On the question of whether the Right's recent ascendance could become a potent political attack against Hillary Clinton, I'm a little closer to Tom's position than Dana's. Dana's right, of course, that though "'Progressive institution-building' has become a major concern for liberal funders, journalists, and politicos...the average Democratic primary voter simply isn't thinking about it." But it's very unlikely that the appeal Tom has in mind would mention progressive infrastructure. Rather, Clinton's presidency abetted the rise (and, to be sure, fall) of Newt Gingrich, saw the Democrats lose the Congress for the first time in 40 years, failed to produce a successor, and ended with the ascendance of George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, and so forth. In other words, the Clintons didn't beat the villains. They simply survived them. But given the the current Democratic moment, cleverly sidestepping impeachment proceedings isn't a win. Taking on the Right directly, and successfully, is. And that's not what the Clintons did. Indeed, Hillary's immediate strategy in the Senate was to work very hard to make friends across the aisle, to forgive former tormentors, and to demonstrate bipartisanship. That's not fighting the Right. That's making your peace with it. And whether that's a smart legislative strategy, it's not one that fits into Clinton's current appeal. --Ezra Klein
