevitable that we would have more problems than needed with free trade policies between these two countries.

I suppose Clinton was counting on the good will of his successors when he pushed NAFTA through. You can blame him for that but not for pioneering the concept of shared prosperity among the North American countries.

Besides, without it we would never stand a chance against the competition coming from the European Union.

We may have been fifty years late to the party but at least we there. Now we just need to put liberals back in charge of our government and push them for reform.

eriposte: Thank you for addressing a rare serious question regarding the phantom category "E". I perused the 37 vetoes and could not find a candidate either. Maybe Brian could help with this research.

uRcoyote: So if just 1 attractive White House intern had been "blessed" with cataracts and a superhuman gag-reflex the worst foreign policy decision in the history of the US could have been avoided?

Yes, eriposte, we know you like Hilary.

Gee, Luce, that just never gets old...

So if just 1 attractive White House intern had been "blessed" with cataracts and a superhuman gag-reflex the worst foreign policy decision in the history of the US could have been avoided?

It might have done, TIKI. Alas, it was just too much to ask any one intern to sacrifice so much...

Ken, NAFTA is "progressive?" Define progressive, please. Tearing down borders for a superstate run by anti-union, anti-environment, anti-living wage oligarchs on the Mexican and U.S. sides of the "border" qualifies as "progressive?" I don't think so, and the union-busting started the moment, heck before, NAFTA was even signed. This was

Iamcoyote, I have never once called you a name. Think about that, while you spew your hate. I assume the insults you direct at me are because you have no answer to the fact that Bill Clinton presided over the deaths of a half-million Iraqis, the largest plurality of which were children. Dubya isn't the only murderer of innocent Iraqis. Bill Clinton was basically on the same scale as Dubya, as measured by total number of dead Iraqis. I assume we'll continue to have that kind of "muscular" foreign policy under his wife, which is one of the reasons I don't intend to vote for her.

Someone's being snarky. And rightfully so.

I have never once called you a name.

Never said ya did. Don't care if you do. But you sure do make an awful lot of assumtions, don'tcha?

You apparently have reading comprehension issues, Coyote. My point -- which you miss as usual even though it's contained in two sentences right next to each other -- is you attempt to insult and belittle me everytime you comment on something I say. You swear at me, you call me names, you make outrageous accusations about my attitudes, and you put words into my mouth, so to speak. I, on the other hand, stick to the issue at hand and I never call anyone a name. Who are the real "haters" here at Left Coaster? It's beginning to resemble LGF or Free Republic around here more than a liberal site.

I, on the other hand, stick to the issue at hand and I never call anyone a name.

You're into high comedy now, eh?

Just another day at the Clinton Coaster... -Brian Bell, Tuesday 01.22.08 posted in the comments thread to the post Clinton Campaign Providing Some Facts About Last Night

Cry us all a river Brian.

I, on the other hand, stick to the issue at hand and I never call anyone a name.

Whaddaya want, a cookie?

is you attempt to insult and belittle me everytime you comment on something I say.

And just a little while ago, you were whining that no one ever listens to you. Which is it? Ignore you or build you up - not that it's our obligation to do so. I'm sorry you feel so put-upon, but ya know, if you hadn't come in after Iowa strutting around and calling people bitter for no good reason, a conversation might have been possible at one time. But you're continuously telling everyone what to think and how to feel then getting all hurt when no one takes your sage advice. Get over yourself, honey, you just ain't that important. But...and this is key...you're way too much fun to fuck with because you think you are.

Hey, I'm a big boy, Coyote. Feel free to insult. Believe me, you're not hurting me nor getting me off. I just want you to notice how awful you're being.

And my complaint remains, you're not hearing me. You're just insulting.

What you and other Hillary supporters on this blog and elsewhere miss, and the Hillary campaign, too, is her candidacy is hurting party unity, badly. It is because of the way the Clinton campaign is campaigning. It is an example set forth by Bill and Hill and followed by their supporters, in the media and on the blogs. It doesn't matter what you think of me, but my attitude -- I don't want to vote for Hillary -- is something that a lot of people share. The more insulting the Clintons and their supporters get, the less people may vote for her in the general election. It is incumbent on their campaign and you as her supporters to reach out, not to insult, if you want her to win. She's not entitled to votes. I think she can overcome any lack of party faithful support, but imagine for a moment on how you think she'd do without the support of the African-American community in the general election? Think about it, that is what is being risked through the manner in which the Clintons are campaigning. Go check what people are saying on DKos if you don't want to listen to me.

And when I say things like this, or say quit insulting Obama, you don't hear it. You hear a challenge. And you go after it like I'm a right-wing troll, which is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. You just keep perpetuating the dislike of Hillary. You want her elected, be a good winner, not a sore one.

As for me, I started optimistic in Iowa, because I dislike the Clintons. But you know what, my guy is lost, really. Obama's not going to win. Me and millions like me on the left now have to be won over by her. She and her campaign aren't offering us a reason to think we were wrong in our judgment of Hillary. Heck, yeah, I am embittered, and you don't even want to know why us non-supporters don't like the Clintons, even when we try to explain it, you insult and insult and insult. Can you see how that could cost Hillary votes?

You already unequivocally said there's no way you're gonna vote for Hillary Clinton.

So why should anyone waste their breath addressing you Brian?

If it makes you feel any better Brian, Obama is my second choice after Edwards.

But I'll play hell if I'm ever going to vote for a republi-con or risk the Democratic party from losing the election.

Lesser of evils indeed, lives are at stake, perhaps the Union as a whole.

Snark -- SIGH -- right, screw my vote, that's partly what I'm saying, unless she makes Obama VeeP or something. It's NOT about me, it is about what I am saying and what I represent, because I do fall well within the opinions and demographics of a lot of voters who won't vote Hillary. The question is, aren't you worried about others' votes. I am NOT the only Obama-ite or Democrat who feels the way I do about the Clintons, far, far, far from it. As I said, peruse DKos if you doubt that I am the only liberal who is thinking the same things I am about the Clintons.

Brian,

You come here and constantly assail the contributors here for writing about Hillary Clinton. Is your disconnect from reality so bad that you can't see how dumb it sounds when you then complain about Hillary Clinton and her supporters not trying hard enough to make her case to you?

Nice, Snark, more insults. Anyway, I "assail" them for propagandizing for Hillary to the exclusion of all others, as opposed to running a site that at least makes an attempt to present some kind of balance. THIS is what I'm talking about:

There's 45 articles on the Left Coaster home page, 5 of which are open threads.

Of 39 articles about something on the Left Coaster home page, 16 are pro-Hillary, advocacy pieces and 3 are anti-Obama advocacy pieces.

There isn't a single article devoted to just plainly covering the state of the Kucinich race, or an issue he might have raised, nor the Edwards campaign, nor, of course, the Obama campaign.

Don't you see how this kind of bias will turn off Obama voters, to the exclusion of ever supporting Hillary?

And this is a tiny example. Let's talk about a big example, about an ex-president taking the low road against an African-American candidate? You think that helps the Hillary candidacy? Hillary is the front runner. She needs to act like it instead of the kind of crud she's been pulling.

Who knows? Maybe the truth is this is all that Hillary and the Clintons and Clintonistas have to offer, at which point we're probably looking at 4 more years of Republican rule, because you all, from Bill and Hillary on down, were more interested in letting the Obama-ites have it then pulling the party together.

So, Brian all this disunity is the Clintons' fault because they just won't listen to you and go away! Obama's floating above it all like a little angel, right? What planet are you on?

Sorry, Brian, but just because there are other people like you on Kos who are so caught up in their own egos that if they don't get all they want and a pony they'll just take their ball and go home, doesn't make it smart or right. It just makes you're all Whiny Ass Titty Babies throwing a tantrum because the mean ol' lady won't lay down and let their savior walk on by.

And who the hell do you think you are, telling someone else what to write on their blog? This isn't CNN or public radio! You can count up the stories all night long and cry into your pillow all you want, but you're an idiot if you think you can tell someone else what to write on their own blog. If you don't like it, you are free to walk away at any time. Just because you dream about the good old days, doesn't mean anyone has an obligation to bring it all back for you by pandering to your chosen one.

Hillary is the front runner. She needs to act like it instead of the kind of crud she's been pulling.

You're right, who the fuck does that bitch think she is, acting like a politician running in a very contentious race! She should be in the kitchen making iced tea for the real candidates instead, right, Brian? Man, you're a piece of work, aren't you?

Brian,

You can keep making excuses but you sound oh so silly. The plethora of posts about Hillary Clinton on this blog is going to turn off those already disinclined to support her? Can they go nowhere else to find info about the other candidates? Lol!

You are a funny one.

eriposte:

Lets both try and pretend that the article is not pro-Clinton and by inference Hillary. I agree wholeheartedly that the Clinton Administration was largely successful. I am just saying that that atmosphere in DC was extremely poisonous (us against them). I for one am not willing to go back to those days. I personally feel that my best days are ahead of me. And I also hope that this country’s best days are ahead us and also Bush/Clinton-Free.

I don't have time for a lengthy post, but changing a word doesn't remove the immense subjectivity(a random sampling would be progress towards objectifying this). The funniest part I find is that most of the items under D come with a humorous, but empty little punchline. I'm sure in the 'Progressive's Bible' there is a section on each of these, but I'm not interested in dogmatic doctrine.

but I'm not interested in dogmatic doctrine.

And people say right wingers can't do comedy. This is hilarious!

LOL.

All in all, what good Bill managed to make an effort to do in no way shape or form excuses Hillary supporting the Patriot Act, supporting the war 100%, supporting the Real ID, and it damn sure doesn't mean that she's capable of being an effective president.

The Clintons are like building a house of cards. They can make limited progress, but one big transgression at the top can bring it all crashing down (we saw that as Bill the pervert disgraced the nation by being unable to keep his dick in his pants), which means better-than-Republican progress in the 90's does not excuse Neocon support in the 21st century.
Hillary is not qualified and cannot handle the job. That much is obvious since she had to leave Bill in SC to take up for her. She can't refrain from emotional outburst and that proves she's too unstable for the job.

You can harp about the limited progress and watered down legislation Bill managed to install all you want. John Edwards would accomplish much more and with a fraction of the negatives, if any.

I know you youngsters are afraid to let go of Bush/Clinton because it all you know. But believe me, there's no reason for you to be afraid of real change.
Let Billary go. The nation needs new blood and there's no "change" to be found in the past.

Captainkona brings is the ever alluring and perpetually undefined "change".

Perhaps a change of Depends would do you some good gramps. The "change" schtick is starting to smell foul.

"The "change" schtick is starting to smell foul."

:D
Only to those that fear it, sonny. Only to those that fear it.

But by all means, since you evidently approve of the things Hillary supports such as War in Iraq, the Real ID, War with Iran, Oligarchy, running jobs out of the country etc., keep opposing "change". The definition of which you'll come to understand eventually. Either by voting for new blood and seeing it first hand, or by electing a corporate whore and lamenting about what could have been later.

Remember, junior. This isn't the 90's. That was then and this is now. ;)

Captainkona,

Perhaps it's senility but you should recall that John Edwards, the man who is going to singlehandedly usher in the miraculous era of "change" in Washington, also "voted for war in Iraq".

FMLA was an important bill. HIPAA is a good stopgap versus Corporate misuse of patient's private info. But what I don't see is a Great Society or New Deal progressive revolution versus 12 years of Reaganomics.

You know, NAFTA is one of those litmus test kinds of bills. At least as important as, say, Abortion or Vietnam. NAFTA is to the Iraq War as the Monroe Doctrine is to the War of 1812, only they took place in the reverse order. Just like NAFTA is doing, the Monroe Doctrine stymied one form of tyranny and ultimately replaced it with another.

LBJ doesn't get a free pass for dropping the War on Poverty in favor of the Vietnam War; Bill doesn't get a free pass for NAFTA and the rise of Corporate lawlessness that was pretty clearly evident by the end of the 1990's (telecoms, dot-coms, etc.)

There is 8 years of evil legislation and Corporate Welfare to undo in Washington before progress could be made -- I haven't seen anything from the DLC sideshow of Clinton and Obama to convince me that any of it will truly be undone (Iraq, Patriot Act, Bankruptcy Bill, tax cuts, etc.) -- much less that any major Progressive movement would take root on Pennsylvania Avenue in January of 2009 (recognizing China as the modern totalitarian fascist dictatorship that it is, true nationalized healthcare sans the HMO's, or fair-trade).

More fundamentally, no willingness by either Clinton or Obama to squash the "transformative" fiction that took root under Mr. Reagan: that Free Capital = Free People. Until Democrats publicly embrace the narrative that Corporate America is more a part of the problem than a part of the solution, no real, Progressive CHANGE will take root.

Brian Bell who has never called anyone a name, unless they are female and older - then he calls them menopausal and hormonal and "Grams"

...keep opposing "change".

I don't oppose change. Never said I did. I just don't get myself all atwitter like a little school girl at the mere mention of the word.