... your central premise remains the same. Clintons triangulate, guess (poll) opinion and therefore they are bad. At least not as good as Obama.

My central premise was that the Clintons seem to assume public opinion is fixed, so they respond to it rather than try to change it, whereas more often Obama appears to be trying to change public opinion.

I actually never used the word "triangulation" in the original post, and I only used it once each in three other comments in the thread: I said it "... does make sense", that it "... often is the best you can do", and that it "was explained" by my hypothesis. By my count, that's actually two positive references to triangulation, and one neutral one.

Nowhere did I say that the Clintons were bad because of triangulation, nor did I say they were objectively bad for any reason. You're the one putting that statement in my mouth, or perhaps you're inferring it from other posters.

But you are correct that I prefer Obama to Clinton.

... And finally, if you really care for a respectful debate, then be respectful. Not in the careless way of a typical Obama supporter. But in a genuine way.

Respect is a two-way street. I'd take your admonishment far more seriously had you not first described me as a "Nutcase". To the extent that my original reply to you was rude, it was because I was responding in kind to your comment. But I should not have suggested in my reply to your comment that you might be trolling, so I apologize for that.

just another politician who simply made less mistakes.

It also ignores the fact that Obama had no choice but to oppose Clinton.

Are you someone that believes in the PeeWee School of Politics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4Gj7JsET4

Sheesh! Your comment isn't even wrong.

... By a Nutcase
Since you start of insulting me like that, I should probably simply ignore you as a troll. The rest of your post avoided ad hominem attacks, however, so I'll engage in debate rather than name-calling. Even if I can't change your opinion, I'll at least give it a shot.

1). "They believe public opinion is static" is a conjecture. ...

It is a conjecture, but I believe it is accurate. The triangulation of the first Clinton administration is explained by this hypothesis. Also note Hillary's chief strategist was Mark Penn, who has suggested in his book Microtrends that targeted policy initiatives that appeal to narrow segments can be quite valuable in politics. That her chief pollster was also her chief strategist implies that reading public opinion was quite important to her, which again supports the conjecture.

2). Gas tax example is a total joke. It ignores the fact that Clinton's version is different from McCain's. It also ignores the fact that Obama had no choice but to oppose Clinton. He would have been labeled as copy-cat if he didn't, which doesn't help when your record on substance is so thin. It's also one of the more insignificant episodes of this primary season

I disagree: Clinton's version was only slightly better than McCain's because her "plan" was revenue neutral because it would tax oil company profits to pay for it. I found it interesting because Clinton played against type in supporting it: she has a generally well-deserved reputation of being a policy uber-wonk, yet here she advocated a plan that no self-respecting (or even self-loathing) economist could support. It made Hillary look like she was pandering when major media figures asked if she could name a single economist who supported the idea, and she couldn't. And I think it also somewhat undercut
her wonkish reputation, as there are few groups wonkier than economists.

I think Obama's changing public opinion on this issue was a factor in changing the late momentum before Indiana and North Carolina from Clinton to Obama. That's an unprovable conjecture, but it does fit the polling data before those contests.

3). The success of Obama's shaping of public opinion is evidenced by the fact that he now makes Wright speeches surrounded by 8 flags, publishes photos of himself in front of the cross and suddenly wears a flag pin. That surely goes a long way to advance the "shaping" theory.

I never said shaping public opinion is easy, or that Obama has some magic fairy dust that can make change opinion at will. Accepting things as they are is always easier than trying to change them, and that is certainly true of public opinion.

But since you mentioned Wright, I think Obama's Philadelphia speech was an attempt to move public opinion on the matter: he disowned the most virulent comments from Wright, but did not disown the man. He did try to explain, in more than a three word sound bite, the forces that helped shape Wright and his opinions, trying to get across the point that nobody should be judged solely by the most extreme things they have ever said. And I think it's fair to say Obama failed at moving public opinion significantly there. He also is a realist, and so if wearing flag pins takes away a sideshow issue that distracts from his overall message, then sometimes it's simply easier to wear a flag pin. I think that shows judgment and willingness to adapt to reality when you realize you can't change it, although I have no doubt you could find a less charitable framing.

the ... theme ... Clinton=bad, Obama=good

I have not argued that Clinton is "bad" and Obama "good". On policy grounds, they are overall quite similar, and so necessarily their differences will tend to be more of style than substance. And I think this is one of those differences. Certainly there are situations where it is better to accept opinion and craft something that works within the framework of existing national preferences. But sometimes it is better to try to move opinion, even though that is a much harder task.

I think there is much to admire about both Hillary and her husband. Indeed, my reply here in some ways pays homage to the "war room" of Bill's first campaign, with its rapid response team countering attacks quickly. I would certainly much prefer Hillary as president than McCain.

But I would prefer Obama over both, in part because in Obama I see a candidate who wants to push American opinion on several issues, such as health care, energy, and national security. And I like the direction he's pushing us.

The flag pin came from a veteran in Pennsylvania, and he wore it here in West Virginia when speaking to a veterans group. Most of the commentators who complain, like Jack Kingston (R-GA) on Dan Abrams show do so while not wearing a pin! Flip over your pin, where is it made? How many of those complaining are wearing Italian suits? I have pierced ears. Sometimes I were ear rings and sometimes not. It is time to patriotic about something other than war.

Otto: You've already been forbidden from voting for Obama in the GE, so what is your problem now?

Or maybe it's your attempt to get along with people, even when they disagree with you.

He's new packaging for old ideas, and she's old packaging for new ideas.

Interesting - I like the turn of phrase, but I don't think it applies here. I think they're pretty much favoring the same ideas, most of which (as you point out for Obama) aren't new: better access to health care, alternative energy, better education, right to choose, etc. Where they differ is more over tactics and how to advocate ideas, not the positions themselves. I do think that new packaging is a net plus, though: it may get a few people who currently dismiss the ideas to reconsider them in a new light, whereas old packaging is more likely to be ignored.

And it's because I think the policy differences are rather small that I sometimes get frustrated with people who argue that if their candidate doesn't win, they'll sit out or vote for McCain. Some of them may actually think McCain would be a better president, but most seem angry at some perceived slight from the opposing candidate or, more likely, their supporters.

The internet encourages uncivil behavior, and under the cloak of anonymity people frequently say things that they'd never say to someone's face. We shouldn't let the anger some poster may stir in us negatively affect our opinions of the candidate they support.