Does that help explain the Clintons' shenanigans? Suzanne Garner:
This Clinton move should be familiar to any Democratic leaders who’ve been around awhile. It’s the classic Clinton triangulation and it’s a preview of what we’ll get if she is our President. Her back is against the wall, so she takes a hard right and starts parroting a Republican viewpoint that goes against the Democratic platform (i.e., “tough” foreign policy) to try to drum up a little panic, and in the next breath talks about putting Obama on her ticket. She uses Republican talking points to smack the “liberal” wing of the Democratic party, polarizes the party into fierce factions, and then offers up the “compromise” her on top of the ticket.
And super-delegates feel like they might not like it, but it’s the best way to prevent the civil war that Clinton herself fomented.
That last sentence sums up most of their politics in the 1990s. Bush uses and foments polarization to dominate. The Clintons use and foment it to triangulate.