Why did Obama win/Hillary lose the nomination?

[Sampiro]

There have been lots of "Hillary's evil" and "Obama cured my scrofula" threads (and I'm not pointing fingers since I've participated in most and started at least a couple), but this one's more objective.

Hillary began as almost a lock. Obama was essentially unknown save for "that black guy who gave the really good speech" a couple of years ago. By all logic Hillary should have won, and she certainly got her licks in; even after Super Tuesday she had enough troops in the field to do some serious damage, and as said before their platforms were, while not identical, very similar, and while she has some skeletons not so much in the closet as on display in her china cabinet he had Jeremiah Wright and Rezko and some other detriments?

So while there are many contributing factors to the Obama victory, which one(s) was/were in your opinion the most important? Personality, black voters, message, Bill Clinton's actions, Obama's "new" factor or his charisma, or... other(s)? And, whatever the responsible factor(s), how important do you think the same to be in the race against McCain?

While it's okay and even perhaps necessary to say real or perceived negative things about Hillary, I'll add this is not another Fork-Hillary thread (not that there's anything wrong with that, but now that she's no longer a potential nominee I'm hoping that she can be a very useful asset to the Obama campaign and even find myself feeling strangely sorry for her [though I'm sure glad it turned out the way it did]).

[Hakuna Matata]

I think Obama was just better organized and had a better game plan by focusing on the smaller states and caucuses. Once Clinton fell behind she didn't have a contingency plan and he was able to capitalize on that errors on her team. That coupled with the tighter rein he appears to have on his team compared to her team. There was an article awhile back I saw that had the main guy on his team who understood the delegate situation and how to work it, and they implemented that plan and won. Very impressive approach and it is that organizational approach that appeals to me. There is no reason to say anything negative about Clinton (personally I have never understood much of the forking threads)--she ran her campaign with her agenda of experience, but it was the wrong agenda for the time. Change is the key campaign slogan not experience for this time period it would appear.

[Fear Itself]

I think she simply miscalculated; she only planned for the game to last two quarters, and when Obama caught fire in the third quarter, it took too long to react. She did show some recovery late in the campaign, but by then the damage was done, and she was too far behind. She should blame her former campaign manager, Mark Penn.

[anu-la1979]

Because he locked up the caucus states early on and created a delegate lead that H had to catch up to. Also, he's leveraging web 2.0 tech much better than his competitors and it's making gigantic dents in fundraising. I remember one poster on the Fork threads saying he only gives a certain amount of money, reoccuring each month and that Obama wouldn't miss it if he withdrew it. Actually, analysts are saying this is exactly how Obama is getting people to max out, small contributions, a bit at a time.

The best coverage of the election is coming out of Wall Street Journal. If you're an apopletic Obama supporter, I'd avoid the editorials, though.

[Knorf]

Poor organization on Hillary's part--she didn't have a clear view of how the various primaries and caucuses worked, and she clearly thought she was destined to win. She didn't plan for the long haul. Her game-plan was far too focused on the "big states," as if the nominating process strategy would be identical to how Bush won the Whitehouse in the general election in the past two elections; she failed to account for caucuses (esp. after the first couple) and she failed to account for the Democrat's propotional system.

Obama's organization and long-term strategy, on the contrary, were superb.

Hillary's going negative so early and so long on Obama cost her a lot of votes. Obama did a much better job holding the high ground, morally speaking. She tried way too hard for way too long to prove that she's tough, which everyone already thought about her. She had nothing to prove in that regard, but for reason she seemed to think she had to prove it over and over. That cost her. She also tried for too many specious attacks on Obama's character.

Obama's appeal to independents and liberal Republicans is simply much, much higher. Those people want a visionary, and not old-school divisiveness. Also, Hillary's reputation among them is not as sterling as among hardcore Democrats.

Obama's fund raising set a new standard. Hillary's set a standard for debt accrual and use of loans from personal funds. Her use of the Internet was too little, too late. Again, Obama's organization did wonders for his campaign, as did his Internet savvy.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

It's a combination of a couple things. Obama's a very shrewd politician who tapped into people's desire to change politics as usual, a desire that as, Knorf notes, spans the political spectrum. His background as a community organizer helped him recognize the advantage of mobilizing young voters and the "little guy," the citizen who won't ever be attending a $1,000 a plate fundraising dinner, but who can send you a $25 contribution over the Internet. He made those voters feel valued, when they've traditionally been ignored.

Clinton compounded that by making some key mistakes in her campaign. A big one, IMO, was her inability to rein in her husband. Plenty oif moderate Democrats love Bill. Plenty more liberal Democrats (not the DNC, but real left-wingers), independents and Republicans thoroughly dislike and distrust the guy. In general, it seemed like Clinton was playing by the old rules--expecting that states like CA and NY would propel her over-the-top, taking the support of African American voters for granted, doing the traditional "just us folks" spiel. I think she underestimated how sick a lot of Americans are of that kind of politics.

[burundi]

It's a combination of a couple things. Obama's a very shrewd politician who tapped into people's desire to change politics as usual, a desire that as, Knorf notes, spans the political spectrum. His background as a community organizer helped him recognize the advantage of mobilizing young voters and the "little guy," the citizen who won't ever be attending a $1,000 a plate fundraising dinner, but who can send you a $25 contribution over the Internet. He made those voters feel valued, when they've traditionally been ignored.

Clinton compounded that by making some key mistakes in her campaign. A big one, IMO, was her inability to rein in her husband. Plenty oif moderate Democrats love Bill. Plenty more liberal Democrats (not the DNC, but real left-wingers), independents and Republicans thoroughly dislike and distrust the guy. In general, it seemed like Clinton was playing by the old rules--expecting that states like CA and NY would propel her over-the-top, taking the support of African American voters for granted, doing the traditional "just us folks" spiel. I think she underestimated how sick a lot of Americans are of that kind of politics.
This is actually my post, not Left Hand's. Sorry, folks.

[silenus]

Her advisors were woefully ignorant and misinformed. They never planned to play the full nine innings, and it showed.

[DrDeth]

I think Obama was just better organized and had a better game plan by focusing on the smaller states and caucuses. Once Clinton fell behind she didn't have a contingency plan and he was able to capitalize on that errors on her team. That coupled with the tighter rein he appears to have on his team compared to her team. There was an article awhile back I saw that had the main guy on his team who understood the delegate situation and how to work it, and they implemented that plan and won. Very impressive approach and it is that organizational approach that appeals to me. There is no reason to say anything negative about Clinton (personally I have never understood much of the forking threads)--she ran her campaign with her agenda of experience, but it was the wrong agenda for the time. Change is the key campaign slogan not experience for this time period it would appear.

This is a perfect answer. Yes, Obama "gamed" the system, winning the Nom, whilst HRC ran her campaign like it was the General Election.

Note that the race was very close, the Popular vote was within 1/10 of 1% either way.

[Lakai]

The Hillary camp simply underestimated their opponent.

No one though Obama could compete with Hillary's financial support. Yet Obama found a way to collect money from a large number of small donors. It was done over the internet and relied mostly on small contributions over a period of time (e.g. $25 every month.)

No one thought Obama would appeal to voters because no one knew anything about him. Yet his message for change was strong enough to compete with Hillary's message of experience.

No one thought Obama would last past Super Tuesday. He did and he won eleven contests right after Super Tuesday while the Hillary camp struggled to raise money and develop a new strategy. After the February contests were over, Obama had built a lead in delegates that was too big to overcome.

[Shayna]

Her use of the Internet was too little, too late. Again, Obama's organization did wonders for his campaign, as did his Internet savvy. One thing rarely, if ever, mentioned about her website, is that it was a moderated forum. I don't know how it operated once you were approved after your first post because I never bothered to find out. I went to her website, registered, and twice tried to post. Both times I was told that my posts would be reviewed before they would appear, at which point I just left.

To me, it represented one of the clear distinctions between the two candidates; one who made the campaign the "property" of his constituents, making it open to anyone and everyone to participate, and another who wanted to be in control and filter who and who could not participate. It said a great deal to me about how their respective presidencies would be run, as well.

[ElvisL1ves]

There was and is more of a hunger this year for New! and Fresh! than in most elections, and Clinton could never be either. Too, she could never shake the suspicion that Bill would actually be running the show, and that probably put off more voters than it attracted.

[Knorf]

One thing rarely, if ever, mentioned about her website, is that it was a moderated forum.
An excellent point, and one that made me question whether I could support her early on. I'm sure others felt the same.

[Qwisp]

"Obama cured my scrofula" threads
.
That was between me and Obama, and I'm pretty sure there was never a thread about it.

That being said, I think Hillary took the nomination fro granted. She knew she had the name recognition, and knew shew would make the best president. She didn't take into account that Obama represents a new kind of Washington.He gives hope for change. While she does have some experience, too many of us are tired of Washington insiders and want something different. This is one of the reasons I am so against Hillary as VP , to me it would be a signal that while Obama gives lip service to change, he really is no different than any other politician and is willing to do any thing to win.

[ElvisL1ves]

Now can your new bicycle (http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/) cure scrofula while he's on Oprah's couch?

Let's not forget the Oprah Factor. She gave Obama a buzz that he hadn't had before, and right on schedule too.

[you with the face]

I also noticed early on Hillary's inability to change tactics when those tactics weren't successful. She never seemed to get--and still doesn't get--two important things: 1) Obama is well-liked largely because of his image as an uniter not a divider and 2) people are starving for that. So her attempts to bring him down would always backfire because they made her look like a big meanie who only knows how to play the old Washington gotcha ya politics of yesteryear. The plaigiarism accusation, the Rezko scare, and the attempt to brand Obama a flip flopper on Iraq were a series of miscalculations that made her look like a politician stuck on auto-pilot.

Obama never really had to worry about finding new and different ways to attack her because she, in a way, did the work for him. His strategy on offense was to either not play that game or outsource it to people who would do it with not cost to him.

[you with the face]

dp

[Fish]

I like that.

"It's three o'clock in the morning and the kids are asleep when the phone rings in the White House to say gotcha ya."

[RTFirefly]

There was and is more of a hunger this year for New! and Fresh! than in most elections,When the people running the country have been incredible fuckups across the board, can you blame people for that hunger?and Clinton could never be either. Given that she supported the people running the country in their super-King-Kamehameha fuckup...Y'know, for years before this campaign actually began, I'd get fundraising mail from Hillary talking about how she was standing up to the big bad Republicans. If she'd been doing that on a regular basis, she'd have been in a position to in fact be the candidate of change. But she was rarely if ever out in front in taking on Bush and the GOP. Too, she could never shake the suspicion that Bill would actually be running the show, and that probably put off more voters than it attracted.I must admit, it's been many, many moons since I've heard this one. The possibility that Bill might be a loose cannon, yeppers. The possibility that he might be the de facto President - hardly.

[RTFirefly]

Now can your new bicycle (http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/) cure scrofula while he's on Oprah's couch?

Let's not forget the Oprah Factor. She gave Obama a buzz that he hadn't had before, and right on schedule too.Oprah's great and all, but all she can really do for a politician is give him/her the chance to be heard. If nobody's buying what he's selling, it's not going to help in the long run.

I bet Hillary could have gone on Oprah too, if she'd wanted.

[RTFirefly]

This is a perfect answer. Yes, Obama "gamed" the system, winning the Nom, whilst HRC ran her campaign like it was the General Election. Two things:

1) She didn't run her campaign like it was the General Election. Her plan was to overwhelm her rivals on Super Tuesday, and coast home from there. In the GE, there's no Super Tuesday - both major candidates are in it until the end, no matter how poorly they're doing. There's also the matter of swing states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Colorado that she barely showed up in, and very non-swingy states like California and Texas that she focused heavily on. Very un-GE.

2) Even if she had, so what? Did sexist chauvinist pigs make Hillary run her primary campaign as if it was a general election campaign? (Damn that Mark Penn!)

Note that the race was very close, the Popular vote was within 1/10 of 1% either way.Trashed that nonsense here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9881909&postcount=146). Feel free to un-trash it.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

There was and is more of a hunger this year for New! and Fresh! than in most elections, and Clinton could never be either. Too, she could never shake the suspicion that Bill would actually be running the show, and that probably put off more voters than it attracted.

Yes there was a lot of that going on. I also feel that another part of the problem was that people are simply tired of the Clintons. I for one am tired of the blatant spin. The I know you know I'm lying, but i'm going to say it anyway type thing.

But honestly? She blew it in February. Obama had his group at the caucuses and really racked up the delegates. Take that away from Obama, and she gets a much better chance at getting the superdelegates to win. I think that was her fatal flaw. It takes her from running a flawed, yet ultimately successful campaign to a failed campaign. Once he did that he really made it impossible for Hillary to win. And we all know why she did that.

Her inevitability meme pissed me off too. I think it was a poor way to start off the campaign. It was "I'm Hillary Clinton and you WILL vote for me"-like. If she'd run a campaign that respected the other candidates when she didn't have to, then she'd be better off too. I saw a clip on the Daily Show of her being asked if she had considered what she'd do if not nominated, and Hillary simply rejected the idea out of hand. That really turned me off. At the time I was trying to get to like her because I felt it was inevitable. I had my heart broken with Dean, so I was trying to prevent it from happening again. Well that little quote really took me out of it.

[RTFirefly]

Replying to the OP:

1) Hillary's support of the Iraq War gave a huge opening to an opposition candidate. If she'd been against the war from the beginning, or even done an Edwards and admitted she'd blown it back in 2002, there would have been no oxygen for a major Dem challenger this year.

2) Obama ran a smart, disciplined campaign. Hillary ran a pretty mediocre one, on average - worse up through Wisconsin, better after that - but once she showed she couldn't close much of the delegate gap with her wins in Ohio and Texas, it was all over anyway, so the fact that the quality of her campaign had substantially improved just didn't matter in terms of who got the nomination.

It was of help in convincing the press that she was still in the race, though.

[you with the face]

Hillary could have run as the candidate as change. But she chose to run as the candidate with experience. Problem is, the former is easier than the latter, because if you're gonna tout experience you besta be able to have whole heaps of it. Hillary doesn't have whole heaps, really. Being First Lady is experience, but there's only so much mileage you can get out of something like that. By the time the silly 3 am commericals arrived, the experience thing started looking like a joke.

[Fish]

I know that I soured on her campaign when I heard she was focusing her energy only on the big, election-winning states. Her early disregard for certain unimportant voters in unimportant states really makes her "my supporters should be heard and not be invisible!" speech look foolish.

[Marley23]

Obama generated a ton of enthusiasm, mostly because of the change thing, and tapped into it with incredible effectiveness. Clinton's people were expecting to win Iowand blow everyone else out of the water on Super Tuesday. That didn't happen, and they couldn't find their footing until the runup to Ohio - and didn't start regaining any ground until Pennsylvania in mid-April. By then it was too late. In a lot of ways they didn't get a good read on the electorate for a long time, I think because they thought inevitability was enough," and in the end she was only appealing to specific sections of the electorate, which wasn't going to carry her over the top.

[cmyk]

Her experience claims fell flat for a lot of reasons, but when you have a glut of voters looking for change in Washington, that experience starts to translate into someone who's stuck in the old ways of running this country. So of course Change is going to win over Experience.

I also got the impression Obama was in control of his campaign, and Hilary's campaign was in control of her. She had so many voices telling her this is what you should say, this is how it was done, and these are the states that won the nom last time, she didn't have the capacity to silence all the advice and roll with her gut on some things. Obama had a game plan that he stuck to, but seemed flexible enough to adapt when he needed to. And that speaks volumes with how each of them might run a presidency.

I'm very impressed with the way he ran his campaign and raised money. He understands people today. A thing which experience cannot help you on. He likes change. He's willing to do what everybody else says he can't do. And he's proved himself over and over again.

[DigitalC]

One thing rarely, if ever, mentioned about her website, is that it was a moderated forum. I don't know how it operated once you were approved after your first post because I never bothered to find out. I went to her website, registered, and twice tried to post. Both times I was told that my posts would be reviewed before they would appear, at which point I just left.

To me, it represented one of the clear distinctions between the two candidates; one who made the campaign the "property" of his constituents, making it open to anyone and everyone to participate, and another who wanted to be in control and filter who and who could not participate. It said a great deal to me about how their respective presidencies would be run, as well.


I noticed this too. Then i saw the kind of comments that DO get approved and it became an even bigger turn off.

[DrDeth]

Trashed that nonsense here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9881909&postcount=146). Feel free to un-trash it.

Yes, certainly you did. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
It was a virtual tie. One can count it so either has a small victory.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...vote_count.html
Popular Vote Total 17,535,458 48.1% 17,493,836 48.0% Obama +41,622 +0.1%



So, even if MI is not counted at all, Obama won by 1/10th of 1%


Yep, that's a Landslide worthy of Lyndon Johnson. :rolleyes:

Boy oh boy, "trashed" indeed. :rolleyes: 1/10th of 1%.

[Little Nemo]

My two cents.

Clinton didn't plan on the kind of campaign she had to run and she underestimated Obama. She expected to take the lead in the beginning and then maybe play defense against any come-from-behind rivals. She didn't have a plan for someone else being the front runner and her being the one who had to come back. And she didn't create such a plan quick enough because she apparently believed Obama's lead would collapse on its own.

The key to Obama's win was his ability to gather resources from outside traditional areas. Obama's campaign didn't have the same amount of professional campaign staff that the other campaigns had and those campaigns underestimated his resources because of this. But Obama was able to develop non-professional campaign staff to an unanticipated degree - enough that he was able to use these non-professionals to fill the roles that the other campaigns were using professionals for.

[Little Nemo]

I also got the impression Obama was in control of his campaign, and Hilary's campaign was in control of her. She had so many voices telling her this is what you should say, this is how it was done, and these are the states that won the nom last time, she didn't have the capacity to silence all the advice and roll with her gut on some things. Obama had a game plan that he stuck to, but seemed flexible enough to adapt when he needed to. And that speaks volumes with how each of them might run a presidency.This true but it's more a matter of circumstances rather than planning. Obama was the only candidate who could afford to stay the course. His original plan worked at the beginning and continued to work throughout his campaign. Clinton, McCain, and the other candidates were more chaotic because their original plans didn't work and they had to re-invent their campaign strategy in mid-run. It's easy to remain calm and collected when everything is going according to plan.

[Punoqllads]

Before she went negative, Clinton led Obama among black voters by as much as 40%. (cite (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701030.html)) Once he sprang ahead, she went negative, but that resulted in a strong shift among black voters to Obama. By the end he was getting 90% of the black vote. That made it even harder for her to play catch-up.

[Lust4Life]

I'm a Limey and have no dog in this fight but I've got to say that for some reason,maybe body language or facial expressions Hillary always seemed to come across as insincere.

I've no doubt that she was totally genuine and honest throughout the campaign but that was the perception that she gave me and talking to other people about it all but one agreed with me.


Now I know that hard logic means that you vote for the policies and not for the personality of the candidate but IRL that is not always the case.

I still honestly cant put my finger on the reason for my distrust in her,its not fair and its not rational but thats my perception of her.

[Jurph]

Hillary's strategy was for there to be no campaign. She tried to win the nomination before anybody had ever cast a vote. It was simple: old party hands, all Clinton supporters from back in the day, set up the proportional representation rules which favored the early leader. Then she gathered up all of the reliable Democratic fundraisers and started asking them for commitments early, with the implicit threat of being left out in the cold when she won. She flinched last on the Michigan ballot, and got herself a poison pill of delegates -- everyone knew they'd be seated at the end, so any competitor's delegate lead had to include enough delegates to counter a Michigan seating.

So she tried to steer the rules of the game to her advantage and then let the race play out as it must... and Obama took the rules Hillary had established and beat her by playing that game perfectly in every district of every state.

[RTFirefly]

Yes, certainly you did. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
It was a virtual tie. One can count it so either has a small victory.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...vote_count.html
Popular Vote Total 17,535,458 48.1% 17,493,836 48.0% Obama +41,622 +0.1%



So, even if MI is not counted at all, Obama won by 1/10th of 1%


Yep, that's a Landslide worthy of Lyndon Johnson. :rolleyes:

Boy oh boy, "trashed" indeed. :rolleyes: 1/10th of 1%.
Cherry-picking again, I see.

[RTFirefly]

I should add that the main reason the popular vote was as close as it was, in the end, was that Hillary closed the gap considerably in that metric in what a sports fan might describe as 'garbage time.' It's like the RB for a losing team who gains a whole bunch of yards on the ground when his team's down by 4 TDs late in the game, and the other team's going, "fine, run all you want." The RB might even be able to equalize the yards gained by the two teams. So what? Run, baby, run!

The popular vote wasn't close while the outcome was still in doubt. Obama basically punted WV, KY, and PR because he'd effectively won already. The popular vote was never close in any way that mattered.

ETA: damn, really meant to post this in the other thread, and I think I still will. But no reason not to post it here, too. Feel free to respond to it in one place or the other.

[DigitalC]

I'm a Limey and have no dog in this fight but I've got to say that for some reason,maybe body language or facial expressions Hillary always seemed to come across as insincere.

I've no doubt that she was totally genuine and honest throughout the campaign but that was the perception that she gave me and talking to other people about it all but one agreed with me.


Now I know that hard logic means that you vote for the policies and not for the personality of the candidate but IRL that is not always the case.

I still honestly cant put my finger on the reason for my distrust in her,its not fair and its not rational but thats my perception of her.

It may be all the lying she does, just throwing that out there.

[gonzomax]

She voted for the war. She never got far enough from that.
Her hubby was the guy who started NAFTA leading to CAFTA and workers getting shafta.
Apparently women rallied but just not enough.

[cmyk]

Little Nemo, in posts 30 & 31, makes some strong points as to why Hillary lost. She was unprepared, took for granted that her nomination was a foregone conclusion, became deluded by it to the point when reality started to present the fact that she was losing, she took too long to accept it, and with no plan B, screwed herself. That's what you get for being cocky enough to think you won't have any real competition.

And I agree Lust4Life, her smile did make her look disingenuous. Especially when it's obvious your campaign is having some major problems, and she continues to talk as if they weren't happening. Also, a negative campaign always looks defensive in my eyes, and usually ends up back firing.

Being President is about the kinds of decisions you make under stressful situations as well as good planning and learning when to listen to your gut, rather that the traditional voices of "well that's how we've always done it in the past; that's what's always worked before." Looking at their respective campaigns, it's easy to see which would make the better President.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

One thing rarely, if ever, mentioned about her website, is that it was a moderated forum. I don't know how it operated once you were approved after your first post because I never bothered to find out. I went to her website, registered, and twice tried to post. Both times I was told that my posts would be reviewed before they would appear, at which point I just left.

To me, it represented one of the clear distinctions between the two candidates; one who made the campaign the "property" of his constituents, making it open to anyone and everyone to participate, and another who wanted to be in control and filter who and who could not participate. It said a great deal to me about how their respective presidencies would be run, as well.
Also, on YouTube, the videos put up by the Obama campaign were open to comments and, as far as I could tell, that meant open to ALL comments, negative as well as positive. The Clinton campaign's videos (such as they were) on YouTube did not allow comments.

That said a lot to me about the two candidates.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

This is a perfect answer. Yes, Obama "gamed" the system, winning the Nom, whilst HRC ran her campaign like it was the General Election.

Note that the race was very close, the Popular vote was within 1/10 of 1% either way.
Close only counts in horseshoes.

[RTFirefly]

Close only counts in horseshoes.Can't forget hand grenades.

1...2...5!

[cmyk]

Or nukes.

1...2...5!

That is right-out!

[Merkwurdigliebe]

Also, let's not forget about money. That's really the main thing that kept Obama in this thing. His ability to tap this donor base really kept his campaign going. Obama is like Howard Dean in that way, but better.

He is more likeable, is a far better politician, the nation is in a different place than it was 4 years ago, and Obama actually won the Iowa Caucuses. Had Howard Dean done so, he probably would have lost still, but it'd have been a longer fight.

[vison]

Ms. Clinton never looked like a winner. She "acted" like a winner, but it was an act and not a very good one. She seemed, to this outside observer, to demand your vote, she did not seem willing to convince you to vote for her, nor did it seem that she understood she had to earn it.

Mr. Obama has grace and ease, he appears natural. He appears to be undertaking a dialogue with you, as if he was a rational person talking to a rational person. It might be an act, too, I suppose, but if it is, it's a good act. He convinced me. I can't vote for him, but I'm up here in the Great White North rootin' for him.

[AuntiePam]

Hillary's going negative so early and so long on Obama cost her a lot of votes. Obama did a much better job holding the high ground, morally speaking.

Totally. Hillary came across like this was her one and only shot at the nomination, that it was her time. She was the front-runner before anyone even voted, and losing was unthinkable. Her political career would be over.

Obama, on the other hand, gave me the impression that "Hey, I'm a one-term senator and I'm African-American. I probably don't have a chance in hell but look at it this way: Nobody will be surprised if I don't win. It's a long shot. Losing to the front-runner won't kill my career. I can have another go at it in four years or eight years. I'll do the best I can for now and we'll see what happens."

Obama seemed to relax after he won Iowa. Hillary seemed tense and increasingly desperate. But she still acted like she had it in the bag when it was evident that it wasn't. She didn't act like an underdog. People like underdogs.

[Digital Stimulus]

The NYTimes has a bunch of Op-Ed pieces about Clinton's campaign: What Went Wrong? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/opinion/08intro.html). What I found most interesting about them is that I think the pieces say more about the authors than about the campaign.

Oh, and what a weaselly, snivelling ass Mark Penn is.

[cmyk]

Ms. Clinton never looked like a winner. She "acted" like a winner, but it was an act and not a very good one. She seemed, to this outside observer, to demand your vote, she did not seem willing to convince you to vote for her, nor did it seem that she understood she had to earn it.

Mr. Obama has grace and ease, he appears natural. He appears to be undertaking a dialogue with you, as if he was a rational person talking to a rational person. It might be an act, too, I suppose, but if it is, it's a good act. He convinced me. I can't vote for him, but I'm up here in the Great White North rootin' for him.

I agree with this. Hillary demanded respect and your vote for no other reason than she was the front-runner and a frickin' Clinton, dammit. Obama earned it.

I almost think Hillary would never had run unless she was convinced she was absolutely sure to win. Somebody forgot to tell her the primaries are a contest and not just a formality on the way to becoming president. Poor Hill.

[RTFirefly]

The NYTimes has a bunch of Op-Ed pieces about Clinton's campaign: What Went Wrong? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/opinion/08intro.html). What I found most interesting about them is that I think the pieces say more about the authors than about the campaign. What I noticed was that only one of their 13 commenters mentioned the war.

Oh, and what a weaselly, snivelling ass Mark Penn is.Yeppers to that.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Another thing about the whole website issue that got me was her boastful, singsong way of chanting "Hil-lar-y-Clin-ton-dot-com" like she (and her supporters chanting along) were showing off that they, too, had mastered the internet-thingy that all these clever young whippersnappers were using. "See? I'm not a withered old crone practicing the politics of the last millennium! We're all cool, vibrant, groovy, hep, with-it--whatever you young people are doing, we can do it too, especially if you give us a few years to watch you using the internet effectively and beating our semi-functional brains in with it! Ha, ha!"

[Desert Nomad]

One thing rarely, if ever, mentioned about her website, is that it was a moderated forum.

For me it was first and foremost the vote for war, followed by the censored web forum. If she is not going to be open to free expression n her site, how can she be free and transparent in any future policies?

She should have never censored her site.

[Musicat]

...Obama's "new" factor or his charisma...Bingo! I'd call it the JFK factor.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Also, I'd say it was a matter of character. Hillary's vote to go to war wasn't necessarily a sign of her deeply flawed character, because many Americans supported it at the time, but her almost psychotic refusal to fess up to simply making a big mistake, a tragic error, was that sign.

And she kept on displaying that character flaw. The election was all about her--when she kept saying during her un-concession speech "What does Hillary want?" (beware the egotist referring to self in third person), the real question was "Who gives a fuck what Hillary wants?" Her incredibly weak excuse for failing to realize on Tuesday night that she'd lost, and he'd won, and it was time (long past time) to move on already, was that she needed time to deal with the harsh reality.

Needed time? Needed time?? Didn't she notice the entire world had been telling her that she had zero path to the nomination for months now? Well, yes, she had--she complained about it incessantly, observed defiantly that people had been asking her to quit, quit now, quot already, wouldja, stick a fork in yourself, lady, etc., but still she professed to be shocked, shocked that somehow the nomination had slipped through her grasping little fingers.

The kicker was that this woman--who kept stubbornly refusing to grasp that simple truth--was the same woman who had made her case based on her ability to deal with a 3 AM phone call, the implication being that she was supremely capable of dealing with a crisis, coolly, on-the-spot, ready from day one--but somehow she couldn't assimilate the information that she'd lost the friggen nomination in less than 72 hours?

The harsh truth is that she was an empty pants-suit, who spent 18 months demonstrating that she would say anything, do anything, talk out of any orifice, to get nominated--and we caught on to that crucial truth, and somehow managed in the end to deny her the only thing she wanted.

[Jolly Roger]

Also, I'd say it was a matter of character. Hillary's vote to go to war wasn't necessarily a sign of her deeply flawed character, because many Americans supported it at the time, but her almost psychotic refusal to fess up to simply making a big mistake, a tragic error, was that sign.

And she kept on displaying that character flaw. The election was all about her--when she kept saying during her un-concession speech "What does Hillary want?" (beware the egotist referring to self in third person), the real question was "Who gives a fuck what Hillary wants?" Her incredibly weak excuse for failing to realize on Tuesday night that she'd lost, and he'd won, and it was time (long past time) to move on already, was that she needed time to deal with the harsh reality.

Needed time? Needed time?? Didn't she notice the entire world had been telling her that she had zero path to the nomination for months now? Well, yes, she had--she complained about it incessantly, observed defiantly that people had been asking her to quit, quit now, quot already, wouldja, stick a fork in yourself, lady, etc., but still she professed to be shocked, shocked that somehow the nomination had slipped through her grasping little fingers.

The kicker was that this woman--who kept stubbornly refusing to grasp that simple truth--was the same woman who had made her case based on her ability to deal with a 3 AM phone call, the implication being that she was supremely capable of dealing with a crisis, coolly, on-the-spot, ready from day one--but somehow she couldn't assimilate the information that she'd lost the friggen nomination in less than 72 hours?

The harsh truth is that she was an empty pants-suit, who spent 18 months demonstrating that she would say anything, do anything, talk out of any orifice, to get nominated--and we caught on to that crucial truth, and somehow managed in the end to deny her the only thing she wanted.

Which is kind of why I don't understand people saying "She's a good egg" after her speech on saturday. No she is not. I don't hate her, but I wouldn't want her for president. she's shown the worst of her character in this procedure, and while I believe she isn't the devil, I won't fail to take that in account when having to put up with her in the future. Forgive? Yeah. forget. No.

[cmyk]

Another thing about the whole website issue that got me was her boastful, singsong way of chanting "Hil-lar-y-Clin-ton-dot-com" like she (and her supporters chanting along) were showing off that they, too, had mastered the internet-thingy that all these clever young whippersnappers were using. "See? I'm not a withered old crone practicing the politics of the last millennium! We're all cool, vibrant, groovy, hep, with-it--whatever you young people are doing, we can do it too, especially if you give us a few years to watch you using the internet effectively and beating our semi-functional brains in with it! Ha, ha!"

Yes! That's the perfect way to put it, and the exact same vibe I got from the way her and her audience would sing that. They would all giggle and hi-five after singing it too, like the internet was some crazy, new-fangled, untamed, exciting thing.

[Jophiel]

Also, let's not forget about money. That's really the main thing that kept Obama in this thing. His ability to tap this donor base really kept his campaign going.Compounded by some real fiscal mismanagement on the parts of Hillary Clinton & Patti Solis Doyle. They managed to burn through a lot of cash in December and January, obviously under the assumption that the race would be over early. When it wasn't and Solis Doyle was hiding the books from Clinton and Clinton was hiding her self-loans from Solis Doyle, Clinton would spend the rest of the campaign playing catch-up. Worse yet, it was money spent on lavish treats for the campaign such as luxury hotels, fine catering, fancy transportation, etc instead of being spent on campaign offices and advertising.

I've heard more than one theory that the "Let's ignore the caucus states" wasn't entirely plain stupidity on Penn & Co.'s part but also due to a lack of resources to run field offices, work "Get Out The Vote" efforts, etc in those smaller states. What money Clinton had, she couldn't afford to split between the larger primaries and the smaller caucuses. I don't know if it would have changed the final results but having that reserve cash available in February & March might have made a difference.

[Captain Amazing]

The guy over at Electoral-Vote.com has his reasons, which sound good to me:

1. She acted like she had a right to the nomination
2. She actually believed it
3. She forgot she was in a primary
4. She didn't understand the rules
5. She ignored red-states and caucuses.
6. She didn't understand the Internet
7. She didn't run as a woman
8. She found her voice too late.

[BobLibDem]

She ran as the incumbent in a year that people wanted change. She kept pushing the "Ready on Day One (TM)" line long after it was proven to be ineffective. I think the reason that it didn't work was that there were two takes on Hillary's experience. Those who bought her argument that everything she did since law school was presidential-qualifying experience were already in her corner, and those who looked at her years as First Lady of Arkansas and of the US and asked "where's the beef?" weren't swayed by it. So I think she wasted a lot of time trying to make a point that part of the electorate had already bought and the other part were never going to.

I give Mark Penn a lot of credit for the loss. His presence on the staff guaranteed dysfunction. And if it is really true that he thought California was winner-take-all, then Hillary was very much badly served. They had a large war chest to start the campaign and spent lavishly early on (remember the Hillicopter?). It wasn't until after Super Tuesday that they had the first inkling that the campaign wouldn't be over on that day. Then panic set in and she decided to try the "kitchen sink" strategy. It drove up Obama's negatives, but not as much as it did hers. Instead of being despised by Republicans only, she was now hated by many Democrats. The media soured on her and she became fodder for the late night shows.

She could have won if she had denounced her own Iraq vote as Edwards had done. If she had contested the caucus states. If Bill hadn't enraged the black community. If she hadn't panicked after the early defeats and gone negative. If she hadn't had Mark Penn. If Jeremiah Wright had been discovered before Iowa. But mostly, if she wasn't running against Obama. She was like Lou Gehrig- durable and dependable, but it was Babe Ruth and his flamboyance that filled the stadiums much like Obama did. Perhaps nothing she could have done would have overcome his natural charisma.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

she wasted a lot of time trying to make a point that part of the electorate had already bought and the other part were never going to.

Which symbolized neatly, for me, the essential divisiveness of her campaign. "We're right, they're wrong, we have it in the bag, so we're not giving a moment's thought to any issues other than our own, which have been thought-out perfectly and need no reconsideration, thank you, and anyone who isn't with the program can go straight to hell. This nomination and election are ours, and if you don't like that, you'll have to live with it." Us vs. Them, Ins vs. Outs, people who are with me vs. people who are against me--I've had enough of that, and I caught on very early (she's my Senator) to her politics of divisiveness: I don't like them any more coming from a Democrat than I do coming from a Republican.

I suspect one reason a lot of Obamaites, including me, are indulging in a little malicious pleasure in her loss is the sweetness of the inevitable, never-in-doubt, down-but-never-out, never-say-die candidate finally being forked. BobLibDem is right: she oversold her qualifications, and to people who were only buyiing from her if they got a very soft sell from her. I might have bought "I think I've got a little more experience around the Executive branch than Barack, who's a marvelously qualified candidate in many respects, and I think I'll have a shorter learning curve than he will. I hope that edge is enough for the voters to pick me, because I think this is such a crucial time that even that advantage may be critical. But whichever way you go, we both will bring much needed change to the White House" rather than the message of "Ready from Day one! Wake me up in the middle of the night and tell me bombs are exploding, I've been there, done that, I'm totally ready to handle any crisis any day, every day, non-stop, and I'm the only one who is, not like Mr. First-term Senator who once gave one speech six years ago and is acting like he's fit to stand on the same podium as me..."

[Liberal]

I suspect one reason a lot of Obamaites, including me, are indulging in a little malicious pleasure in her loss is the sweetness of the inevitable, never-in-doubt, down-but-never-out, never-say-die candidate finally being forked.As a talking head on MSNBC said this morning, "The Clintons will never leave the building."

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

As a talking head on MSNBC said this morning, "The Clintons will never leave the building."

ElvisL1ves!

[Voyager]

Also, on YouTube, the videos put up by the Obama campaign were open to comments and, as far as I could tell, that meant open to ALL comments, negative as well as positive. The Clinton campaign's videos (such as they were) on YouTube did not allow comments.

That said a lot to me about the two candidates.

I wasn't aware of that, but it figures. Hillary reminds me of some of the bad points of Bush. This seems just like Bush not allowing anyone unprogrammed to speak the party line into rallies. When the Super Tuesday shock and awe plan failed, she had no backup. She went negative far too often, and it showed. She seemed to have a real problem admitting she was wrong - I got the feeling that four years into a Clinton presidency, she, like Bush, wouldn't be able to come up with an answer when asked about mistakes she had made.
Despite her so-called experience, Obama was far better organized than she was.

Plus, she let Obama set the tone for the campaign. She, and the Republicans, just sounded stupid trying to get on the change bandwagon, like Fred saying that the real way to change was to go back to 1783.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

Remember the helicopter tour (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/16/politics/fromtheroad/entry3623767.shtml) ?

That's a fine example of how she managed to seem entitled, out of touch, and bad with funds in one fell swoop.

[Lakai]

Obama includes the people in his speeches. He is always saying things like we will change the nation, we will come together, and other things like that.

With Hillary it is always about what she alone can do. Talk about disengaging the people from politics, one candidate says we'll change the nation while the other says sit back and let me do everything. One of these people doesn't understand that change doesn't come from one person, it comes from a large movement of the people.

The community organizer gets this.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Obama includes the people in his speeches. He is always saying things like we will change the nation, we will come together, and other things like that.

With Hillary it is always about what she alone can do. Talk about disengaging the people from politics, one candidate says we'll change the nation while the other says sit back and let me do everything. One of these people doesn't understand that change doesn't come from one person, it comes from a large movement of the people.

The community organizer gets this.Agreed -- this struck me again and again, how the Obama rhetorical focus (and the machinery of his campaign) put "us" center stage, while with Clinton it was overwhelmingly "me".