This is essentially my argument for why Progressives should welcome Hillary Clinton's candidacy - kinda of a postscript for Kos' post. Basically - sometimes tactics, experience, and execution can trump vision. In other words, it's quite possible that Clinton could LBJ to Obama's Kennedy. Let me explain:
I am not, nor have I ever been a Clinton supporter or even fan. I believe that "Triangulation" was a destructive and unnecessary strategy. Barack Obama was the best thing to happen to this country since the end of the Cold War. His legacy will be immense and will signify (has already signified?) a fundamental realignment in American politics. Also, I can afford health insurance because of him :)
Anyway, no one is perfect and Obama has had his missteps and mistakes. Among others, I believe his biggest mistake is simply to misunderstand and underestimate the "Conservative Movement." Obama said in 'The Audacity of Hope' that he doesn't understand why people would watch the Bill O'Reilly's of the world, when they seems so angry. He doesn't get it ... he doesn't get them.
Obama seemed to believe that he could deal with Conservatives and they would, on some level, bargain with him in good faith: this is the best summation I can make to Obama's biggest mistake. He should have taken them at their word when Sen. McConnell said his only job was, "... to make him a single term president."
He seems to understand this now. But he didn't until, at least, July 30, 2011.
Clinton, for all of her moderate associations, does get how Conservatives actually operate. She saw it during her husband's term. She saw it in the U.S. Senate. In the 90's there was still some chance for Democrats to win over southern and conservative 'Independents.' In 1992 and 1996, these were swing voters - and the logic of the time was that to win you must appeal to these voters - whether you called them "Conservative Independents" or "Reagan Democrats." Obama in 2012, and the 2010 midterms, proved that is a fallacy in the current era. Two things have changed by now (although the change probably reaches back decades) :
1. These voters will rarely vote Democratic, especially at the Presidential level; and
2. Democrats don't need these voters anymore.
I think worries about moderation and 'triangulation' are misplaced simply because the country today is fundamentally different that in the mid-90's. Clinton can't govern, much less win the general election, unless she has the support of the Democratic base.
Now, it's possible she doesn't fully understand this. But, I think some of her statements in 2007/8 speak to the fact that she did understand the fatalistic extremism of modern Conservatism, even back then. But, maybe she doesn't get it and tries to run to the middle. The job for Progressive in the 2016 primary isn't to defeat Clinton - it's to make sure that Hillary understands two things:
1. In the current era, you win by mobilizing base voters - and you govern with them in mind; and
2. Republicans, under the current TEA Party spell, can't be reasoned with - they will only come to terms with reality if they are beaten into submission.
If she figures this out - I think she will advance a fantastic Progressive agenda. If she doesn't - she won't get out of the primary, again.