I'm shocked that there has not been more of a reaction to the Karl Rove fear mongering Hillary Clinton used against Obama in the New Hampshire primary.

For months, people have railed against the use of fear to scare up votes for support. People have waxed eloquent about the findings of Naomi Klein in the "The Shock Doctrine."

For years people have commented on the use of the color coded terrorist threats conveniently used to scare people around election time. Yet when Hillary Clinton suggests that there may be a terror attack immediately following the election of Obama, nobody has anything to say with the exception of Keith Olbermann and Mrs. Huffington.

If there is a greater example that with the election of Hillary Clinton we would be getting watered down neocon policies I have not found it.

Rest assured that if Hillary is elected the same scare tactics will be used against progressives.

When progressives demand that more resources be allocated toward bettering the lives of the American people the tactics used against Barack Obama will be the tactics employed against progressive demands. If Hillary should win get ready because they are coming.

While I am not sure how much more progressive Obama would be than Hillary, I think he would be more malleable to the demands of progressives. The fact Obama is considered to have the most liberal voting record in the Senate bears this out. 

The problem with moving Hillary toward progressive policies is that in her mind she already knows everything. Her campaign is not movement based.  Its "I know more than everybody based." Since I have been at this all my life you unwashed rabid progressive should shut up and let the adults handle adult matters. You just don't understand.  In fact we don't need to speculate because that is what she has been doing every since she first ran for the Senate.  She has spent all of her energy cajoling the mythical middle and treated progressives like a crazy uncle living in the basement who gets served his meals through a hole in the door.

At best will get the same positive, but Mickey Mouse, minny steps trumpeted as Roosevelt like progressivism ala Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. This of course assumes that Hillary can beat John McCain, who will be the Republican nominee.

The differences between McCain and Hillary are not great enough to motivate the masses of youth and progressives to come out in the record numbers required for Hillary to beat McCain.

Between McCain's acceptability to many independents, the visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton by many, and her lukewarm mild support of progressive policies the race will be close enough to steal. In fact, the Republican Party might not have to steal the election.

While I prefer Edwards over Obama. I think Obama has the ability to motivate enough people who have never participated in the election process to come out and vote.

Given that a relatively tiny percentage of the people vote anyway, any significant increase in participation by those who do not normally participate could put him over the top. He could also take away a significant percentage of McCain's independent base.

While neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton would have an easy path to the White House. I see a little more daylight for Barack Obama. Of course this also assumes that the differential between Barack Obama's pre-election polling numbers and post election results are not attributable to the black candidate phenomenon, where there is a tendency to poll much higher then the election results would predict. We will not know if this is the case until after South Carolina, where more primaries are held using the secret ballot format.