Cenk has a good piece up on HuffPo about Hillary Clinton. Only, I wish he would have taken it one further.

She claims that George W. Bush is the worst president we’ve ever had. Yet in her entire time in the Senate she has never led one successful fight against him. She has either lost every legislative battle on Iraq, or worse yet, been complicit. The vote to authorize the war was one thing, but how about all of the votes to continue and support Bush’s war for all of the remaining years? Let alone every other issue on which Bush got exactly what he wanted, up to and including this year, when the Democrats and Senator Clinton were theoretically in charge.

I understand that leaders are supposed to lead. Yet, I have never seen Senator Clinton lead her fellow Democrats in a successful challenge of President Bush. Never. That’s a pretty awful record.

Now, it would be one thing if George Bush was a popular president who was hard to defeat politically. But in fact, he is the opposite. He is the most deeply unpopular president of our lifetimes. And Hillary Clinton kept getting her ass kicked by that guy.

That’s the real criticism that should be leveled against Hillary Clinton. Yet I have almost never seen anyone make this point on TV. Part of the reason for that, of course, is because her opponents, Barack Obama and John Edwards did no better in their time in the Senate. So, they are embarrassed into an awkward silence on the matter.

The reason I hold Senator Clinton to a higher standard, other than the fact that she has been there longer, is that she had the biggest name recognition and could have led her fellow Democrats — but chose not to. Instead she chose accommodation and capitulation. That’s a record worth criticizing, if anyone ever got around to it.

Hillary Clinton never lead while in the Senate because she believed that it was the smoothest and best path to the Democratic nomination. She intentionally kept her nose to the grindstone and simply tried to go unnoticed for a few years, cultivating the image of the hard working simple Senator from New York. Choosing to lead would be risky. She bears the scars of her health care fight, which I contend has made her more cautious about taking a bold strong, progressive stance. Instead, she sees personal benefits for her in caution. That is why she has not lead and that is why I am not interested in seeing her as president. I expect more of the same, when we have the potential for so much more than the Clinton presidency all over again.