Does it seem to anyone else these diaries are getting a little repetitous now?

Same soil, being tilled, just new phraseology?

Again, I think the point overall is, Senator Clinton would have also "run for the middle" at least retorically, hell, ALL candidates from either side do it.

What I see is, folks who are still pissed at Obama winning just endless repeating the same song with slight variations?

"Bill Clinton is a policy wonk as is Hillary.  They actually know personally what they are talking about.

Obama is more like Reagan.  His friends will run the country and he will keep hope alive."

My problem with that is, Reality?

Senator Clinton actually let Her Husband AND his hand choosen advisors (Mark Penn) run her campaign, going back YEARS, hence her votes on Kyl-Liberman, AUMF, etc, to position her to overcome the perception that a woman would be weak on Military matters.

She also listened to those same people, and ran a TERRIBLE Nomination campaign?

For such a smart wonk, she played by yesterdays rules and got beaten?

So, DTaylor, actions ALWAYS speak louder then words of opinion, and Obama's actions so far show he is stronger in choosing a strategy and executing it?

So, I will reverse your simple question?

I would have had a LOT of worries about a Clinton presidency: One driven by warring factions of advisors, including Bill, driving Senator Clinton away from her natural instincts?

On the other hand, Obama's masterful nomination campaign, coming from DOWN over 100 super delegates, coming from DOWN all the political machinery in Senator Clinton's quarter, shows me HE is the more resolute, the more steady state, the better at chosing the correct strategy and sticking to it?

Just depends on how you view it, eh?