Remember how they all got behind Nancy Pelosi and wanted to help "whip" the vote?

More of the same.

This is exactly what I have always said. My initial opposition to Clinton's campaign was actually about self-preservation for our movement.

So, they thought that if she was elected, it would discredit them as the new powerbrokers within the Democratic Party. Because she was not new, and shiny, and young, and hip and Facebook-y.

Remember, it was Clinton who had the spine to send Wolfson on O'Reilly to defend Kos. Remember, too, that it was who Clinton voted against censuring MoveOn, while Obama skipped out of the Senate just minutes before the vote was held.

Yet, despite these efforts, Clinton has received nothing but scorn from these thugs.

Further, Clinton supporters are quite familiar with the nastiness and small-mindedness of the netroot's thought-police.

We have been threatened, attacked, and banned across the internet from the beginning of this campaign. The bullying of Clinton supporting caucus-goers is well-documented. They believe that they alone can judge who is and isn't a "real Democrat", and woe to those who dare to advocate against or exercise their right to vote contrary to their draconian precepts.

Man did we get flamed for defending HRC!

Me especially.

QUICK! SEND OUT OUR MINIONS TO FIND A CLINTON GAFFE FROM ONE OF OUR OFF THE BUS BLOGGERS!

It's so bizzare. The tit for tat in this campaign is just incredible to me. I mean you just KNOW that after Powers resigned team Obama had a group of people looking for someone to get kicked off the Clinton campaign. Ferraro. Weeeeeeee!

Talk about Progressive goals?
Tell the Democratic leadership what they want?
Talk about unifying the Party, no matter who the nominee is?

No.  The pushback against ABC is a positive step, even if their motives are selfish.  But the rest of the time, they talk about, well, let's go to Pixar:

He starts monologuing! He starts like, this prepared speech about how feeble I am compared to him, how inevitable my defeat is, how the world will soon be his, yadda yadda yadda.

The end of movement politics has infected nearly everyone, like a mysterious illness in a science fiction film. If a movement still existed, MoveOn would not have made an Obama endorsement via popularity contest. They never bothered to make demands of him, to ask questions before giving him their support. Their endorsement is worthless because it gives Obama cover and asks nothing in return.

MoveOn spreads the conventional wisdom that super delegates are more likely to be pro-Clinton and are willing to subvert the popular will on her behalf. They have even circulated a petition to prevent super delegates from choosing the nominee. What MoveOn doesn't say is that both Clinton and Obama have used their political action committees to make contributions to super delegate campaign funds. They also fail to mention that Obama leads in making these contributions.

His PAC has given $698,200 to super delegates. Hillary Clinton has made $205,500 in contributions to super delegate coffers. In other words, Obama is more adept at buying votes than Clinton. "Yes we can" indeed.

1. Hillary dissing the "activist base" of the party - the very base which she courted when she tried to get the moveon.org endorsement, the very base that pushed back on behalf of her husband during impeachment.

2. Hillary misrepresenting the organization's view as being against the war in Afghanistan - conflating Afghanistan and Iraq and using the "they're a bunch of dirty hippies" argument that republicans love so much.

The questions at the end were mostly good, some asking for very clear specifics i.e. what would you do on Day One for the environment or whatever.

And I thought, well we'll get vagueries, but every answer was specific and detailed, create a Kyoto-like summit, include the nations that haven't participated, meet every three months with the leaders, tax cuts here and here and here for green energy, energy bonds to help car makers re-fit factories, and on and on.  More specifics in one answer than you hear in an entire Obama speech. She's got a ridiculous amount of info on the tip of her tongue and thinks on her feet very well, a reason why she kills BO in debates, and (should she get the opp) I hope will eat McCain's lunch.

She also told a nice story about at first not wanting to get in the NY Senate race. Many were asking her to because Moyniham was steppng down. And abouthow she loved sports but was a lousy athlete, and when on stage to support a documentary about women athletes called Dare to Compete, shook hands with a women's B-ball captain, and the woman leaned over and whispered "Dare to compete, Mrs. Clinton" and that helped changed her mind about running.

Last February he wrote:

"I really don't feel like writing this same post over and over again, but it's worth saying that Obama is simply lying here. . . Housing isn't like health insurance. A mandate is only a part of Clinton's larger solution, which also includes deep subsidies and limiting out of pocket costs to a percentage of income. As Paul Krugman says, 'There are no excuses this time. You can't say that it's the work of some staffer. This is unscrupulous demagoguery from the candidate himself.'"

Yet, at one time he did?

I'm generally among the first to criticize the blogsphere, and I have my issues with MoveOn.org.  But I don't criticize activists for participating in the Democratic process, which is essentially what Clinton has done.