Universal healthcare is not republican. An aggressive response to the foreclosure crisis is not republican. Her sound economic policy based on tax cuts for the lower and middle class and having those who are wealthier pay their fair share are not republican. An aggressive approach to diplomacy and reinvigorating active diplomacy even with our enemies is not republican. FYI - Obama's policy now is IDENTICAL to what Hillary always said - aggressive foreign diplomacy yes, but presidential level meetings only after full preparation and when the appropriate metrics are met.

As a Hillary supporter who is uniting behind Obama, it is offensive that you continue to misconstrue Hillary's positions and those of her supporters. Get a clue - Obama can't win it by himself. He knows that and is trying to unite the party. How can you call yourself an Obama supporter when you are actively sabotaging that effort?

There are some good reasons to do a post mortem on the Clinton campaign. Not only about the "strategery" but also about its philosophy and tactics.

I think you hit briefly on one of the tactics -- the neo-con talking points. Not just that those points were repeated but that new ones were created by her campaign against a rival from her own party.

It will be interesting to see if and when and how she walks back some of those statements which have already been copied into the GOP playbook.

The other will be how the Democrats are able to implement the 50-state strategy. By playing in all 50 states this fall -- and not just the handful of "blue" states and one or two swing states, the disaffection of voters in fly-over country may be assuaged. That is a drastic change from the methodology of the Clinton/Carville/McAuliffe game plan.

Regarding the gas tax holiday, I saw several things that showed questionable judgement. First was embracing a plan that was so obviously a pander. (Which is not to say that politics is about the occasional pander, but typically you want to do it in a more subtle way.) Second, was rejecting out of hand the advice of persons far more versed on economic policy than she was. It's one thing if a handful of economists say it's a bad idea and a handful take the opposing viewpoint. There's room for discussion there. But when learned minds on both sides of the aisle, say "no go," to bully forth full speed ahead is sign of ego not intelligence. And we saw that not just with Bush on Iraq, but Clinton herself on healthcare in '93-'94. That "my way or the highway" attitude is not what a leader would or should do. Third, the "sleeping with the enemy" element. When John McCain jumped on board (or she jumped in with McCain) that was tremendously bad news. Because that underscored the self-centeredness of her campaign. It was not about doing good for the country (when it came to that issue) but trying to do anything to help herself to a win.

We will need several years to unravel the details of her campaign. Right now, it's hot button with a lot of people, but it will be easier after the general election. That will be when we see how much lasting damage was done by Clinton to Democrats during the primary, and how much will need to be undone before the mid-terms in 2010 and general election in 2012.

The first tell all book from the Clinton campaign should be pretty interesting.

Maybe one of the lessons will be the problem with Clintonian triangulation. It seems like triangulation only works when both sides are bargaining in good faith. I am not sure you can triangulate with people who refuse to ever raise taxes and refuse to ever negotiate with anyone. I know some people are going to say you cannot negotiate without pre-conditions but when those conditions happen to be everything you want in advance, chances are the other side is not going to agree to them; so the only option is war.

One of the big lessons from the Clinton candidacy may be to that if a neo-con says it, it is probably wrong and as a democrat, it is OK to say it is wrong.

Well going back to the author of `triangulation`, Dick Morris defined it as "not to "mobilize the liberal constituency and win the true battle," but to triangulate, meaning "take the best of each party and combine them."

Taking him literally, does that actually mean that Obama is the great new architect of triangulation in 2008?

viz how does he get bipartisan consensus behind his Presidency if he wins without `taking the best of each party and combining them?`

dijamo, is that your real picture? If so you are stunning.

You also have good arguments that have helped me move beyond being repeatedly insulted as naive and cultish for supporting Obama by what I'll politely refer to as the Clinonistas.

first of all, Dijali: thank you so much for your eloquent and thoughtful posts.

john rove writes: "Now that the primary is over and Hillary has lost it seems that many think we should stop talking about her. The problem is she represented many of the problems with the Democratic party."

I'd agree with that. only I think her losing WAS one of the"many problems" of the party. Bill Clinton of course got the same bad rap about being a dreaded neo-con and being too "rightwing," and as dijali so rightly points out, "Republican" is about the worst thing you can be called on these boards.

my first election was McGovern in '72, so I've seen a lot of Democrats lose in a lot of awful ways. for some reason, my party seems to favor nominating the effete northern types that have trouble connecting with ordinary Americans. my party doesn't understand the importance of these ordinary Americans, because they assume that ordinary Americans "should" vote as they do, since they so clearly know best. and they are baffled EVERY TIME the ordinary Americans don't.

the tone of Obama voters toward Hillary voters has always been less than cordial. the Hillary supporter was an old, unattractive white woman. the implication was that we were all either living in trailer parks or running women's studies programs in ugly college towns.

we were vilified as being stupid, and racist, and "living in the past." I read comments saying that it was amazing a Hillary voter actually knew how to use the internet.

for the person above who got it from the other side, I apologize, since I know I've used the "kool-aid" expression more than once myself. but it was frustrating for one's candidate to be running against the Messiah! and that's how the media coverage really felt for a time. I remember one nite Obama was giving a speech and he stopped to sneeze and he was applauded. whereas here's poor Hillary, gives some two-hour policy wonk speech displaying encyclopedic knowledge of the subject, every detail down cold...and the talking heads say "wow, she looks tired tonite."

Hillary voters don't want to vote for John McCain. but they want to know that Barack Obama wants to be their president too. she has to be given a way to save face, by giving her a cabinet position or nominating her to the Supreme Court (which would be my dream come true, actually). she has to feel included, and WE have to feel included. that's what party unity is about. what it's NOT about is "we won, you lost, nyah nyah nyah."

the stakes are too high for us NOT to come together now. let's lay down our arms and fight for the greater good of getting out of Iraq, naming Supreme Court justices who have respect for our constitution, and regaining the admiration and envy of the world.