Certainly I agree with your analysis in . But I just wish that this whole grievance v. grievance contest could be avoided in favor of the candidates' stands on the issues.

I personally am more 'radical' than either of them, and perhaps there's not enough difference between them on issues such as war, global warming, emptying the prisons and other social issues to make a choice, but with Hilary's known history of NAFTA-backing, kicking mothers off welfare rolls with no good substitute-backing, bombing Kosovo (even, reportedly, to using nuclear weapons)-backing, among other things, I can find no way to relate to her as a woman, let alone a candidate for anything. None of the progressive women I know can stand her - we feel she still doesn't know now what she "didn't know then"!

I'm hoping that Obama is more progressive than he's daring to say, in order to get elected. This is looking dubious in light of some of the 'advisors' he's calling on: Madeline Albright!; Robert Rubin!, etc. Let's hope he's taking their advice as what not to do!