Hillary should be embarassed.........She was HANDED this nomination....

She had EVERY advantage possible. More so than any candidate in History!

A Huge amount of money and unbelievable power to raise it

A husband as a popular ex-president.

Political contacts that no one could match.

Political power to demand what she wanted.

And still, she is ridiculously behind in elected delegates and Obama is gaining quick on an huge Super Delegate lead that she started with.

She is getting out raised double by a candidate that NO ONE knew.

And some of the people who know her BEST are siding with Obama.

How can anyone think that she should be proud of how she has campaigned? It will go down as the biggest upset in primary history.

Like David beating Goliath (and Goliath's popular spouse).

Buh bye, Hill. Back to the Senate with ya.

many people have had their choice reinforced as this has dragged on.

worked on several Congressional campaigns and spent time on the trail with Presidential candidates. The one thing you quickly realize between a winner and a loser is organizational skills and how well run a winning campaign is.

I'm not a big of fan of Carville, but the man knew how to run the Bill Clinton campaign. He was well organized, and knew what changes to make and when to make them. A fluid campaign can turn on a dime and not skip a beat. "It's the economy stupid" was not a planned campaign tactic, but Carville knew a winner when he saw it and the campaign was designed to pivot and take advantage of such things.

A campaign that is run to rigid doesn't allow for this type of movement. It boxes the candidate in and pushes them into a position they don't want to be in. "Read my lips, no new taxes" was the biggest mistake that George the first ever made. It boxed him into a promise he couldn't keep.

I have no political experience except peripherally a couple of times. However, I have experienced having people give me a lot of money to make their lives better - by starting and building two (small) business in my life using private investment capital. (I am now semi-retired). Business is not exactly the same thing as politics - which I'm sure I'd be terrible at - but it's similar in that folks give you their money because they believe in you and in your ideas.

And when they do that - that's when your view of the world starts to change. You started off with a good idea and a lot of enthusiasm and confidence and little or no money - but suddenly you find yourself with a lot of someone else's money in the bank and they've got very high expectations of what you can do with it to make their life better. You then come face to face with this monumental task in the present against very high odds. You now have to walk the walk that you said you could walk.

Anyone with common sense would start to question their own abilities at this point and start to worry about the results they have committed to. So you hire people as carefully as you can - some of them probably recommended to you by your biggest investors (donors). And remember, you really want to do right by those folks who have placed so much confidence in you. So you invariably end up with some people on your staff that you did not exactly choose by yourself - and about that time you start to realize that things are not exactly under your own control.

You try like hell to keep things headed in a sensible direction but as things start to take shape there's all this energy coming from different directions. Your job is still the head salesperson. I suspect that's even more true for a political campaign where you are also the product at the same time. It takes a tremendous amount of personal energy to play that role, to put your whole ego and your most personal ideals and hopes out there in front of a lot of people every day - millions of whom would like nothing more than to see you humiliated. I'm sure both Hillary and Obama are feeling completely bewildered much of the time and probably asking themselves every night why they hell they ever thought that running for president would be a good idea. I think they are both pretty amazing people to go through what they have for so many months straight.

The reason I wanted to explain this is that people here seem to have the feeling that what goes on in these campaigns is all carefully scripted strategy and events that play out under the precise control of the two candidates. I don't think either Hillary or Obama feel that they have things under control right now. Things are happening every day that I'm sure are unexpected that completely blow them away. I suspect they are both on autopilot at this stage and are mostly depending on a couple of key staffers to tell them what to do and when to do it. Whichever one comes out on top will wonder how it ever happened.

I'm also pretty sure that the view of close staff is not the same as that of the candidate. The staff will walk away - win or lose - with a significant entry for their resume and many great memories to discuss over beers. The staff have the luxury of looking at the events through the tactical window. The candidates will either carry a personal achievement or a significant personal loss with them the rest of their life - assuming they were actually personally committed to their ideals and their campaign and were running for those honorable reasons.

that's going to mean a lot of crickets.

I certainly set no criteria on anyone who wants to respond - although I prefer that comments be insult-free as far as possible. If you have an opinion on this let's hear it.

harder because it requires you to actually listen to voters....
easier because no matter what goes wrong you can blame the media, the voters, the caucuses, the DNC for florida and michigan, your husband, etc.

Once you're president, (current resident excepted) its a lot harder to blame others for your own mishaps.

I had serious concerns about her leadership ability and her character, and this long campaign has confirmed my worst fears about her. While the way this has played out has been agonizing, it has, at the same time, been a real blessing.

...taking a whole broadside of hits the past 8 years.

When we look back, Obama beating Clinton will probably go down as the biggest upset in the history of Modern American Politics. That's not an exaggeration.

From the beginning, it was hers to lose - and she lost it big time, along with her own credibility. This campaign will be one for the textbooks in future: "How to Totally Blow It!"

She was destroyed by the media. And Obama isnt "ridiculously" ahead in delegates.

Hell, neither can win at this juncture.

as their spouse and working their campaign.

are fawning for another young JFK type whose voice makes butter melt.

If you think the media was even handed after Iowa, you are mistaken

She doesn't sound like much of a leader, does she?

And so easily. That's the pitiful part. It was so easy.

Hillary has a problem with admitting her mistakes, and I don't need the media to tell me that.

This 'media did it' meme is pretty much the same conceit that the right wingers have been using for years - make yourself look/feel smart by moaning about the media and the 'sheeple', while implying that YOU are far too smart to be taken in by its shenanigans therefore superior to everybody else.

There's lots of full-time conspiracy theorists out there who go through life arguing that they are privy to some special insight or information that allows them to transcend normal considerations of knowledge/ logic/ rationality. A few people even make a good living by stroking the egos of such folk. Meantime, blaming the media means never having to admit you've failed.

themselves off the hook for having to provide a reasonable argument. The media bias in this race has been both disgraceful and unprecedented. If Obama wins then history will clearly record that he was carried piggy-back to the nomination.

Steve

Bill Clinton left office with an approval rating around 60%.

He is the only post civil rights two term Democratic President.

At the start of the campaign he was extremely popular within the Democratic party. He commands the press and an audience where ever he goes. He essentially allows her campaign to fight "2 on 1" against Obama.


And yet she still lost!

Obama has been running against 2 people for the Nomination.

HCBC would be Co - Presidents and he would have his 3rd term in the Office.

:puke:

Because, of course, that isn't a spouse's job, it's a WIFE's job. It's a WOMAN's job. For doing no more than Michele Obama, he has become hated.

For not knowing his place. For believing a strong ambitious hardworking intelligent woman has the right to run for president.

When people talked about Monica, I always remembered how Bill treated women who weren't 21. I remember his Attorney General, his Supreme Court Justice, his Secretary of State.

I remember Bob Dole, who actively worked to destroy Elizabeth's candidacy, jealous, impotent git that he was.

But maybe he knew how he'd be treated if he did support her.

had their minds made up by the media.

And when did she undergo something akin to the Wright media blowout?

What happened to her in Iowa?

Hillary Clinton came into the state of Iowa--and made so many major errors.

She planted questions at events. She got mad at a man who asked her about Kyl/Lieberman
and accused him of being a plant. Then, she started her "Obama is a Muslim" smear campaign
and one of her Iowa directors had to be fired for sending out email lies about Obama. Then,
her higher-ups started in on Obama's admitted drug use and one of her campaign chairs was
fired for suggesting that Obama was a drug dealer.

While Edwards and Obama criss-crossed the state and held small meetings and answered questions
at town-hall style events--Hillary performed at large, orchestrated events. There was an Iowa
reporter who kept track of how many days Hillary had gone without taking questions from Iowans.

She blew it here. I've paid attention to the Iowa caucuses for many years, and I've NEVER
seen such an impersonal, fake campaign come through this state.

She deserved to lose in Iowa--because she ran such a terrible, failed campaign.

Clinton finished 3rd in Iowa!

Edwards beat her there too.

It was one of the best I saw. While all the talking heads were wondering what happened, you explained it all succinctly. I lived in DBQ for several years a while back, and I will say Iowans are pretty adept at recognizing BS when they see it.

That was some of the best political commentary I've read this year. you should go pro with it, whether it's in a blog or in one of the Iowa papers.

It's technique, honey.

Of course, this doesn't work on those of us who made our decisions based on boring stuff like policy as well as Obama's ability to give a good speech. Myself, I was lured by his Foreign Affairs article and the ensuing fracas over Pakistan.

that is the loser's excuse. She shot herself in the foot -- and stopped to reload.

The media did not invent her Tuzla lie. The media did not force her to contradict herself.

And the former colleagues, friends, associates, and employees who are abandoning her in droves did not do it because of the media. They are doing it because they know the Clintons well -- and we should hear the message they are sending = Stay away!

Are you fucking kidding me? This should never in a million years have gotten to this point.

And you want these incompetent dumb fucks to run the GE?

Hillary Clinton was attempting to become the first women president in a party where women make up the majority of voters.

She enters every single primary where at least 55% of the voters are women. I believe in Pennsylvania it was 58%.

This is the political era where "identity politics" is king.

And even after blatantly playing the "gender" card in several embarrassing (to me) instances..... SHE STILL LOST!!!

For a candidate claiming to be "ready on day 1" no objective observer could conclude she has run her campaign well.


How much money is Mark Penn still owed?

...to the Iowa caucuses.

Hillary was the nominee. The media touted her as the front runner for months. They practically
crowned her. The other candidates were practically positioned as quaint accessories that
we're adding a bit of sparkle to the race--while Hillary was the entire wardrobe.

We are so damn lucky. I feel like we dodged a bullet! After all that I've seen out of Hillary
and Bill--we are so fortunate that her house of cards crumbled.

I literally get a stomach ache contemplating her as our nominee. I never agreed with her politics, but
after watching her behavior during the campaign--I detest the person she is.

We truly are so very lucky that her inevitability was decimated and her authentic self exposed.

I have to give kudos to my state of Iowa--for seeing through her--despite her entering our state with
her months of inevitability trailing behind her. She came in third here, and it was because we saw her up-close
and personal and we saw major problems with her and a lot of promise with Obama.

That was when America realized the game had changed. We owe a debt of gratitude to Iowans.

And we were lazy and didn't try in caucus states.
And you wonder why they say McCain is "unelectable"
So that you'll be lazy and stay home in Nov.

inevitable. the people who allegedly were saying that she was inevitable never seem to actually appear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xGsX-R_ZTQ

Hubris. It's not just for Republicans anymore!

Interesting old article I found while surfing some blogs today, they linked to this article. Gawd, look at the Zogby spin on it...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/21/usa.hillaryclinton

Almost half of Americans could never bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton in a presidential election, according to an opinion poll published yesterday which shows how much of a struggle the former first lady faces. The CNN poll will alarm the Clinton camp after finding that 47% of those questioned would "definitely not vote for" the New York senator

"This is the kind of number that only goes up as campaign controversies accumulate," said Larry Sabato, the director of the Centre for Politics at the University of Virginia. "It would mean she'd have to run a near-perfect campaign in the best possible circumstances in order to win.

"If 47% of people say they won't vote for her, that's 53% of people who'll consider it, so she's got a chance," said the pollster John Zogby. "I would not say that about any other person, but those of us who have seen her campaign know that she has the capacity to turn non-believers into believers."
<snip>


The nightmare scenario for the Democrats is one in which Ms Clinton sweeps through the nomination process, only to find herself unable to win. Fear of that outcome might yet render her seriously vulnerable in the primary stage of the election

The voters wanted change, unity, empowerment. Obama noticed and tapped into it, Hillary didn't.

Hillary centered her campaign around her. Obama centered his campaign around everyone.

:headbang:
rocknation

What a great post. You have reduced the many issues and problems, and explained it in a very SIMPLE way.

Hillary had everything going for her, except what the VOTERS wanted.
The voters wanted change, unity, empowerment.
Hillary centered her campaign around her.
Obama centered his campaign around everyone.

That really sums it up, IMO.

He bears a lot of responsiblity for letting his ego think a rookie could go unvetted and unscathed.

...who's been doing so much of the scathing, now isn't it?

Obama can't have a hangnail without Hillary insisting that it's evidence
that he's evil and that he has no character.

Her entire strategy, since Super Tuesday--has been to bloody him up enough
to convert him into damaged, unelectable goods.

We were all rookies, I guess---underestimating that Hillary Clinton would
politically eviscerate a fellow Dem--in such ruthless, perverse ways.

that says he doesn't have the right stuff.

Anybody can be inspiring, but government is cagier than that. Her health care plan was greeted with a standing O, then they trashed it.

She's on her second pass, he's just glimpsing the terrain.

Because I haven't been inspired by a crooked McCain and a crooked Hillary in a single speech. They treat the American people as if we are stupid.

and supporting a filthy warmongering, pandering, liar.

"Why Hillary’s Lies are Important"

- March 24, 2008, 9:53PM
Hillary Clinton has been caught in a series of lies and misrepresentations during the primary campaign. To some of her supporters, these lies may seem trivial and insignificant and even politics-as-usual. However, please consider the serious impact of these lies by placing them in the context of the past seven years of the Bush Administration and the legacy of expanded executive power that he leaves behind. In particular, consider the dangerous message that the Clinton campaign sends by employing similar tactics to achieve her political goals.

1. The Florida and Michigan Primaries / The Delegate Count
Hillary agreed to honor the DNC’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates after their primaries were moved up into January in express violation of the DNC rules. She did not change her position on the validity of these primaries until she found herself unexpectedly behind in the delegate count and desperately needed to claim the delegates that she had won in these unsanctioned contests. As her chances of winning the nomination became increasingly slim in recent weeks, we have been presented with threatening and desperate lines of reasoning for why these primary results should count as is. At the same time, Clinton and her surrogates continue to propose different metrics for determining who should win the nomination even though there is and has been a clearly defined process in place for several decades.

Please think about the implications of changing election rules after the fact. We have suffered through at least one stolen presidential election and the manipulation of untold numbers of Congressional and state elections through various vote tampering and voter intimidation schemes used by the Republicans and their allies. The American people (and especially Democratic voters) have lost faith in the integrity of the election process. The Clinton strategy to continually change the rules for determining the Democratic Party nominee sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to increasingly un-Democratic elections in the future if it is allowed to succeed. If anything, we need more transparency and methods of accountability in our elections in order to repair the damage done in recent years and to restore our confidence in the Government.

2. The Bosnia Fabrication / Exaggerated Experience Claims
Hillary fabricated a story about a dangerous, life-risking visit to Bosnia in order to gain stature as an experienced negotiator in international conflicts and war. While this type of embellishment can seem almost comical, it represents a willingness to distort reality in order to influence the public perception. This is the same type of distortion that the Bush administration used to justify the war in Iraq, although the magnitude of the lie is certainly on a different scale. The Bush administration falsified reports, cherry-picked intelligence, used unreliable sources, and employed fear-mongering tactics to convince the American public that our safety was at risk and as such, you were either with us or with the terrorists. The lies used by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeachable offenses and should be condemned by all Americans. Sadly, the Clinton campaign seems to have shown a shocking willingness to employ the same tactics to create a more favorable reality and to rely on divide-and-conquer rhetoric to weaken opposition. Her attempts to frighten the American people by conjuring up 3 AM phone calls are bad enough, but her vote of confidence in John McCain over Barack Obama should be seen as treason against the Democratic Party.

3. NAFTA
Hillary lied about her position on NAFTA and used her lies in a calculated way to influence the Ohio primary. Recently released White House documents confirm that Hillary had been an active proponent of NAFTA prior to its passage, and she has continued to support it publicly in her speeches and memoir. However, while campaigning in Ohio, she claimed to have been privately against NAFTA during the Clinton presidency and believes that it should be rewritten to protect American jobs and workers. This type of maneuvering is reminiscent of the behind-closed-doors policy-making that the Bush administration has used during the past seven years. Specifically, Bush and Cheney have made policy decisions without providing transparency to Congress or the public, and President Bush has repeatedly ignored the rule of law by issuing signing statements and disregarding the parts of the laws that he doesn’t agree with. If we cannot trust Hillary to be truthful about her positions on critical legislative issues now, how can we trust that she will be truthful as president?

These are just three examples that illustrate the concerns we should have with a candidate who demonstrates a sense of entitlement to the nomination and is willing to lie, misrepresent, threaten, and divide in order to obtain the nomination. President Bush and the neoconservative movement have greatly harmed this country by the creation of an imperial-like presidency. This election is not just about whether a Democrat or Republican wins but if the checks and balances are restored to the three branches of government. The framers of the Constitution were in such fear of an imperial president that mechanisms for impeachment are prominently and explicitly included in the Constitution. If Hillary Clinton is willing to use lies and deceit to win the Democratic nomination, what assurances do we have that she will not continue to use them once she is president?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/why-h ...

<snip>

"Her response to being caught lying to a military audience, when she invented a story about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, was to say it wasn't surprising she got some things wrong, seeing how she spoke millions of words every day. What a magnificent idea, that if you say lots of words some of them are bound to be fantastic lies. So if you listen carefully to horse-racing commentators they say things like "And it's Teddy's Boy still leading three furlongs out as they come up to the fourth last fence with Nip and Tuck two lengths behind by the way I fought a tiger once, punched it clean out and they're all safely over."


<lots more>
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/article3 ...

"It's not that lying to pad the resume, avoid Indictment or to advance her political fortune is anything new for Hillary Clinton. She famously said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (debunked); she told New Yorkers she was a Yankee fan when she lived in Chicago (debunked); she told rural New Yorkers that she was a "duck hunter" (debunked); she claimed that her daughter Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center at the time of the 9/11 attack (debunked by Chelsea herself.) And, those subpoenaed Rose Law billing records just happened to show up one day on a hallway table in the most monitored home in America!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Obama "bears a certain responsibility" had nothing to say about it.

even read it, they are too busy pastorgating. Save your breath reasoning with supporters who feel that Hillary was inevitable. Peace

Hillary Clinton is the weakest general election candidate imaginable. Half of the country's voters would crawl over broken glass to vote against her. She is one of the most hated people in the country.

I can't believe that people will consciously overlook how loathed she is by most voters. Have you noticed how, no matter how poorly Obama does, he has never, ever had higher negatives than her? And poll respondents believe her to be untrustworthy by large margins over Obama. That's because most people don't like her. They find her repugnant.

She will not get one republican or independent vote. And after this primary, she may have alienated a lot of Democratic voters, too. She would carry maybe 35% of the vote and six states.

And now she's acted like enough of a jerk that many democrats don't like her either.

is that there are many groups, demographics and regions of the country that dislike her.

But after this primary season, if she were to become the nominee, perhaps her historically most loyal supporters, "African Americans" will be crawling over glass to vote against her too. Or perhaps more accurately, won't be crawling or walking to vote for anyone.


Hillary Clinton is unelectable without huge black support. Yet the more people get to know her, the more they vote against her.


Imagine a Hillary Clinton general election campaign against a united GOP without the Democratic stronghold of young voters and African Americans behind her.

All of the national polls viewing her favorably this November fail to take into account the damage she would cause TO GET THE NOMINATION.


She is such a polarizing figure, that as the Democratic Nominee, she would drive the black vote AWAY from the party.


Do you know how hard that is to do?


If you think about she has gone beyond polarizing to downright amazing when it comes to building opposition.


She can't win.


Anyone who thinks at this point she is a stronger fall candidate is very unrealistic.

if Obama hadn't run? Would we all be cheering Edwards on now? Richardson? Biden? She and bil would be smearing some other candidate and trying to paint them in a corner..or would it have been over on SuperTues?

by thwarting the destiny of the "goddess of peace," the pre-ordained one.

based on the right-wing conspiracy that re-defined her. She had high negatives going in because of people like you who are so susceptible to smear and ignore fact and nod in lemming like fashion at what ever the talking points tell you to say.

The media was tougher on her and gave Obama a leg up--that has been proven as fact.

There have been many articles about the negative treatment Clinton is receiving in the press, and the positive treatment Obama receives in the press. That is not a question--it has been proven. The question is...why?

We know the press has been nothing but propaganda for Bush the last eight years by what they aired, and what they hid from us (downing street memo for example). What is the purpose of promoting Obama and vilifying Clinton?

I don't have an answer, and my guess is there is more than one reason. But, I do know that it is a shame that when Clinton acts--she is vilified. When Obama does the same thing, they ignore it or forgive it, or justify it.

Oh wait...they're talking about his scary black preacher.

attacks on Obama. I use to donate to MM but not any more. They are just as corrupt as the next guy.

She flat out said this would be over Feb 4th. She never in a million years thought this was going to be "tough"

And her negatives are a full 20% higher than they were last August. That's not the media, that is her own kitchen sink campaign to blame.

...thinking that she had the nomination all sewed up.

Penn advised her to skip Iowa, because the campaign believed her inevitability
would sail her on into the nomination.

Obama and Edwards worked like dogs in Iowa--meeting with small groups and talking one-on-one
with real people and answering their questions. Hillary barely tried, and when she did make
an appearance, it was to give an impersonal speech and dash out the door. She even planted
questions on two separate occasions. Her campaign was so arrogant.

Clearly, Hillary thought she could give a few speeches, spew a few soundbytes, and then she'd
be on her way---moving into New Hampshire as the clear winner.

The media coverage here was totally pro-Hillary. You had to look to find articles about Obama
or Edwards. Their small events were barely covered. Hillary had the media in her pocket, and
she also had the endorsement of the Unions in Iowa and our popular former governor.

She had so much going for her---the deck was stacked in her favor--but she totally blew it.

She was so arrogant and closed off. She got more than a fair shake here and she came in third
because she ran a shoddy campaign.

She got what she deserved.

she spent running ads in Iowa!

Where are her priorities?

"She had high negatives going in because of people like you"

She had high negatives years ago, I think it goes as far back as Bills time in Arkansas. I'm sure your angry about the tough race and displacing the anger on to someone else. Hillary alone is responsible for her reality. Not even you can change that. And as far as the vast right wing conspiracy, the way Bill mastered co-opting the ideas of the right and making them into democratic ideas is still considered brilliant, and unfortunately that is the root cause of the rights vendetta. Not Bills fault, not Hillary's fault. I do think during their WH days we were willing to ignore many of the bad things they did in the name of a great economy. Many of the things the right complained about have been born out as true, Bill and Hill do look out for number 1 first.(WTI, Magnequench,TaTa, Indian business deals, outsourcing,Chinese interests in fundraising which may have been part of the Magnaquench approval by Bill) As a spokesman for a gentle President Carter said, Bill and Hillary are always right there when they want something from you.

...try to destroy Obama AND the lamestream media/Snuffaluffagus/MSNBC/Gibson et al and it's still not working.

She has Scaife, Blumenthal, et al. I mean she has the whole GOP and the media behind her helping her destroy Obama.

I'm still waiting for the next nasty trick she'll pull over the weekend and on Monday before NC and IN.

At this juncture, there is no point in any of it EXCEPT to destroy Obama and / or any REAL Democrat's chances in November. There is NOTHING ELSE to be gained by it.

Something is going get tossed out there right about NOW. Something to hurt Obama and help her on Tuesday.

It shows how unbelievably her campaign has been run, which in the end comes down to who she chose to associate with. Her associates are so bad that they took away her annointed status. She should have been the nominee months ago. Thank goodness she surrouneded herself by idiots so that Obama had time to work his magic.

The only way things went so far off course is her inability to manage people, she lets them manage her.

don't suppose that could have anything to do with it... no, it's not possible.

Go to a library and look back at political and business magazines from last summer - you'll see she was always discussed as 'inevitable', and cartoons showed her with an enormous lead and so on. Hell, when the voting started she had a huge superdelegate advantage. To pretend she wasn't dealt a fantastic opening hand is nonsense. You could not ask for a more favorable situation.

Why do you think she prepared so well? Raised so much money? Made nice with so many different groups? Because she thought it would be clear sailing?

Only a fool would have thought that. Well, you thought that. But Hillary Clinton is no fool. She knew what filth she would be wading in.

My goodness. You seem to believe if she'd worn white gloves and handled the tea cup properly, no one would have raised the slightest demur to her candidacy.

Like I said. Only a fool would believe that.

“When the history is written, it will be said this is a safer country and more hopeful world because George Bush was president,” Cheney said.


Just sayin.

:shrug:

but to keep it fair - she did enter this race without the support of the anti-war movement because of her IWR vote and she didn't have the support of the ant-corporate Democrats either thanks to her strong ties to the DLC. That basically gave her a disconnect with some very active Democrats and thus gave somebody a shot at taking her down.

that her IWR vote was erroneous. She may have picked up some anti-war voters if she had just eaten some crow and admitted her mistake. That, to me, is either total arrogance or a total disconnect.

"if I did it, it must be right" thought process that Bush and Nixon shared.

She's GOP. That's what did her in.

LOL

the problem isn't really the campaign (though, indeed that's been poorly run); the problem is the candidate.

I'm glad this extended primary took place. I learned a lot about both candidates.

Nothing at all.

You are exactly right. There are plenty of men who have run terrible campaigns. (Rudy Guliani anyone?) And lots of African Americans have had real bad presidential runs. (Al Sharpton)

Hillary Clinton ran a bad campaign because she made poor choices. NOT BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN.

You make no sense.

Women and African American men have succeeded at every job in America, EXCEPT running for President and winning.

They both started with a big ceiling to break through, Hillary failed, because of who she is and what she did. Obama succeeded for the same reasons.

Get over it. This is a Democracy, not a monarchy, Hillary doesn't "deserve" anything she can't earn on her own.

To even remotely suggest that being a woman is as difficult as being black. Especially when running for President.

The job of winning the Democratic nomination as a woman is far easier than winning it as an African American.

Obama has had to OVERCOME far more than Hillary Clinton.

Given her built in advantages at the start of the campaign this fact makes her loss even more amazing.

America IS MORE RACIST than sexist.

America IS READY FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT, just not Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile Obama IS MAKING AMERICA ready for a Black President.

That's perhaps the biggest difference between the two.

Hillary was always in the 50/50 range to win the nomination, versus the Field. It was stuck there on the wagering sites for an entire year. She was in the 2/1 to 3/1 range to become president, to succeed in both rounds, primaries and general.

I notice Obama supporters recently have posted the Intrade prices on the nomination, as settling verification that little has changed despite Hillary's wins in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

Yet a thread like this veers the other way, asserting inevitability and more advantages than any candidate ever owned, comfortable to ignore the 50/50 long term odds. :rofl:

The killer aspect is the posters who agree. They basically stamp themselves as clueless, reliant on conventional wisdom with blinders snugly attached.

I expected Hillary to win, but there was so much potential for a party base uprising given Hillary's Iraq vote, and fundamental vulnerability as a female candidate, there was no way I was going to take 50/50. I needed at least 2/1.

Threads like this will be a convenient summation of Hillary's candidacy until the next high profile female emerges as a legit threat to win a nomination. When she's similarly savaged, despite superior personal favorables and dramatically less baggage, the goofs who have no background or competence in daily weighting of variables and outcomes will finally understand what actually took place in early '08.

of how any of us who weren't behind Clinton were told to suck it up before Super Tuesday because she was inevitable.

label was just one more disadvantage.

Steve

Last summer, she and Giuliani were leading in the polls. Rudy also had the most money. He crashed and burned early, while Clinton has at least kept it close to the end.

Rudy had hype and $.

Look at our national deficit. Just look at it. Then look at the debt from opensecrets.org that each campaign has:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

Candidate: Obama, Barack
Home State: IL
Mar'08 Raised: $41,144,348
Mar'08 Spent: $28,903,437
Total Raised: $234,745,081
Total Spent: $183,671,081
Cash on Hand: $51,073,999
Debts: $662,784

Clinton, Hillary
Home State: NY
Mar'08 Raised: $20,107,968
Mar'08 Spent:$21,548,862
Total Raised:$189,097,053
Total Spent: $157,384,855
Cash on Hand: $31,712,197
Debts: $15,321,562



She wants me to vote for her when I'm deeply concerned about our debt to China . . . and she's THAT much in debt?

I look at Barack's, and I'm thinking - there's probably a lag in A/R and A/P. In my line of business, I'm always three months behind on a specific support number for our customers when they go abroad - my debt against my Product in the organization at any given time is between 400K and 600K due to the lag in invoice receipt, call detail rec. verification, etc. etc.

Now if I get 15 million dollars behind in verifying my invoices I would get fired.

I am not a citizen. I lived in Florida for over a decade, but have not seen the US in almost as long.
Been a lurker here since Kerry-Bush.
Maybe there is much to say about being too close to the trees but as this primary season drew closer I could sense the fear, uncertainty, and doubt surrounding the 'inevitability' (as it was according to the polls) of a Hillary candidacy.
The prevailing thought was that she was too polarizing; she would energize the republican base; and the result would be another four years of republican rule. It took one gaffe on her part (driver's licenses for illegals) and it was over. The media bludgeoned her like she was Rumsfeld. Everyone went all-in on Obama thinking he was a lock. Maybe the lack of paper-trail had something to do with that, or lazy journalism. I simply cannot justify journalism not vetting this guy and his associations. Obama himself inflated his relationship with Wright so the political blows he gets as a result are of his own doing, not some "media out to get him."
Just my 2c.

She wasn't handed anything. Sure she had some advantages but to Obama's credit, he and his campaign did (are still doing) a fabulous job and they had a message that appealed to alot of people.
That is what is likely going to hand Obama the nomination.

Clinton should be embarrassed by some of her campaign tactics but not be embarrassed because she got/is getting beat by a better campaigner.

the msm made that the pop theme for the moment, just to tear her down! i wonder who's next?