If not Hillary, then who?

[OmahaBlueDog]

134. I am a political scientist by training (not by profession)

I can look at the actions of a political movement (even one I disagree with) and objectively judge that their tactics and strategies are effective. One cannot deny, no matter how much one dislikes the Tea Party, that they were very effective in 2010. Somewhat less so in 2012. They were effective in attracting people who were disenchanted with what they perceived as political compromise, and they sought to move their party away from the political center and toward the far right. One thing they were not shy about was primarying candidates they perceived as weak on their agenda. It frequently backfired to the extent that there is not a Senator Joe Miller, a Senator Sharon Angle, or a Senator Christine O'Donnell. It succeeded to the extent that won the House, some key governorships, and they put the fear of losing seats into most remaining Republican incumbents, and had, until recently, moved GOP rhetoric continually toward the right.

You stated:

I will not do a single thing for any Third Way infiltrator to MY party. We've been there and done that and I'm not in the habit of repeating the same thing over and over again, (well, maybe twice or so) expecting to get a different result.

...and also stated

I will be focusing on getting a strong, Progressive Democratic Congress. Hopefully there will be some good Progressive candidates for the WH, but my energies now are going to be focused where the people's Reps are supposed to be. We have been distracted from that by these billion dollar presidential races, but not anymore.

All I'm saying is that this is not dissimilar to the strategy that the GOP used very effectively in 2010 and before that in 1992. I'm talking about the effectiveness of their tactics; not their ideology.