I apologize for violating the diary rules, but I'm tired of reading how "so-and-so-wouldn't-have-happened-if-Hil lary-were-president."

Hey buddy!  Come around and post more often, always enjoy your perspective.

to introduce you to Ludwig, Andre. Andre, say hello to Ludwig. Ludwig, Andre. Ludwig was away for a while, but now he's back. Just in time, as it turns out.

Thank you, OP, for continuing exactly what you had hoped to stop.

There were no "post-mortem diaries." There was one diary.  One in which would have scrolled down and forgotten but for your diary.

Well I don't think we need post- or pre-mortem diaries.  But if I see "Well think of the alternative" one more time I think I'll lose what little is left of my sanity.  I think of the alternatives a lot these days.  I chose the one we have, but certainly not happily.  I could see some of these problems a long while ago.  Better than Senator Bitter Old White Guy? Absolutely.  Better than Senator Ex-First Lady?  All we can do is hope.  So I do.

Setting aside the merits of your argument, I think there is a big difference between looking forward (who should we run in 2012?) and looking backward (who should we have run in 2008?).  It's not that you're not allowed to talk about the latter, it's that it's unproductive and adds a lot more heat than light.

If all we want are flame wars in which we rehash the 2008 primary, we can go there, but I agree with the diarist's opinion that it long since grew old and pointless.

If we want to talk about 2012, then let's talk about 2012.  If you really want to have that discussion, I don't think you're helping your own cause when you dangle around flamebait about how Hillary should have been 44.

Everyone is free to share their opinion, and give advice if they like; this has been mine.

I could not agree more.

They serve no purpose.

Part of me completely agrees with you -- the time warp is both weird and counterproductive.  But another part thinks that slagging PUMAs is a big part of what makes this place entertaining.  The spirit of Alegre lives on!

Is that he decided to stock his Administration with a combination of Chicago style operatives and Clintonistas. If anything he has moved TOWARDS Hillaryism. His whole approach since election has been Third Way 2.0.

Health care reform went down in 1992-93 because Bill and Hil decided they didn't need to engage with DFHs like Kennedy and Dingell and instead could proceed with a bunch of technocratic sensible centrists working behind closed doors. Is there any reason to think that Hillary would have embraced some bold progressive agenda? Thrown her weight behind Single Payer?

I like Hillary and I like Obama but stayed out of the primary brouhaha that tore dKos and MyDD apart both internally and between them because it was pretty clear from the start that the only question was which Rubinista/former Clinton staffer would end up on Team Barack or Team Hillary. Obama's initial economic team was made up of Goolsbee, Liebman and Cutler, two of whom I had never heard of but the third Liebman the author of a truly worker unfriendly Social Security 'reform' plan. So I looked up the background of Goolsbee and Cutler and came to the reasoned progressive conclusion "We're fucked".

But would we be in a better place with a WH where the President was taking advice from Lanny Davis?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21 /lanny-davis-clinton-campa_n_97720.html

I am a Yellow Dog Democrat anyway and in truth you could pick the names of any two Democrats out of a hat and get a less disastrous team than McCain/Palin. But I skipped the state caucus and primary last year because as a Social Democrat it was clear that neither remaining candidate would be pushing a strong economic platform, instead we were just being offered two forks in the Third Way.

What was the biggest surprise when Hillary entered the Senate? How willing she was to reach across the aisle and embrace the 'comity' of the Senate. And much the same was true of Obama. People who thought in electing either we were getting another Wellstone was just not paying attention.

a) I largely think Clinton and Obama would have been the same.

b) I do think historical contextualization is important, and asking did we back to wrong horse is a valid question toward that end. I think there are quite a few people along this thread who are not really interested in any criticism of Obama. I have seen them on other sites attacking even former ardent supporters with smears and name calling all the while whining that others are name calling, and blah, blah blah.

I say blah, blah, blah because ultimately is bullshit. It is a distraction predicated on a cult of personality. I am no more interested in the cult of Clinton than  I am in the Cult of Obama. Or the Cult of Edwards if there were one, which thankfully there wasn't.

c) I think orestes yesterday pegs me correctly- the issue for me with many of you, and a diary like this is that it is navel gazing. I came in here after avoiding the diary mostly because I wanted to see what people were going to say. Let's just say I was not disappointed. Meanwhile, my family remains under economic stress as do most Americans. orestes said that my coming out of the working class poor in this country probably means I feel like I have more at stake in these arguments. And that's probably reading me fairly well.

Most of this hero worship shit pisses me off. Why? Because none of the Democrats in my estimation have done shit in the last 30 decades to prevent the decline of this country. I am not interested in putting them up on a pedestal until they do shit do deserve it. Being elected is not doing shit to do deserve it. Transformative policy making that uplift the society like the New Deal and the Great Society are transformative. These Dems Today? You are all mostly tweaking at the edge of giants. If we are going to compare outcomes- that's what matters- the policies not the personality.

So, to close, I agree the battle between the cult of clinton and the cult of Obama needs to stop because it is bullshit and mostly ego driven drivel. Not one damn person is going to be helped by whining about how Clinton would have been better a) because that's fantasy and b) she ain't president. We are stuck with Obama like it or not. The reality on that front needs to be confronted rather than burying our heads in the sand like cheerleaders want us to do.

If I manage to piss of everyone with the above comments- good. You are where I am with my frustration of the playing the violin as Rome burns that I see amongst too many.

I was a Hillary supporter who, naturally, strongly supported Obama in the general. And I guess its just human nature to wonder what might have been, although it may not be particularly helpful at times.

I am disappointed in Obama.  I know he has had some incredibly difficult things to deal with, but i don't feel much leadership from him. I don't think Obama is a bad President, but he's far from the great President I was hoping for.

As things stand I wouldn't rule out supporting a primary challenge against Obama in '12.  I can't see Hillary standing against him, but if she did I would back her.

There - I said it. I was a diehard Obama supporter and I spent a lot of time here debating in 2008.

I apologize. Hillary could not have been worse than this. If she challenges in 2012 I'll vote for her.

The failure to use reconciliation and the existence of Rahm Emanuel are the last straws. I'm done.