Is Hillary a progressive?

There is an article on the site Media Monitors Network that I found very interesting. It's called "Why Pretend That Hillary Clinton Is Progressive?" and is only marginally about healthcare, but it raises what I think is the crux of the crisis within the Democratic Party. In it, the author takes to task the organizers of the "Take Back America 2006" conference for including Ms. Clinton among its list of speakers, portraying her as a "prominent progressive."

He writes:

" The 'Take Back America' schedule set aside half an hour for a speech from Clinton but not a minute for any words from Jonathan Tasini, the longtime union activist who’s running -- on an antiwar and all-around progressive platform -- against Clinton in this year’s Democratic primary for senator from New York. ...

"Tasini points out that Hillary Clinton remains for the war in Iraq, for so-called 'free trade' agreements and for the death penalty. She supported the notorious 2001 bankruptcy bill, 'has never been for single-payer health insurance' and has worked hard to undermine a host of other progressive positions."

Republicans have shifted the political debate so far to the right, that Hillary Clinton is portrayed in the media as "left" or "radical" or "progressive". Progressive Democrats, such as this conference's organizers, have done nothing to discourage such a false perception.

As long as the powers that be within the party dictate to their constituents who their candidates should be, as long as they wage campaigns that attempt to "capture the middle" and dismiss the voters (and in many cases non-voters) that should make up their base, as long as they fail to promote a truly progressive vision that can capture the imagination of the electorate, they'll be doomed to fail. As long as progressives give their unquestioning support to those candidates, solely because a Democrat is better than a Republican, they are doomed to keep those very same candidates company in the mire of inconsequence.