Peter Dreier's interesting blog post proposes that Hillary should be the next Ted Kennedy - arguably the most effective progressive in Congress, even more effective in his office than his two deceased brothers were in theirs. It's the old ego vs. public good debate. Dreier believes Hillary to be a "closet liberal" who is "triangulating centrist" positions to position herself for the highest office in the land. Which could end up to be a failed ego trip more than a successful accomplishment on behalf of the poor, the disenfranchised, women and minorities. As President, she'd have to continue triangulating for the rich. Obviously, she's been willing to forego the liberal stance to get in the limelight and win over the powerful voices for the powerful.
But what about Obama? For a man with a much more liberal record than Hillary, he gets more conservative kudos than her - or at least, visibly. And the Obama win in Iowa was nothing less than electrifying, thirst-quenching. It's a great relief to know that the people do have some power, and are not swayed by pundits touting "inevitability". But would Obama have better luck standing for the downtrodden? That's a hard call - no wonder elections are won on guts.