What is going on with Hillary's campaign?

At first it was fun to watch, but now it's becoming kind of sad.

For 9 months this year, Team Hillary was the machine. She could do not wrong because she DID no wrong. She was honestly running the perfect front runner campaign. What has happened since?

Her response team seems incapable of managing her message or dealing with even small political crisis. She's making city council candidate mistakes. If the wheels haven't fallen off, they are hanging on by one or two bolts. Which begs the question: What the fuck is going on?

I refuse to admit that her campaign has forgotten how to play politics. Is there a mutiny among her staff? Was she so use to not being confronted, that once things got tough, her response team wasn't ready? Did she not plan on eventually BEING confronted?

and please, don't blame the media. It's the candidate's job to manage her message and spin things to her advantage. Keep the tin foil hats off for this conversation.

Plant a Gate

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Every other misstep has been of her own making.

Rove had nothing to do w/ Hillary's people & "Plant-a-Gate."

"They" did it to themselves .... so Rove made people who worked for Hillary
ask people if they would ask Hillary questions that "they" wanted?

please

please

instead they blame all the boogymen and vast conspiracies affecting her campaign.

DU rules forbid me to comment further.

When she votes to help an attack on Iran ... I yell

When she puts "dummy questions" into her meetings .... i yell

When I have feeling that big $ and powerful forces want to make
her the nominee .... I yell

If you're talking about K/L, it doesn't do what you've been told it does. The saber rattling language was removed, and it now resembles the bill Obama co-sponsored earlier in the year.
All pols have staffers who point out people to call on. There's a reason none of the other campaigns have joined in on the faux outrage over this ongoing practice by politicians.
I feel that way about far-right evangelicals, trial lawyer guilds, Oprah, and hedge fund millionaire circles. It's our job to feel this way.

Want to know why her campaign is faltering? Cuz the rest of us have moved on to Anger.

Kyle / Lieberman was a test .... and HRC failed it. Why would you trust
bush/Cheney w/ their track record?

All polls do not have staffers who plant questions. And there is nothing faux in
the outrage ... the faux was in the questions .... first @ Grinnell and now other
places ... the faux is also saying that the campaign did not know about the
planted questions ... it "they" did not know how come Hillary knew to call on
them?

trial lawyer guilds = nice shot @ Edwards BTW a Trial lawyer helped me
in a case against w/ a rich guy .... I :loveya: trail lawyers.

That's sounds a bit like my frothing Repub neighbor: "But Clinton did it! Arrgh!"

:eyes:

the one Democrat who knew how to run a campaign, and it increasingly appears that she can't run a campaign, then what reason is left to nominate her?

It'll be interesting to one day find out what it was.

Nobody can run a perfect campaign. But when you inevitably fuck up, it really helps to have an actual honest, trustworthy human being as your candidate. The Hillary folks are finding out what happens when you skip that important step.

Triangulation methods.

She does not have a "vision" clearly articulated in simple layman's language. Remember "It's the Economy Stupd"? Obama has "turn the page" - Edwards has "two Americas". She can't even say "It's time for a change" because she is so tied to big corporate interests and has voted to enable Bushco.

That's truly inspiring, that is. :eyes:

She can always fall back on that.

Maybe she should just stick to the scary cackling.

posed as "supporters" to derail her from the inside out. :evilgrin:

No, I don't believe that, but I thought I would be the first to start the rumor and get the HillBots all up in a later. :hi:

Oh well, I tried.

They played the "inevitability card" and are astonished their opponents fought back!

That's gonna leave a mark.

they are goin to tip over??

criticism after Mark Penn joined the ranks? I may be wrong but I seem to recall some flap or another and thinking at the time "I wonder if Mark Penn was behind that?".

I think her campaign is still going strong.

when he ignored the charges of the swiftboat liars until the charges stuck.

For example, when Edwards made all those stupid personal attacks against her just prior to the last debate, where he called her as corrupt as Bush, I fully expected the Goddess of Peace to reprimand his sorry ass later that night on national TV during the debate, but not only did she not do anything about it, she just stood there and took MORE shit that was flung her way.

I might have to contact her campaign advisors and give them some advice that she better think twice about taking the high road against so many charges and she should start fighting back like she used to do against the rightwing smear machine. Anyone got their phone number? lol

Seriously, if she keeps ignoring the charges made by her Democratic adversaries, it will be curtains for her sooner than later, although I kind of think she'll be changing her tune pretty soon and start slamming back.

Very good OP, btw.

If she gets in a pissing match with John Edwards a candidate other than either of them will benefit...

n/t

Second of all, its pathetic that the only way you can support your candidate is by referring to national polls and on line celebrity stock markets.

ROTFLMFAO @ Celebrity Stock Market...It' a place where people bet real money on events...

Let's make a bet now , sport... I won't rely on national polls... I'll post several aggregate polls from nine key states which show her with leads of six to over twenty points...

You've resorted to calling me names and challenging me to bets. Whats next, arm wrestling?

You can post all the pre-October 30th polls you want. Also, if you're posting polls that don't have to do with Iowa or NH, you're kidding yourself. I remember you last cycle. This isn't your first time at the rodeo. You know as well as I do that a loss in Iowa and or NH will change the results in your "nine key states".

Keep whistling past the graveyard champ. It'll make the mourning period that much harder.

1) Many of those state polls were taken after 10/30!!!

2) Where is the evidence that losses in Iowa and New Hamphire are invariably fatal?


3) If you think Hillary Clinton will break or can't pick herself off the floor after a defeat you probably thought Muhammad Ali could not win back the heavyweight championship the United States government and the corrupt boxing commission took away from him in 1967... If she's shown snything it's that she can take a punch as well as deliver one and that's why I would take a cap behind my ear for her...

1. Not the ones you posted yesterday!!! And they still don't matter until Iowa and New Hampshire are over!!!

2. Well, they certainly can't be helpful to a candidate that was suspected of walking away with the nomination. I mean come on DSB, you only have to look at last year to see evidence of that.

3. Lately, she has shown her campaign's inability to spin or respond to anything. If she's doing this badly after one bad night, why should I expect her to be able to pull it together?

1) Several of those polls were taken after 10/30

2) If you think Hillary will cry and walk away after a primary or caucus loss there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion...Hillary has money, endorsements, and organization...That's why Walter Mondale could withstand losses not only in New Hampshire but losses in key states like Massachusetts and Florida...



3) No campaign , military or political is perfect...The goal is to win the war; not every battle...

They actually believe their own P.R.

They're fighting the general campaign, thinking that they've already won the primary.

They're steamrollering around and helping themselves to people's life stories for pathos speeches without making sure they take care of the parties in question. (Not that they didn't MEAN to tip, or tip some people, just that they didn't double-check to make sure the person in question got a piece of the action; it's sloppiness.)

Now this: greasy propaganda done on the fly. The very idea of approaching somebody you don't know to pull cheesy claque crap like this for the Shillary campaign is just idiocy.

Hey Clintonites, here's some good spin for you: the fact that it was done in such an amateurish fashion proves that it's not something they do with regularity...

The reality is bound to turn out differently than what was thought certainly to be the case.

but lately your much more level headed. What changed?

That's why I supported her. I understand why Clark chose to do what he did, and I respect his decision.

However, I eventually came to the conclusion I just couldn't do it.

but why he's joined hands with Hillary, I'll never know.

for writing poor fiction. Have fun and keep your day job.

nt

One cliche to a customer.

Its only the natural progression in your spiral of patheticness shown recently.

DSB

She just launched a new website that debunks lies told by the right wing and John Edwards.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/?sc=10

The Rasmussen daily tracking polls has Hillary at 44%, the same score she had the day before the last debate when smear tsunami started.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

she can't take the heat from a Democrat. What do you think will happen when the Republicans take her on.

I have a known non-supporter of HRC and I do not buy this new storyline.

Many of us watching with a more jaundiced eye did not see that her campaign was perfect for the first 9 months - though the press continually said it was. There were signs that they hadn't calibrated the level of response. They were really really far too angry and harsh against both teh Geffin letter and the psuedo Apple commercial. Especially the last one should have been publicly laughed off as beyond stupid - because that very action would call it false. But, none of the other campaigns have been perfect either. We do not have a candidate who can do this, because it is impossible.

In these times, it is becoming increasingly tough not to have any gaffes or errors in a campaign. the spot light is on for as much as 12 hours a day when they are campaigning. It is harder for Democrats than Republicans - the knowledge that the echo chamber awaits any faux pas has to be an enormous strain. This leads to people being visibly tenser and more cautious. Here, it led to trying to control that some of the questions she wanted to answer were planted. I disagree with it being done, but I understand why she would want it.

The media wants a story. They already did the HRC is perfect story and it is old and boring. Now, they want to make it more interesting. the problem is that the people running are serious people - this process is quickly becoming one of destruction. Even those who win are hurt by the increased negatives. Look at the favorable/unfavorable numbers that are posted way too often. What I see is that every viable candidate now has negatives that are growing faster than the favorables. This is not just one candidate.

She is a Clinton and they have both been attacked by the best and not only did they survive, but have thrived in spite of the right wingers scurrilous tactics. If the Republican machine wasn't able to destroy them, neither will a guy who couldn't even carry his own state in 2004 and another one who's been a US senator for a mere 3 years.

She's had a couple of mini bumps. She had a slight drop in the polls. There's a debate this week that if she shines in most will be forgotten. While some of these mini scandals are huge here on DU, they are hardly noticed by most people. Much like McClurkin being a much larger issue here than in the MSM.