I did not mean to imply in my “return to the scene of the crime” post on

More wisdom from Booman….

> The idea that a “true” progressive wouldn’t sully themselves by association with a Clinton presidency is a rejection of the advances progressives have made, and it’s a recipe for continued marginalization and irrelevancy. What I object to is not the rational assessment that a particular progressive (whether Sanders, Warren or someone else) might be more influential in a role other than the vice-presidency. What I find galling is the idea that no good progressive should be willing to serve “in the vice president’s office or in the Cabinet” of a Clinton administration because it would involve making compromises.

As George W. Bush said, the president is the decider, and anyone who serves the president must accept that they sometimes have to salute decisions they didn’t recommend.

This all-power-or-no-power no compromise attitude is Tea Party stuff.

It’s laughable. <

I have already made what I consider a reasonable progressive case against a Clinton-Warren ticket, but there are some unreasonable progressives cases…