Kevin Drum having a meltdown over Hillary

Also, newsflash for Kevin Dumb Drum:

Iowa focus paid off for Kerry

It's possible to have a populist message, be ignored by the media and still win the nomination

but as of right now there's nothing we can do about it.

and it seeps into their coverage. I think she'd make the best prez of the entire bunch, but after seeing what the media jackals did to Gore and Kerry, I'm not willing to repeat the process in spades with Sen Clinton. It ain't fair but it just is.

the inability to win over those "Iowa corn farmers" and "flinty-eyed independents"

She doesn't and it goes way beyond the usual jaundiced eye they turn toward the Dems.

It's become cool to hate Hillary Clinton and I think that's a shame.

yet he won Iowa. Iowa is compact enough that a candidate can reach people directly. HRC did LESS WELL there than in the rest of the country - who were affected by media alone.

...due to the favorable press coverage she received.

Prior to this fall, Clinton enjoyed a few years of "front runner" status. She was touted
as the inevitable candidate. I can't count the times I heard that she was pretty much
unstoppable. That meme was reiterated on general news segments, as well as on Sunday
talk shows.

I think she began this election and went into it---with every advantage in the world--that
our MSM could provide. Furthermore, the media stayed away from mentioning her past scandals,
including her husband's philandering past. Clearly, she was given a free pass in this area.

I'm not suggesting that Bill's philandering should have been front and center. However, it
is clear that no mention of it, EVER, demonstrates that she was not only given a fair shake,
but that the media did not exploit what could have easily been exploited.

Also, she rode into Iowa with her inevitability in tow. David Yepsen, the chief political
correspondent of the Des Moines Register, said that when he sat down to talk with her,
one of her main themes was that she was likely to be the winner and that was one reason that
the Des Moines Register should endorse her.

The Des Moines Register did endorse her. A very big endorsement in this state.

Clinton's numbers eroded in Iowa because she ran a very discombobulated, miscalculated campaign.

I've worked in media relations/PR for nearly 20 years. I was absolutely astounded at how
ignorant, arrogant and off-the-mark her campaign was. It really is one for the textbooks.
She failed to connect with Iowans. She barely tried.

Throughout her campaign, she was everywhere in Iowa media. She was covered more than the other
candidates--mainly because her events were "media events" designed to spark publicity. The media
kow towed to her and showed up at her events and gave her positive coverage. I'd read Edwards' blog
and find out that he had several events, that the Iowa media never covered or attended.

Obama started out in Iowa the same way. He was barely covered in the beginning. Ask Biden,
Richardson and Dodd if they rec'd media coverage equal to Clinton. She was covered more than
all of those second-tier candidates combined.

Obama and Edwards ran stellar campaigns. Iowans were inspired and they flocked to their campaigns.
Their political apparatus grew with "We The People" filling the slots. That's how they gained ground.
Then, the media coverage followed.

...and the rest is history.

Clinton was not only given a "fair shake" she had the media on her side. She blew it on her own, even
with the media on her side.

...what kind of a primary season you would like.

I'm for these one-state-at-a-time elections--because this process forces candidates to show their true
colors. These candidates must hold town-hall meetings, meet with small groups, answer questions and
allow votes to challenge them--if they are to win votes.

I don't see this happening with large primaries, in which multiple states vote on one day. The campaigns
can rely on vacuous television ads. In effect, the candidates aren't vetted or tested. They can hide
behind slogans and soundbytes. Furthermore, this system would favor the candidate with the most money.
More often, that money is from lobbyists and corporate interests. The 'average joe/jane' would have no
chance, whereas an entrenched, money-connected career politician would have the advantage, if not the
entire election in the bag.

Help me understand why these one-state elections catalyze such anger in you.

I think this process is democracy in action.

Also, I'm from Iowa. I grew up in Iowa and I've lived in many parts of the state (as well as other
states). I don't know one corn farmer. I've never met a corn farmer. There are corn farmers here,
just as there are potato farmers in Idaho and mobsters in New Jersey. Does that mean we abolish
democracy on the basis of ill-informed stereotypes that outsiders have of other states? I'd gladly
and enthusiastically turn over Iowas "first" status to Idaho or New Jersey (or any other state) if
the choice was between the one-state method or the large primaries.

Your insults about corn farmers are really no basis for your argument--of trashing these single-state elections at the
onset of the primary.

I'd really like to hear why you don't like this process and why you favor front-loaded, large primaries.

Thanks for any insight.

Those are Kevin Drums' words!

reiterated his words, I thought you agreed with him.

Silly me.

Carry on...

starting from her first month there. She was treated as the inevitable President and some even pushed her as a possibility in 2004 - even as Kerry won primary after primary. The process is not fair, but over the last 2 decades, the Clintons got a huge amount of positive press - even as they dealt with RW smears. the press was less fair to Kerry and Gore.

... and they totally ignore Edwards, who would be the front runner if he got half the attention Obama gets.

Waaaahhhhhhhh.....

And regarding the OP, it's not the shrill that's the problem, it's the fucking arrogant sense of entitlement that oozes from every word HRC says.

Shrill is just the word her supporters use to try to divert from the arrogance that is equally distasteful in either gender.

And her attempts at claiming she's not the status quo are downright laughable.

we are so lazy that we allow the press to sway us rather than looking at our candidate.

Edwards has more exposure on MSM than Clinton. And, his exposures is neutral or positive. Clinton is all negative all the time.

And you are right, they do not like democrats. They are giving Edwards and Obama a free pass--cause they are choosing our candidate for us.

And the Republicans HATE her. She is the only person who could get them motivated and excited this November.

She is a horrible choice for a nominee. Neither side wants her.

You mean YOU don't want her. And maybe a handful of progressive bloggers don't want her. But polls across America show that most Democrats do in fact want her. They may change their mind along the way. Or not. But even now, after Iowa, most of us still want Hillary Clinton.

It's more than a handful of progressive bloggers that dislike her. Dislike of Hillary is broad and deep.

"What did I miss?" Apparently not much.

You have to be kidding, right? Since she announced she would run, and even before that, she has had the vast majority of media attention. 6 months ago it was a "sure bet" by the press that she would be the dem nominee. It was said over, and over, and over again in TV, in newspapers, and in magazines. It became the "Hillary vs Rudy" election in 2008. Now both of them are tanking, yet she still gets more press than Edwards, who cam in second and spent far less doing so than she did!

Sure they are turing on her, but that's what they do. Obama will find that out shortly!

when it was the media that created Bill Clinton and in fact HRC. Bill Clinton was charismatic, but he was not an exceptional governor. Arkansas was at or near the bottom of every measure there was. In fairness, that is to be expected, but with the best governor ever for I think 12 years, there would be SOME improvement. (On the environment he sold out to Tyson - he just created a task force that lasted for 2 years when people complained that they were destroying the rivers.

It is interesting that this Clinton supporter doesn't see that in a year where HRC thought she couldn't win, Kerry nearly did. He also won the primary when most of the media shrilled for different people, but never him. Had Kerry gotten half the support the media gave Clinton in 1992, Edwards or Bush in 2004, or either Obama or HRC this year, he would have gotten a landslide.

Sure, there are " a bunch of Iowa corn farmers" there. There are also people from all walks of life there that are not only intelligent, but actually take the responsibility for vetting political candidates VERY seriously.

I've been to Iowa many times and am very impressed by how they care about the issues.

Iowans have a clear way of seeing through the bullshit. They proved that notion by handing Hillary third place and we all watched her do some of the worst dirty politics by the Clinton campaign fall flat. If they were farmers in Iowa, they'd be staring at a field of weeds.

New Hampshire voters are going to show just what they think of the triangulation of the Clinton Machine. I guess Drum will call them Maple Syrup Snowjockies... whatever...