Todd, you have no convictions in the centre similar to Clinton. The centre represents nothing. When are progressives going to wake-up to that fact and stop choosing these so-called centrists who keep losing us the elections?

as long as you convince people that your positions are sincere and come from a place of strength, not weakness

What exactly does that mean?  That's completely abstract and subjective.  [Could you not say the exact same thing about Edwards or Obama?]  If you're going to make the case for Hillary, I think you should point to a specific instance in her past when she actually demonstrated that she had strength. Pushing meaningless platitudes and "ability to shape the media narrative" just doesn't do much for me.

Unfortunately sincerity is the last of Hillary's strengths, though we all seem to be awash in the perception of the contrary.  How has this been accomplished?  The two worst choices for Democrats, supporting the war in Iraq and the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president, are connected by a thread which was spun with the abandonment of progressive values in favour of electoral credibility shortly after Bill Clinton's insurgent nomination and victory.  Why is this?  Bill Clinton was a breath of fresh air for the first few months of his administration.  What happened?  

How can any Democrat concede their better judgement to the ruthless calculus of winning at all costs?  Have we been so marginalised that this abrogation of our consciences is excused?  How can we celebrate the nomination as our candidate of the mistress of trigonometry?  The enabler, on our behalf, of the worst disaster visited on our community since the war in Viet-Nam?  What have we become?

The Civil War ended one hundred and forty-two years ago.  Why are we now vicariously fighting it in Iraq?  And where are our leaders?

Two questions for Rudy about the (at least) TWO times you tried this phone gag.

1) Was it really Judy on the phone either time? (the neccesities of even this hamfisted sort of stagecraft probably require the caller be watching you live.)

2) On either occasion, was the caller (whoever he/she may be) calling you from inside the hall.

I also like, in the earlier occasion of this prank, when he put the phone up to the mic so that his "Wife" could speak to the crowd, he put the wrong end of the phone up.  Simple mistake, or sly like a fox?

Let's see the phone records.

The media thought Al Gore's "robotic" personality was a top issue. Hillary has been called phoney for her southern accent in a speech in the South.

Will the media be fair and call Giuliani what he is, a phoney?

Believing politicians "drive" the media is a very naive perspective. The opposite is the reality.

As an inside the beltway player, the media is so far accepting Clinton. Whether are not that is because they perceive her as the most easy to smear, denigrate, and defeat democrat in the general election remains to be seen; for now they're singing her song. Likewise, they are portraying ghouliani as the goon that he is, because they don't want him as the republican candidate. They could have just as easily done the opposite, ravaging Clinton and praising His Megalomaniac, ghouliani.

"what doomed Gore and Kerry was the notion that they had no convictions, that they were weak."

Once again you confuse the symptom for the disease. The media decided to smear Gore and Kerry so they invented and droned on about their having no convictions when nothing could be further from the truth. They just made the shit up as one of their standard ways of smearing democrats. There was plenty of reality-based evidence to portray Gore and Kerry as strong and decisive if the media had chosen to report the facts instead of choosing to undermine them.  

There is nothing more important today to the survival and recovery of America than breaking up Big Media.  

Clinton is hardly a centrist.  On virtually every domestic issue she is a far-left progressive.   So, I am not sure that "running down the middle" is a correct theme here, Todd.   If we were to list the items one by one, you would get 95% far-left progressive items:  UHC, S-CHIP (government welfare for kids whose parents don't qualify for Medicare,) education proposals, stem-cell research, reproductive rights, etc.   In accordance with her written bills and co-sponsorship of bills govtrack rates Clinton as a "radical Democrat" (meaning far to the left) whereas Obama is considered a "rank-and-file Democrat" (still to the left but more towards the center.)  

As for the diary:  Giuliani is a sloppy campaigner, and it shows.  His messages are all over the place.   He benefits from the relative weakness of the rest of the GOP field and may very well end up the nominee, but he is clearly not as sharp or seemingly as well-prepared as Clinton on issues that may come up.  I agree that we are in a media era that gives a lot more skepticism to Republicans, which is a reflection of the damaged GOP brand.  That is not likely to change during the general election, something the Democratic party will benefit from tremendously this cycle.    

"...as long as you convince people that your positions are sincere and come from a place of strength, not weakness..."

Sounds a lot like the progressive movement, difference is what we consider strength and what HRC considers strength.

Your narrative here is mistaken. What Hillary is doing is demonstrating her discipline and preparation, in contrast to Rudy who has neither. This has been the key to her success since she formally entered politics in the run for the New York Senate. She made believers out of people who were skeptics, even some of the Clinton hater colleagues in the Senate. Hillary has worked hard and done her homework. The narrative here is not about centrism, but competence. And I think that is what has made her successful in this campaign season to date. I believe Jerome posted a diary on this some months ago suggesting that perceptions of competence may trump change both in the primary and the general election, despite what voters might say in their responses on polling. I say this as someone who has leaned towards Edwards or Obama.

Sound like the media and the Clinton are collaborating together to influence how the voters vote.

I think it's time for Obama and Edwards to take on Hillary more directly since the media refuses to fucking do their fucking homework and im tired of blogger and media personnel not doing their homework.

The Republicans like Sen. clinton?!

Thank you for that bit of comedy.

"I doubt you can use a spreadsheet to prove progressivism, though no doubt you disagree.  It has to be earned, which is a foreign concept, I admit, these days.  The occult is rarely manifest in these matters.  Take your pick, the Paris Commune, the Pullman strike, the Spanish Civil War, Joe Hill and the Wobblies, the Socialist revolutions of 1848, 1917 and the parliamentary shifts in Europe in the 30's and our own FDR.  These are the omphallus of 'progressivism.'  Tell me about it, George.  Kucinich is probably the only true 'progressive' among our current candidates, frankly, but Hillary is about as much a 'progressive' as Margaret Thatcher."

Shaun, these are the historical sign posts of radical revolutions, which have nothing with the do with the American progressive tradition which starts with Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. FDR was very much apart of that (he, Norman Thomas and Gene Debs are all rolling in their graves by your linking him to the Wobblies and the Paris Commune), as was Truman, JFK, LBJ and, very much so, Bill and Hillary Clinton.

That's certainly not how I read it at the time.

Whereas the progressive movement took one lesson from Gore and Kerry's losses: that to win, Democrats need to forsake the down the middle politics that have led us to losses in the past and instead stand up clearly and strongly for progressive values, Clinton appears to be banking on a slightly different lesson: that in fact running down the middle is a winning strategy as long as you convince people that your positions are sincere and come from a place of strength, not weakness...

As I understood it, the lesson seemed to be: don't muddle.  Take clear positions, highlight how they differ from your opponent's positions, and run on those distinctions.

The reasons for those positions being progressive positions, was (a) we're progressives, and we feel these are the right positions, and (b) in large part, that's what most of the American public wants too, so we've got the wind at our back here.

RRsai says:

"I think the repugs are hoping Hillary wins because they like her and want her to be president."

uh huh, right, yeah, sure, ok, spot on, terrific thinking, right....