He ain't speaking truth to power--he is speaking to his choir and his funders. Middle class voters with a lot to lose, and the corporados who rushed in the minute they smelled victory.

Nearly every single person in the Obama inner circle are former Clinton policy hacks and appointees.

Now, I might be cynical about the current crop of candidates, just like I was with the last crop. But at least I know my presidential election history.

They blamed Wallace for nearly losing the election to Dewey (he pulled about as many votes as Nader did in 2000). Later Wallace turned away from the Progressive Party and denounced them as the cozy with the commies party. But at the time, he was definitely the most progressive candidate and on the right side of most issues of the time, like segregation and universal health care.

It's important to remember too, I don't think I ever could have voted for the candidate who dropped the bomb. The only president to use weapons of mass destruction against humanity. The 'end the war' presidential solution we all fear a Republican might use, when the reality is, the only president who ever used it was a Democrat.

So it isn't always just cynicism driving the decision making of people like me. Sometimes it is the knowledge that power corrupts far too easily. I think Obama is far more likely to succumb to that than Clinton. Which is why I think Clinton is the marginally better choice. But they are both so revolting to me I could never vote for either one of them.

I don't do 'strategic' lesser of two evil voting. No matter what. I refuse to throw my vote away with my conscience, especially when it means it allows the politicians to throw out theirs in the exchange for my vote.