The Three Biggest Flaws in What I Once Called Hillary's "Flawless Campaign"

The single thing that I really admired about Hillary's campaign was how she seemed so in charge. I called it "flawless" here at the DU to the derision of many way back in April. I see now that this very term was echoed a lot later.

Her centrist/right politics aside, her high negatives with a great percentage of American voters aside, Hillary Rodham Clinton was running a world-class political campaign and it seemed that she was in charge. Hillary had broken away from her husband's shadow and was showing that she was her own person and spoke for herself. And she was, by summer, on a clear path to wrapping up a swift victory to be the nominee of the Democratic Party in Denver next year.

But some funny things happened on the way to that forum. She began to trip up over and over again and those tripping her up were all men that she has allied herself with.

Who remembers the awkward moment earlier this year when Hillary asked a snickering crowd: "What in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men?" Hillary needs to ask that question and this time answer it: Get rid of them!

Of course, I am not speaking of Bill Clinton. He's there until death due them part. He should take a lot smaller role though as he's quickly becoming a boat anchor to her campaign with idiotic assertions that he was opposed to invading Iraq. What the hell was that? Will he next say he remembers watching his mother march with Martin Luther King, Jr? I am still cringing over that stupid moment when Bill stepped on Hillary's candidacy to stroke his own ego.

So Bill is Hillary's 'ball and chain'. She's stuck with him.

But there are three other serious flaws in her campaign tapestry that need to be removed because they are just about to end her ride to the White House.

Who they? Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe and James Carville.

The sleezy attacks on Barack Obama have only reinforced the very negative image that you had worked to play down and that the GOP has worked so hard to play up.

Having your top operatives working the 'Obama as a Muslim' lie, the "drug user/dealer' lie was simply contemptible. That shit has cost you and is the reason you are fighting for your life now in Iowa.

Hillary! Wake up and toss these parasites out of your campaign while you still can.

Show some spine. Tell your campaign "Who's your mommy?"

Lose the losers. Tell Penn and McAuliffe and Carville "thanks, but no thanks".

What in your background equips you to deal with bad men? Nothing so far.

what you're talking. David wrote a thread that seems like months ago that was raving about hillary's campaign and she obviously has let him down with her actions in the ensuing months. So, his opinion isn't biased and neither is mine. She's my senator and I defended her for years as the first lady and for two years before she started enabling bushit so maybe you need to get a new line.

One would think, zidzi, that those who are her supporters might ask themselves why Hillary has wound up fighting for her life now in Iowa. What happened? What turned people off so much in such a short time? I am suggesting that these three men are part of her problem, but in any event, it's her campaign, not mine.

The uber-sensibilities of any candidate's supporters at this time are understandable, but my comments were offered to help her.

McAuliffe was a complete disaster for Democrats when he was in charge and he's green with jealousy of Howard Dean's great success in 2006. Mark Penn's shady involvement in right wing campaigns in South America is also another thing Hillary needs to consider. And Carville? David Geffen pretty much said it all when he said "I'm tired of seeing James Carville on television. Aren't we all?"

threads..one can tell that hillary's surrogates live in lala land and she can do no wrong. I'm hoping the people who decide who our nominee is can see exactly what's so very Wrong with hillary.

There's more to being a president than a platform that's built on straw and bush enabling for the last five years so they thought it was expedient to go negative on the closest one behind her. And, wasn't it the media who said she was so inevitable? More straw?

carville's had his time..he needs to go find a pasture and let wife do all the selling of our country down the river.

A person can like Senator Clinton, and think she is a highly qualified candidate, but not approve of the influence of Penn and Carville. As a NYS resident, I thought her first campaign for senate was very impressive, and the second one was near flawless. Obviously, the national stage is different, but one can still respect and admire Senator Clinton and hold Penn and Carville in contempt.

McAuliffe and Penn aren't any better, but Carville was outed long ago!

Maybe that's why she keeps trusting Bush.

:shrug:

are dlc talkin' trash.

Her campaign has emulated the same nastiness that plagued the Clintons in the 1990s, which is rather disconcerting to see because I was so appalled by the full-body contact politics then.

It is said we are a reflection of the company we keep, and I abhor the idea of the DLC getting their hands on the reins again. America can do better.

Patti Solis Doyle (born 1965) is an American political operative and currently the campaign manager for the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008. She is a member of "Hillaryland" and is the first Hispanic woman to manage a presidential campaign.

Solis Doyle is the youngest child of six siblings. Her parents, Santiago and Alejandrina Solis, were immigrants from Monterrey, Mexico...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patti_Solis_Doyle

Lee Feinstein: leading national security adviser for Senator Clinton who believes that bush's preemptive policy is fine it just doesn't go far enough.

Michael O'Hanlon: Clinton adviser closely associated with PNAC

Gen. Jack Keane: one of the architects of the surge and current Clinton military adviser.

Could we please, please keep these people from rising to (greater) power.

Hillary's surrounded herself with a lot of corporate reactionaries.

I saw her at the Yearly Kos - - in both the candidate forum and in her breakout session - - and I saw all the flaws then.

Originally, she agreed to participate in the candidate forum and in an individual breakout session (taking questions from some of the conference goers). After this had been publicized, she changed her schedule and canceled the breakout session. There was a mini-flap about it in the blogs and she rescheduled a shorter breakout session. And if her first question in the breakout session was not actually planted, the first questioner was chosen so that she'd get a softball - - one of her staff picked somebody she knew by first name, and her answer took up 1/3 of the time scheduled.

Think about it for a second. Thousands of grassroots Democrats had traveled across the country and paid money to hear her speak and hopefully also be chosen to ask her a question. And for her first question, she let her campaign staff pick somebody she knew by first name. And she burned up 1/3 of the allotted time on her "answer".

I put "answer" in quotes because the worst part about her performance in both the breakout session and the multi-candidate forum, IMNSHO, was how she handled questions. It didn't matter whether the question was from the moderator or the audience. When she felt comfortable with the question, her answer was so full of conditional statements that you couldn't figure out what her position was. (For example - - and I'm paraphrasing - - "After I'm elected one of the first things I'll consider is calling a panel to research what the best answer to that problem may be if we have the money to implement it.") When she felt uncomfortable with a question she would give a very short, very dismissive answer - - that did not even attempt to answer the question.

She talked to herself during the candidate forum - - !!! - - and her comments made her look really arrogant. She was asked whether she would pledge to refuse to take money from lobbyists. She refused to take the pledge and was booed. Everybody who spoke at the forum was booed at least once (except maybe Obama, I can't remember specifically about him). But Hillary Clinton was the only one who commented about being booed - - she said to herself, very audibly, "Oh, now this experience is complete!"

Making matters even worse, the reason she gave for refusing to take the pledge was that anybody who knew her knew that she wasn't corrupt, so there was no need for her to take the pledge. Again, if you can set aside whether she should have taken the pledge or not, it was the totally wrong way for her to handle that question in front of a progressive audience and win them over. She and her campaign should have seen that question coming (because Edwards had been banging on the issue for months) and they should have come up with an intelligent strategy to cope with it.

The whole "Hillary Clinton is running a flawless campaign" was a media creation, and it was predictable that the media would get bored covering a flawless campaign - - by a Democrat.