I like Clinton, but I have some major fears about her campaign.

Before I picked Obama, I was leaning toward Clinton. Even today, though there are many things she has done that I do not like, I don't fear her as a president and I don't fear the possibility of voting for her, however, I do now fear the possibility of her being the nominee. Not because I don't think she's a capable leader, but because she has run a horrible campaign.

I know this sounds like the typical Obama supporter piling on, but I don't mean for it to sound that way. In fact, I'm doing this in part for my own concerns, because regardless of who the Democrats nominate, we need the White House. This country can't live through another 4 years of Republican control. And even though I'm cheering for Obama and I feel he's going to win the nomination, there are scenarios where Clinton comes out on top and actually wins this thing. And while I would definitely be disappointed with an Obama loss, it would be easier to swallow if I had faith she could win in the general and after watching her primary campaign, I don't see how she can. Now before people start telling me she's more electable, this isn't about electability. This is about campaign competence and that's something sorely lacking from the Clinton camp. At least it appears that way.

When this race started, I think most everyone conceded Clinton would win in a walk. She was only a few years removed from being the first lady to the most popular president in modern American history. She had the money and the backing of a lot of named Democrats. Yet even with the near inevitability of her campaign, she has been in a fight for her life with a candidate that even a year ago not many people knew. With all that and more, she's barely in this and it concerns me because if she does capture the Democratic nomination, how can we expect any better in the general election? And if we can't, there won't be a victory in November, because I can guarantee you it's going to be far more difficult for BOTH candidates in the general than it was in the primary.

And while I think much of the Clinton deflation could be attributed to Obama's great campaigning, that isn't the only reason. Clinton has wasted far too much money, has struggled at raising money and seems to have totally misjudged the primary to the point where it very well could cost her the nomination. In fact, this feels just like the Dallas Mavericks in last year's NBA Playoffs. They had everything going for them entering the playoffs, everyone thought they would roll to the NBA Championship and they were stunned in the first round by the Golden State Warriors.

I guess if Clinton can run such a poor primary campaign, how is she going to run a good enough campaign against the GOP Machine to win the presidency? There is just something very disturbing about how her campaign has completely miscalculated this primary. Unfortunately, in the general, that type of incompetence will sink her chance at the presidency -- something Democrats can't afford.

is Obama???

Clinton the person and the history is not the reason she is losing this primary right now. It's her campaign, which has not been run very well and how should I expect anything better in the general election?

I expect Clinton to fight, but if you're handicapped by a bad campaign, all the fighting in the world won't amount to anything.

Because if she wins the nomination, it means she's going to win a very close race, one that had no business being close at any point. If that happens, I don't have faith her campaign can get it together enough to win the general.

It works both ways you know.

Or are you going to apply a double standard?

There is no double standard here, since Obama has consistently been down in this race against a once perceived unbeatable candidate.

What's more impressive, the Patriots beating the New York Giants by 4 points or the New York Giants beating the Patriots by 4 points? It's all within perception and if Obama has done something no one thought could be done, he made this a tight race between him and Sen. Clinton. He was not picked to be here a month ago. He was down to her by 20+ in most states a year ago and looks as if he's in position to win this thing. That's impressive. However, it is not impressive for the frontrunner, the inevitable candidate, to blow double digit leads, essentially go through all her money and then get stuck in one of the most hotly contested primary races in American history. It would be like Bill Bradley mounting a major campaign against Al Gore and taking it to the convention, possibly even winning.

Setting a low expectations bar for Obama and a high expectations bar for Hillary.

I think that is at best deluded, at worst dishonest.

Just because you thought Hillary had the nomination in the bag, doesn't mean she did.

Just because you thought Obama didn't have a chance, doesn't mean he didn't.

Either way, it is a tough fight between two strong candidates, either of which I will be proud to support in the general election.

Without reservation.

Obama and Clinton were equal when they entered the race. Forget that she had more money than he did, higher poll ratings, the name factor, many party members backing her campaign and the press constantly telling us she was inevitable. They were equal, though, right? Obama has never trailed Clinton, he never mounted a comeback and has run just as poorly of a campaign, which explains why he hasn't put her away yet, correct?

That excuse is fairly ignorant to politics, or just as dishonest as you believe me to be.

So what scenario is more impressive to you, Xipe, Al Gore barely beating Bill Bradley in 2000, or Bill Bradley barely beating Al Gore in 2000? In my mind -- and most would agree -- Bradley's victory would have been far more impressive. Just as if Bill Clinton had lost to some unknown Democrat in 1996. I don't know everything, but I do know that in politics rarely anything is equal and this race was not equal when Obama entered. The fact he is where is today is pretty damn impressive. And that isn't lowering expectations, that's just being a realist.

With respect, the leader in any race is the one to beat.

Hillary drew all the fire precisely because she was the front runner.

That's what gave Obama the break he needed to take the lead.

Impressive?

Perhaps.

But that's neither here nor there. The important point is that I will continue to support the eventual Democratic nominee, whoever that may be.

However, I think this race should have been over by Super Tuesday and had Clinton ran a competent campaign, it would have been.

It remains to be seen whether the damage was fatal or not.

On the other hand, she has learned a lot from the campaign.

McCain is yet untested, and to some extent, so is Obama.

Obama is a new factor, and we don't know what the Republicans will throw at him.

Fred brooks in his essays on software engineering talks about making multi-million dollar mistakes in the development of the OS/360 Operating System. Yet, he got to keep his job because the President of IBM at the time told him that, after investing millions of dollars to educate him, he wasn't willing to lose him.

The point is this:

No matter what mistakes have been made in the campaign to-date, once we go against the Republicans, it's a whole new ball game.

And Hillary is the one that has learned the most in the interim.

Yet he has managed to claw his way up.

overcoming the Monica factor.

What a joke.

:hi:

for non-issues that he's blown into issues. There is no way the Clintons would EVER say or do anything to cause harm or hurt to a black person or their race. But, BO who is after the black vote found he had to get down and dirty to assure he got the black vote. If he was white he would get no notice. But this is the first time a black man has had this opportunity and it's exciting for some. For me, no. I'm afraid of him. He doesn't have the knowledge or personality at this point to be pres. Hillary is ready, willing and very able. It sickens me that we may not take advantage of having a great pres. just so we can have a black one. At this point after watching BO I don't see how I can even vote for him, and I've never missed voting since my first time in 1960. I have voted for 2 repb. in that time the rest dems. I voted for Ford instead of Carter because I thought Ford was more qualified.
I don't know 1 network or journalist that has supported Hillary, even Keith disses her. It's not fair and it's not right for the media to do this. They should be reporting the news not promoting their guy day after day.

I think it's because the press favored Obama in order to push it as close as possible to a 50/50 split for each. Obama started out with a 25-point deficit, and that would not have made for a good primary season contest. Now they have the prospect of a hotly-contested race all the way through to the convention.

Now that Obama is equal to, or a little ahead of, Hillary, there may be more resistance from the press. More tough questions. More attention to "character".

Ask yourself: why has Barack Obama been spared the inundation of media and blog scrutiny that has swamped Hillary Clinton? He has never been confronted with anything that wasn't quickly dismissed. Yet Clinton is facing a barrage of phony scandals and a groundswell of conspiracy theories.

So look at the numbers. They're roughly even now, or perhaps a tiny bit in Obama's favor. That's where the media want them to be. Drama! Conflict! Action! Increased viewer and readership!

They say all is fair in love, war, and politics, and I am inclined to agree. "Poor Hillary", my ass. But if you want to analyze events, you have to take the opposite approach and critically separate all the nonsense, even your own. (Yes, "your own" is "one's own".) Damned few of the criticisms of Hillary are valid, and Obama has simply not been criticized at all except by a few isolated journalists. To an outside observer, this total lack of solid reporting is puzzling.

The campaign is being conducted entirely issue-free. It is almost as if the media are trying to game it without even recognizing substantive issues and proposals. I think that's exactly what it is -- a hotly contested election always brings more people to the media. And that means, above all else, ad rates can go up -- and up, and up.

--p!

It's not Hillary's fault she lost the lead, it's the media's.
It's not Hillary's fault she lost Iowa, it's the media's.
It's not Hillary's fault she lost all these states, it's the media's!

Well I disagree. Clinton enjoyed a lot of positive press until her campaign began to crumble. Then people started asking questions and things got ugly. I remember the news throughout last year and it was hardly anti-Hillary.

weak, and inaccurate.

It's too precious!

THREE posts supporting the media.

There have been thousands of posts criticizing the media here, and most of them have been far less substantive than mine has. (And incidentally, I have been writing about this very popularity-driving phenomenon since I joined DU in 2002). But now that the media are being nice to Obama, they're okie-doke.

What happens when they turn on him ... as they surely will?

Then I might also ask why so many Obama followers are blaming the DLC for everything that happens that they don't like. I guess that's okay, too.

The press has been anti-Hillary since February of 1993. Just because you didn't notice it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It's like Paul Simon wrote: "A man hears what he wants to hear, and he disregards the rest." I know that you'll jump in to say something ironically hip, like "Hillary should not disregard bad news, bwa-ha", but after your derisive laughter ends, ask yourself why you feel so nervous every time you see an uncritical Obama story or an off-the-wall Hillary article.

--p!

I'm enjoying Obama's time in the sun, but there's no denying he's a risky candidate and brings with him a lot of unknowns. Hillary is the safe candidate, but she can't seem to score the easy points against Obama that ought to make the nomination a lock for her. I don't really understand it. Obama's inexperience is a giant bullseye-- no executive experience, no foreign policy experience, and so young! -- and yet in 18 freaking debates, she has yet to be able to make an arrow stick in him or even dent his momentum.

She hasn't been able to get a buzz going for her campaign, either, beyond her core group of female supporters, and doesn't seem to know how to reach out to young people. The younger half of our voters have spent most of their lives under the Bush-Clinton dynasties and are not excited about continuing it. Still, she ought to be doing better than she is. It's hard to feel confidence in her as a candidate when she can't knock out a freshman Senator who hasn't even finished out his term.