But Miller's supporters got right on board, and it was appreciated.  Let's hope Hillary Clinton's supporters will do the same!

There are several strong Webb supporters who now are supporting Clinton.  And they are among the most progressive activists in Virginia.  And there are some Obama supporters who were for Miller last time.

Attempting to continue the Miller-Webb split by trying to link Hillary Clinton to Miller, etc., is simply guilt by association.

Finally, Jim Webb, himself a super delegate, has not yet committed to either candidate.  So trying to paint the legitimate differences among progressive activists as somehow a continuation of the Webb-Miller split is not a reflection of the reality.

You didn't address the main point of the post: Two of Miller's senior staffers are now Clinton's senior staffers! That's pretty significant, don't you think?

In addition to the other parallels I drew, here are a couple more:

-Clinton did better in the rural areas, just like Miller. Both Obama and Webb did better in Northern Virginia and suburban areas.
-The blogosphere has some notable (and also vocal) Clinton supporters, but it's clear that Obama has a wider range of online and grassroots support.

Can I think of a dozen ways in which the Clinton/Obama race is not like Miller/Webb. But if you don't think there's some clear parallels, you're kidding yourself.

And your remark that I am "attempting to continue the Miller-Webb split" is just flat-out wrong -- I pointed out in my original post how well Miller and Webb supporters came together in the end.

Mo Eleithee is a press spokesman.  Again, as a paid professional, he has probably worked for many Democratic candidates.  

Both of these men are paid for specific skills and for the insight, analysis and advice they can give on nuts and bolts campaign management.

I still find the attempt to link Clinton supporters to Miller insulting.  It's disengenuous to imply that you aren't looking for a pattern there of corrupt insider vs. idealistic outsider/challenger.  

It doesn't hold up.  Obama has advisers who are free trade, pro-free market insiders too.

However, I do share your hope that whoever wins will get behind the ticket 100 percent and with graciousness.

Which statement of mine do you take issue with?

*That Clinton has run a top-down campaign?
*That she has run a negative campaign against Obama? (remember the "kitchen sink" attacks, anyone?)
*That Obama has more netroots support?
*That Clinton had more rural support whereas Obama has more suburban/urban support in Virginia?

Argue any of these points with me, but don't feign being insulted because you're an exception to a political generalization. Do women or Hispanics who support Obama get insulted when news networks say that they're her base of support?

I never said that these were rigid factions lining up the same way they did in 2006 -- I said there are some striking similiarities. And the point remains, no matter how "insulted" you get by it, that there ARE some striking similarities.

In addition, Obama gives back as much negative attack as he gets - or he has surrogates do it for him.  Hillary has by no means thrown a kitchen sink at him.  It's the Republicans who do that.

This may come as a shock to many of you, but it's perfectly legitimate to criticize one's opponent and to make the case for why one is better suited to be the nominee.  Both sides do this and should.  Otherwise it wouldn't be a contest and the public would be cheated out of a real choice.

As for top down vs. bottom up, that's ridiculous.  Obama has been winning caucuses because he has a disciplined and organized staff.  It only feels bottom up because that's what so many of his young supporters wish to believe.  But there are people in charge who manage the message and organize the GOTV ground game for Obama and do it very well.  They succeed because they are organized, experienced, and work from a hierarchical structure too.

As for the rural vs. urban split, I'm not sure why rural Democrats are choosing Clinton but I doubt it's because she reminds them of Miller or is running on the same issues he did.

The similarities you are touting are actually superficial and coincidental and are meant to appeal to the ego of Obama supporters and to deepen an old split that is not reflected in the reality of where activists are lining up in this race.

I also am insulted by the comparison because I do not see Obama as a natural heir to Webb's supporters. For starters, Webb's slogan was "Born Fighting."  Obama's whole pitch is that he is post partisan and wants to be conciliatory.  You couldn't find two more disparate messages.

In truth, only John Edwards comes close to sharing a similarity with Webb. And he's no longer in the race.

The only similarity that Webb and Obama share is that both were very early opponents of the war in Iraq.  But if you believe that the war was Webb's only issue, you believe his opponents that he was a one-note candidate and you severely misunderstand his campaign platform and all he still stands for in the Senate.  He is as much an economic populist, passionate about true social justice for the working and middle class, as he is a critic of the Iraq war.  He is still deeply concerned about the growing wage gap and the economic disparity between the top one percent and the lower 90 percent of the country.

Frankly, I have not heard either Obama or Clinton speak as movingly about these real problems as Webb and Edwards has.  In fact, I suspect, though there is no evidence for this, that the reason Webb remains an uncommitted super delegate is because in his heart he was hoping to support an Edwards candidacy.

That's why I find your comparison of Clinton/Obama vs Miller/Webb superficial, off base, and just plain wrong.  

It's really shameful.

Guns...
Immigration...
The Smoking ban...
Increased Military Spending...
Affirmative Action...
Drug laws...

Of course, more often than not, I find these issues to be "hot button", and less bread and butter.  Hence, I am a Democrat, even though there are plenty of issues I agree with Republicans on.

We could all just join Arnold, Giuliani, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe - heck even Tom and Jeannemarie Devolities Davis - if not for the economic issues. It's over support for unions and economic justice for the middle class that we truly are different from the Republicans on a national level.

At least Sears, K-Mart, Target and others have organized stores.

I know a lot of lawyers who work for companies, and while I can't be sure about Hillary, or Harris Miller for that matter, since I am not in there with them, let me assure you that sometimes behind Boardroom doors we are speaking up for justice and compliance, even as we get berated, belittled, and bothered because we must not "really understand" business. Most of us went through school because we believe in giving the little guy a voice in those Boardrooms, even if it's only one voice of many in there.

One thing this does is prove Hillary's catching hell for smething any Republican and any man can get away with.  Her laugh?  "W" laughs like the idiot son of a rich daddy.  I don't remember ever hearing Cheney laugh, and he probably only does when someone is getting shot in the face. McCain?  He probably giggled when he ditched his long-suffering wife for a beer heiress in a new Congressional district.  And maybe again with Vicki Iseman for pulling a fast one on his 2d wife and his supporters with the lobbyist. I'm sure nations around the word would rather hear her laughter in the White House that Ws.

I say this not particularly as a Hillary supporter. I want whoever can beat McCain (or whoever survives him).  I don't care who it is.

I'm going to replace the MSNBC one, just so we don't get sidetracked here on a complete tangent.

Actually, the only thing that brings hits on my little blog is the comparison table link, so some people must be hungry for that information.  It's a shame the information is so hard to get.

My recollection is that he was brought in during the Fall to help the Webb campaign gets its ship in order -- he strikes me as a good choice.

The ones that have hurt Clinton's candidacy have been Penn and Solis-Doyle.  Clinton has done her campaign no favors either by putting those kind of folks in positions of responsibility.

Garin sounds like a different story than Eleithee.  It's not too surprising though that the consumate Washington insiders have gravitated so strongly both to the lobbyist's campaign in 2006 and Clinton (the lobbyists second best friend -- after McCain) -- in 2008.

Former Lt. Governor Don Beyer (who also served as the National Treasurer for Howard Dean's campaign four years ago) has been a chief fund raiser for Senator Obama.