Wallner does have a way of confusing the issue. Sorry if my responses to him add to that. I forgot I was going to stop responding to Wallner because I find it frustrating and unproductive. Was there something in my original post that is confusing? My basic point is that I find it hard to support a candidate, at least in a hotly contested primary, that has little respect for the leading organization of the grassroots which has brought back into the political debate many people who previously felt excluded.

If it was simply a difference in ideology, okay. But Richardson is the most conservative of the top Democrats and yet he recognizes the value of reaching out to the grassroots even though he has differences with progressives on some issues. Hillary is playing an old game and one that a.) excluded many voters from the debate and b.) didn't really work all that well in terms of winning except on limited scales. Edwards, Obama and Richardson are playing the newer game where people are better integrated. Hillary wants big donors and big names and is like that Peter Gabrial song "Big," with a big fat pillow for her big fat head. Obama, Edwards and Richardson give at least the appearance (and I genuinely think the reality) of a dialogue with voters the way Dean did. To me that's progress.

As to populist vs. progressive, there is a real difference, although Wallner has denied this in the past. And sometimes I am sloppy in my usage since often they DO overlap. In this case what I refer to is a little of both: mainly populist because it really means "people powered politics" as Dean puts it, but also progressive because bringing greater participation for a wider number of citizens in government is a progressive goal (as can be seen in parts of the original progressive agenda, including recall, referendum and whatever that other one is.)