well, what's the expression? past behavior is a predictor of future behavior?
she's loyal to her self and her fundraising, sure. but she's not about to advocate that people stop voting for dems, right? so fealty seems about right.
fealty in a loyal opposition way, the same way democrats have a fealty to the republican party. they define themselves against republicans. they need them. they can't go away because the dems would stand for very little if it weren't for them. same thing with hamsher. there's no purpose there other than to get democrats to do certain things. the better world, for her, is to create the kind of democrats she wants.
the reason why the religious right can exercise the power it does is because those folks *are* perfectly willing to skip voting if they have to. they have a history of retreating to their holes and waiting for the end times or the end of their days. whatever. they have been very apolitical at times. that's a threat for the republicans because that retreat to an apolitical stance erodes their base. hamsher doesn't have same kind of threat and doesn't intend to cultivate it.
shag
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)