Cite?
Nope, Hillary is done and this campaign speaks very poorly of her “experience,” Or whatever the hell you want to call it. She’s not a particularly amazing Senator either. I’d like to hear some detailed information on what she’s actually done as a senator while we’re all here trying to felate her about that record.
Look at how she’s run her campaign? She had no idea she was broke. She wasn’t involved in the funds area. She spent 4 million on a useless strategist, Mark Penn, who with so many advantages still found a way to lose. Name recognition, Democratic establishment, etc… None if it was good enough to overcome her mistakes. She simply had never planned on it going past February 5. Why? Because she’s short-sighted. She thought that somehow the primaries started in January of 2007 and that her time as “front-runner” counted for something. They didn’t.
She has no organization at all these days and is gasping for air. THAT’S why I’m glad she won’t be President. She chose to be oblivious to reality, or at the very least she chose to delegate that to people who are terrible at it.
I can’t really say that Hillary has accomplished anything particularly impressive on her own. She keeps touting her experience with UHC in the 90’s as experience when what she really did is give us no plan vs. a bad one for 15 years.
Seriously, how can anyone look at all of her advantages she had in the beginning, look at how she has fallen, and look at all the mistakes she’s made, and say that she wouldn’t have been a disastrous president. One of the great things about campaigning is that it is a good test of who a good President is. You have to be able to pull it off. Bush did so because he had a lot of support from trusted people which continues to help him today. Hillary is starting to look that way.
Excellent observation and conclusion. You might enjoy this article at Huffington Post.
Not that I want to start this up again, but The NYTimes is running a story today When Winning the Delegates Isn’t Enough. Basically, the story is about both camps making efforts to “protect” the delegates they’ve earned, giving the Hart/Mondale primary as an example of where some delegates defected. It most decidedly does not confirm the rumour from Politico.com, nor am I saying that it does. But, of note is the following:
I note again that there’s no explicit statement about going after Obama’s pledged delegates, but it sure does hit that ambiguous grey area.
Your example does not seem to support your hypothesis.
How would you know, anyway? People who don’t win elections tend not to get a chance to be president, so there’s no basis for comparison.
Don’t count her out, folks. I just watched her attack Obama on the health care and nafta fliers- apparently ad hoc and unplanned. She looks angry but strong. If I were a supporter, I’d take heart from this.
I am wondering if her data suggests that Texas wants her to unite and Ohio wants her to fight. But to be honest she seems genuinely frustrated by the fliers. “Shame on you, Barack Obama.” A headline statement, but she seemed in control and repeated it several times.
Is this going to work? Why is she whipsawing like this? Is it intended?
Is this going to work? No.
Why is she whipsawing like this? Desperation.
Is it intended? Clearly. And she’s a fool to keep listening to the advisors who are telling her to take this tac, as it has backfired against her every single time she’s tried to use it.
I’m not concerned.
Worth pointing out that her example of Obama’s dishonest tactics is that he’s pointing out that she will force people to buy health insurance. I thought that was supposed to be a point in her favor, not a lie about her.
I’m not concerned, I’m curious. Academically. I can’t figure this campaign out. But I always assume that they know more about these things than I do, which may be unwarranted.
Don’t. Perhaps they know more about how to campaign successfully in the past. But now they’re up against a smarter, more organized and nicer candidate than they ever dreamed of. If they knew what they were doing, they wouldn’t have had the major shakeup in their staff in the middle of the campaign. If they knew what they were doing, they wouldn’t have blown an enormous lead and over a hundred million dollars with little to show for it.
Here’s why I think she’s going to lose in Texas. Play the embedded video to get a true feel for the power of Obama’s campaign.
That’s a march for voter’s rights, not for the Obama Campaign.
What percentage of those people do you think were marching to go vote for Clinton?
Uhhh, did you watch the video? You can clearly hearing them shout: OHHHH…BAAAAM…AHHHHH - OHH…BAAM…AHHH…
I doubt they were doing that for Clinton.
Uhhh, i heard them shouting PPPP VVVV UUUU
who ya voting for?
and a combination of HILL AA REE and OHH BAA MA. Although more oh ba ma.
I’m not saying Obama dosen’t have supporters in that group, I’m saying they aren’t marching specifically for him. It’s for voter’s rights and unrelated to the Obama Campaign.
A small one. My point is that they are marching for disfranchisement, not for the Obama campaign, as was implied.
Now maybe if we had some marches in Michigan for disfranchisement…
I was having a tough time figuring this campaign out as well a few months ago, I was wondering when Obama was going to surpass Clinton, if he was going to be able to. Now that he has I define this campaign like this: Some people - some millions of people - are standing behind a man because he speaks to exactly what they want to hear without being fake or dishonest. His speech to the auto workers last year, his 04’ convention speech - he harkens to the prolitariate and they listen because they believe him. Clinton and her unorganized campaign never eally stood a chance against Obama because he played the honest card. He doesn’t appeal to so many people because he is a nice talker, he appeals to so many people because he speaks from his heart. I hear Clinton and I really do listen to what she has to say and my gut tells me she is not talking to me, but to some entity higher than any of us - her own ego. She had a chance at the debate last week to prove herself, and she started off nicely. Then after all the love she went on the attack- after that the crowd hissed and booed. Luckily she ended with this phrase: “I am honored to be sitting next to Mr.Barack Obama…”. I thought that was an eloquent way to end the debate…but how do you end a debate like that then start right up with the negatives and smearing…
Sorry, but she’s talking out of the corner of her mouth on national television and she’s turning a lot of people away by doing it. She should fire her campaign manager because whoever is telling her to go negative is dead wrong.
I didn’t imply that. And in fact, you made my point for me in this very reply. Clearly the website spells out the purpose of the march. The audio of the march, however, supports the contention that Barack Obama has HUGE support there, much more than the “small one” you acknowledge Hillary had in that video.
Indeed. See this New Yorker article.
The Hillary hits the fan – video.
Reminiscent of Dean’s self-inflicted deathly holler I must say.
Oh, and for the record, you might want to read this article after viewing the spew – that’s if you’re able to sit through the whole thing.
Going Negative: Audacity of attacks
And she has the yarbles to pull this shit now? Cripes, talk about desperate times…