The supposition that Hilary Clinton is running a bad campaign has entered the popular culture.

From an online review of the new movie Jumper:

0.5 stars

88 minutes/PG-13 (profanity, action violence)

“Jumper” is about a guy who can leap through the universe’s time-space wormholes, instantly teleporting himself from his Manhattan pad to, say, the face of Big Ben in London. Is that all? Doesn’t he know that in the 1980s, Phil Collins managed to appear at Live Aid in London and Philadelphia on the same day?

Hayden Christensen’s David is a smug young pup who, since he was 15, has been able to use wormholes to jump from any location in the world to any other, instantly, but the story around him quickly develops more holes than Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy.

Though it would be far more challenging if David couldn’t take anything with him when he jumps, he can bring whatever he needs for each trip. So he pockets a crowbar, zaps himself into a bank vault and takes bags of money. When he feels like having a picnic on top of the head of the Sphinx, he does it, sandwich in hand. When he goes surfing, if the waves are ungnarly wherever he is, he can zip over to some other ocean and bring his favorite surfboard.

http://kylesmithonline.com/?p=936

Note: He does write for the New York Post, FWIW.

He should have been used selectively as their trump card. Instead they panicked, and even those of who love the guy wish he'd just shut for a few months.

If anyone knows how to run a campaign into the ground, it's Rudy. Any troubles Hillary is having are trivial compared to that loser.

Are you suggesting that Clinton's campaign is doing well?

There are plenty of established facts documenting that her campaign is a disaster. For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4534863&mesg_id=4534863

and not vitriol.

How can she possibly Win, if her campaign is in shambles?

I think a more accurate characterization would be LOSER.

you ought to change your sig line to something reflective of your pseudo-philosophy.

Can't deal with the facts, so tear down the messenger.

Just pointing out the obvious, by the way.

...per se.

They made a calculated risk that they could win big and win early with a massive organizational and fund raising advantage early on.

That strategy failed.

Wasn't a bad plan and wasn't poorly implemented. They just came up against the one candidate who could withstand it and survive it to fight the long fight.

It wasn't a bad plan, but it failed. Like what, they didn't know who they were running against? These guys are supposed to be experts, all that 35 years of experience, etc. C'mon. We know it hurts to see your candidate not doing well, but don't try to gloss over their miscalculations, panic, and trying to run on name recognition alone.

They've been screwing up since the beginning in IA. While Obama and Edwards were working the whole state, HRC was concentrating mostly in the big cities, running TV ads from Des Moines that didn't even reach western IA (they get their TV from Omaha). Lots of mistakes like that and they add up.

And it doesn't seem like they've come up with any better strategy of late. They are still letting the smaller states go and banking on TX and OH. When will they learn?

For years we've been hearing that Hillary will be our '08 nominee. Long ago, that premise filled me with resentment that we were not supposed to have a choice and that we should just shut up and accept what the Dem. Establishment decided would be good for us.

The Clintons are tenacious, that's why she will win the GE and will be able to manage the WH after Bush.

Everything is going according to script. Fortunately, Hillary has a husband who is one of the few political strategist who can defeat Rove-like campaigns.

If Obama is the nominee, he'll get a quick crash course. It will be a short lesson, no doubt.