Epic Fail: The Hillary Clinton Story


For months, newspapers and magazines have been sitting on their Hillary Clinton obituaries, adding details from loose-lipped Clintonland exiles, waiting for the former frontrunner's campaign to finally hit the reef. First, Jackie Calmes at the Wall Street Journal:

The bottom line is this: She called the biggest plays, and she got them wrong.

This contrasts with the bottom lines of Michelle Cottle's sources:

One respondent sent in a list of Top 25 screw ups, the first three being:

1. Patti
2. Solis
3. Doyle

While from another corner came another list, reading:

1. Mark Penn
2. Mark Penn
3. Mark Penn

Solis Doyle being Clinton's overmatched campaign manager, who got the job after being her assistant since 1993, and Penn being the "microtrend" pollster who thought what the country really wanted in 2008 was technocratic answers to mundane problems. I think even a badly-run campaign, though, could have survived if its candidate made a different decision six years ago. If Hillary Clinton had voted against the authority to go into Iraq, there never would have been enough oxygen to fuel the rise of someone like Obama. The modern Democratic party has a book of Genesis with two chapters: the "stolen election" of 2000 and the "war built on lies." If Clinton had voted against the war, even if (especially if) she'd voted for every funding package after that, she'd be entering the general election as the most credible critic of Iraq policy. She could get away with a whole lot on her broader foreign policy views as long as she opposed Iraq from the get-go. But she didn't, and she got tangled in the same spider web as John Kerry.

That said, let's laugh at Clinton's misteps.

When one insider pleaded during meetings in 2007 to humanize the candidate, witnesses say Mr. Penn responded: "Being human is overrated." His polls, he said, showed "soft stuff" -- talking about Sen. Clinton's mother, for example -- had no effect. Her early attacks on Sen. Obama, on the other hand, had moved numbers in her favor. "People don't care if you have a beer with the guys after work, or whether you're warm and fuzzy about your mother," Mr. Penn argued -- they care about issues like health care.

Sen. Clinton, issue-oriented and intensely private, backed Mr. Penn.

She ended up compensating for that "beer after work" thing, huh?

Veteran Iowa organizer Steve Hildebrand had sought a job with Sen. Clinton in mid-2006. In a 45-minute interview, the senator talked about congressional elections but never mentioned the coming presidential race, Mr. Hildebrand says. Months later, he signed on as Sen. Obama's deputy campaign manager and oversaw his Iowa push.

Joe Trippi, formerly of the Howard Dean machine, also reportedly sought a job with Clinton and was turned down. His big idea was to mobilize Clinton's army of white women into a Dean-like fundraising ATM. In retrospect, now that Clinton supporters are rending their garmets at Rules and Bylaws Committee and threatening to start a third party, that probably would have worked.

Also, more evidence that it's over for Clinton unless something truly damaging, Eagleton-like comes out about Obama: Some of his over-the-top delegate surge last night came from people who switched from Clinton, like Pennsylvania's Ian Murray, Washington's Ron Sims, Minnesota's Rick Stafford, Georgia's Michael Thurmond, and a few others we're going to see popping up.

Who should Obama choose as a running mate? Obviously, Colin Powell. He fixes Obama's national security deficit, strengthens the Republican/independent appeal, and completes Obama's narrative about post-partisanship.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Johnny Thunders...

    Cool.

  • Brian Defferding||

    I think many Big L and small l libertarians saw the writing on the wall for her a long time ago. Hillary had "power hungry" written all over, and it showed in her campaign along with her history as Senator and First Lady. She didn't want to be President, she wanted to be Chancellor Clinton; her penchant for secrecy and her admittance to wanting Congress/Senate to be under the President's power, I feel, is the core cause in her undoing.

    While I'm not celebrating in the slightest that Obama is going ahead with the nomination (and most likely our next President), I am relieved to know Hillary is out of the running for President.

    Of course, that relief could be short lived if she gets either the VP slot or a cabinet position, but we'll see...

  • ||

    "People don't care if you have a beer with the guys after work, or whether you're warm and fuzzy about your mother," Mr. Penn argued -- they care about issues like health care.

    Subconsciously, I do have to believe that little insignificant crap does affect how a lot of people see you. Hillary does seem private, guarded even, and although that's not necessarily a bad thing, I don't think it helped her.

  • ||

    from the "to start a third party" link:

    HillaryGrassrootsCampaign.com is not associated with the official Hillary Clinton campaign. However, the organization says it is filled with disaffected supporters who are ready to be "former" Democrats because of the contempt and disregard that has been shown to the many party faithful who support Sen. Clinton's presidential candidacy.

    Isn't this the same sad fantasy that is always trotted out after a losing GOP campaign that the theocrats might split off into a largely-ignorable minor party?

    Go on, women over 60 and feminists. Split off the Democrats. Come get a taste of being a libertarian where no one gives a rat's ass what you think on a national level.

  • ||

    I'll bet the first thing she does after this all blows over is to divorce Bill.

  • ||

    I'll bet the first thing she does after this all blows over is to divorce Bill.

    No way. He's still her personal ATM.

  • ||

    No, she needs him for 2012, and 2016, and 2020 ad all subsequent presidential campaigns. She's poised to be the white female Jesse Jackson, constantly running for president. Eventually she just become a "women's issue" talking head in the punditocracy until she's felled by some fashionable feminist disease, like breast cancer. There will be a great feminist wailing and gnashing of teeth and pink ribbons all over everything. After a few years we'll get to vote on which pantsuit she should be in on the stamp. The End.

  • Wooden Stake, Silver Bullet||

    Anybody know where we can find Ms. Clinton?

  • ||

    Sorry, meant to say "and all subsequent" no "ad all subsequent." I have a head cold.

  • ||

    Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 Democratic primary, after having voted for the war, to the most talented politician in our lifetimes, by a razor-thin margin. Along the way, she won more votes by a good margin than any other primary candidate had ever done. After dropping behind Obama, she retooled, came back, and was just about drawing even with him when the clock ran out.

    Talking about her "mistakes" and "poor performance" is foolish. She ran a great campaign. He ran a slightly better one.

  • ||

    joe -
    She let him get his foot in the door. That was her biggest mistake.

  • ||

    everything else was minor in comparisson

  • ||

    When one insider pleaded during meetings in 2007 to humanize the candidate, witnesses say Mr. Penn responded: "Being human is overrated." His polls, he said, showed "soft stuff" -- talking about Sen. Clinton's mother, for example -- had no effect. Her early attacks on Sen. Obama, on the other hand, had moved numbers in her favor. "People don't care if you have a beer with the guys after work, or whether you're warm and fuzzy about your mother," Mr. Penn argued -- they care about issues like health care.

    And Penn was right. Soft, humanized Hillary fell behind Obama in February. Tough, pugnacious Hillary stormed back in March through May.

    It was just barely not enough.

  • Episiarch||

    After a few years we'll get to vote on which pantsuit she should be in on the stamp. The End.

    Now that's a concise summation. Nicely done, NutraSweet.

    Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 Democratic primary, after having voted for the war, to the most talented politician in our lifetimes, by a razor-thin margin.

    joe, he's talented at making you (and some other Democrats) swoon. That doesn't make him the most talented politician in our lifetimes. Hagiographize* much?

    * a new word for you all

  • ||

    In retrospect, her big mistake was not strangling Obama in the grave. If she publicized all the Wright stuff prior to Iowa, Obama's campaign would have never got off the ground. Obviously her thinking was that two anti-Hillary candidates were better than one, and maybe that was right, and if she had killed Obama we'd be looking at Edwards as the nominee.

    And how on earth does the media have this "exact" delegate count? Anybody who has been following the Paul campaign realizes the delegate process is a lot more complicated than CNN pretends it is. I guess they prefer pretending their rough estimates are gospel because reporting the truth would require thinking and work that make most reporters brain's hurt, but it gives legitimacy to the gripe of Hillary supporters that the media is trying to hand the thing to Barack. The Superdelegate thing too. How can count people that can change their minds at will and don't make their final decision till convention time? As of now, any Superdelegate poll is nothing but a poll, and if polls decided elections then Hillary would be preparing to face off against Rudy right now.

    To me this election is all about keeping us out of a war in Iran. Hillary, for all her other faults, would probably do that. By pushing Barack (who can't win) on us, the media is ensuring McCain wins and we as a nation kill a lot more people.

  • ||

    joe, he's talented at making you (and some other Democrats) swoon.

    Actually, he's leading in the national polls and winning independents by a good margin. But don't let the facts interfere with your narrative.

  • ed||

    most talented politician in our lifetimes

    Really? In what way? Rhetorically? I agree. Mush-brained Americans will swallow almost anything these days. Add a bit of lingering guilt over race, Bush fatigue, a very polarizing, unsympathetic Clinton and this empty-suit nobody could take it all. It says more about us than him, but that's life.

  • ||

    And how on earth does the media have this "exact" delegate count?

    How does Obama have .5 of a delegate? Did one of them lose their legs in an accident, or did a black female canidate literally undergo mitosis so she wouldn't have to choose? And where is the other half? Is it a tie break thing?

  • ||

    Oh, and he lost Democrats to Hillary.

    More of those pesky facts.

  • Taktix&#174||

    joe,

    You can lecture us on looking at this rationally tomorrow. Today is officially "Dance on Hillary's Campaign's Grave" Day.

    Whoo Hoo!
    No more monarchy!
    Screw that bitch!
    Screw the Clintons!
    Adios HillaryCare!
    Goodbye to the shrill voice of lying through teeth!
    Obama sucks, but at least he ain't a Clinton!
    I can't wait to see Bill go bananas now that his behavior can't ruin any politicking!

  • Episiarch||

    Actually, he's leading in the national polls and winning independents by a good margin. But don't let the facts interfere with your narrative.

    Yes, of course, the super-accurate always-right polls. I forgot to check them.

    I'm only trying to help you, joe. I'm worried that if Obama flames out, or there actually are Michelle Obama-"whitey" tapes, or Obama just loses, you might do something drastic. I'm only saying this because I care--there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.

  • ||

    Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 Democratic primary, after having voted for the war, to the most talented politician in our lifetimes, by a razor-thin margin.

    Well sense he's done nothing of any significance in his political career, I have no evidence to argue with you.

  • ||

    ed,

    "Rhetorically" covers a lot of ground.

    What's at least as impressive is that he put together an organization that beat the Clinton machine. He out-organized her in the caucus states, had more and better field offices, and manipulated the media cycle brilliantly.

    ...a very polarizing, unsympathetic Clinton... You mean, the one you spent a year assuring us owned the Democratic Party, was guaranteed the nomination, and only a blind partisan fool wouldn't realize that?

  • ||

    Yes, of course, the super-accurate always-right polls. I forgot to check them.

  • Episiarch||

    Oh, and he lost Democrats to Hillary.

    I will admit that I don't understand your or any other Democrats' mentality, but the mechanics of that battle have little bearing on the national scene.

  • ||

    As opposed to your always-right, super-accurate feelings, I guess.

    Yep, the consistent, oft-replicated poll aggregation probably are a better measure of the state of the race than your feelings.

    Since I vastly outperformed you in predictions and analysis of how this race was going and how it would turn out, Episiarch, you should probably drop the condescending tone, sit quietly, and try to learn something.

  • Taktix&#174||

    I wonder how New Yorkers feel, now that they wasted their Senatorial seat for the last 8 years as a political stepping stone.

    Out of curiosity, since married couples file taxes jointly, and are basically considered a single unit by the Federal government, wouldn't Hillary getting elected by the same as electing the Clinton household to a third term, and therefore unconstitutional?

  • Episiarch||

    What's at least as impressive is that he put together an organization that beat the Clinton machine. He out-organized her in the caucus states, had more and better field offices, and manipulated the media cycle brilliantly.

    joe, if your man-crush was any stronger I'd be worried about you passing notes to other Democrats asking if Obama liked you with little hearts dotting each "i" and a smiley face in the "O" of "Obama".

  • ||

    strangling Obama in the grave

    sweeeet

  • ||

    I will admit that I don't understand your or any other Democrats' mentality

    No, you don't. Which is why you should stop holding forth on it.

  • No Name Guy||

    Shes still not out, she refuses to leave. Its like she doesn't know how. Like she can't say the words "I've lost". When is someone going to get the cane, hook it around her and pull her offstage for good? Obama needs to demonstrate that this is his party now. If he doesn't, hes going to look weak.

  • ||

    Episiarch, your tears are so sweet and yummy.

    I love the fact that merely stating accurate facts drives you this crazy.

    It' s

  • ||

    ...funny, you used to tell me Hillary Clinton was my girlfriend, because I'd point out facts about HER that interfered with the little stories you were telling yourself about HER campaign.

  • Taktix&#174||

    Since I vastly outperformed you in predictions and analysis of how this race was going and how it would turn out, Episiarch, you should probably drop the condescending tone, sit quietly, and try to learn something.

    Looks like someone needs a timeout.

    What's the matter, joe, a little upset your girl didn't land the plane?

  • Episiarch||

    Since I vastly outperformed you in predictions and analysis of how this race was going and how it would turn out, Episiarch, you should probably drop the condescending tone, sit quietly, and try to learn something.

    Hmm. I don't recall making a lot of predictions, joe. I know that you will immediately go to the search engine and spend about 15 minutes trying to track some down, and will not post during that time. If you do find anything it will probably be a joke or something thrown out in passing. You will then claim "victory" and defend said "victory" with every ounce of energy in your little body.

    How am I doing with my predictions?

  • No Name Guy||

    So is everyone ready to admit, even those on the left, that Newt Gingrich's mom was right about Hillary?

  • stephen the goldberger||

    Joe, you have to admit, the nomination was her's to lose. She had all the money, and all the support behind the scenes, and she lost barely to a guy who's only been a senator for 3-4 years.

    That is truly remarkable failure, and there must be reasons behind it other than "Obama's just that great!"

  • ||

    Taktix,

    In case you didn't notice, I'm an Obama supporter, and have been since Richardson and Dodd dropped out.

    Maybe there's some other reason why one might believe Hillary Clinton ran a good campaign. What could it possibly be?

  • ||

    the most talented politician in our lifetimes

    Maybe we should wait until he wins an election against someone other than Alan Keyes before we decide on this.

  • Taktix&#174||

    Maybe there's some other reason why one might believe Hillary Clinton ran a good campaign. What could it possibly be?

    Bullshit, her support was 90% name recognition, 10% knee-jerk feminism.

    How else would you explain why her poll numbers dropped every time she opened her mouth?

  • ||

    stephen the goldberger,

    She was certainly in a strong position at the outset, but the Democratic Party doesn't have coronations. It has primaries.

    A factor that isn't getting enough press - which is funny, because it used to - is Obama's internet fundraising. He beat her in the money game even before he caught up to her in the polls, largely on the strength of his backing on liberal web sites, and his dominance on the internet.

    It really has worked as a great leveller. It's greatly reduced the importance of old school political machines, for fundraising, for organizing, and for getting your name out there.

    Just ask record-setter Ron Paul about that.

  • ||

    I'm very proud of the respect I've earned
    And my voice is very deep cause my throat got burned
    Bleach keeps you young so I've been told
    Cause no one who drinks it lives to get old
    Drink it with a chaser was the first thing that I learned

    Don't you wanna hang out with the Bleach Boys baby?
    In a world where midgets run for mayor
    Don't you wanna drink some bleach tonight?



    It's that kind of day.

    I think many people sense, viscerally, that Hillary represents more of the same; nothing about the mechanics of Washington would be affected by a Hillary regime. Obama hit it right with his "song of change".
    It remains to be seen if it's all complete bullshit. I'm not very optimistic; and not all change is for the better. I'm expecting a serious case of "buyers' remorse".

  • Episiarch||

    Maybe there's some other reason why one might believe Hillary Clinton ran a good campaign.

    Because it bolsters your belief that Jesus Obama ran the greatest race since George Washington?

  • ||

    The hierarchical patriarchy strikes again. You pigs.

  • ||

    Oh, and she lost barely to a guy who's only been a senator for 3-4 years.

    I think that Washington experience is a big net loss for a candidate at this point in our political history. Ask Chris Dodd and Joe Biden about that.

  • ||

    Who should Obama choose as a running mate? Obviously, Colin Powell. He fixes Obama's national security deficit, strengthens the Republican/independent appeal, and completes Obama's narrative about post-partisanship.

    He also runs totally against Genesis, Chapter 2 of the Democratic Party (war built on lies).

  • No Name Guy||

    Obama didn't win as much as Hillary (with generous "help" from former President Pump Head) lost.

    Theres something not right with that woman. Who else would not have dropped out after your opposing candidate has won the nomination? I can't even see Dick Nixon doing that.

  • Episiarch||

    Hey, the Dead Milkmen. Nice. Do you have yourself a punk rock girl, P Brooks?

  • ||

    Bullshit, her support was 90% name recognition, 10% knee-jerk feminism.

    I used to believe that. I thought she was the Joe Lieberman of 2008. He once had a commanding lead in the 2004 Democratic primary, and it was all name recognition. But I was wrong. She won 17 million+ votes, and won contests right up to the end! I'll tell you, those Appalacian voters weren't motivated by "kneejerk feminism."

    How else would you explain why her poll numbers dropped every time she opened her mouth? They didn't. That "regular gal" shtick she put on starting in PA worked.

  • ||

    Episiarch - Great Top Secret reference.

  • No Name Guy||

    For being such a great candidate, Obama is letting Hillary Clinton play him (and the press) like a violin for the last day. Shes still managed to make it all about her, even though she has clearly lost.

  • ||

    Because it bolsters your belief that Jesus Obama ran the greatest race since George Washington?

    The guy with nothing to back up his assertions except feelings shouldn't lecture those of us who have objective reality on our side.

  • ||

    I don't think that, when the election is essentially yours to lose and you have decades of political experience, you can indicate that she still won the popular vote and claim that this shows that she really did run a great campaign.

    Let's say that I'm a seasoned pro top-5 tennis player who's the heavy favorite in a semi-final match up against a guy who is surely talented, but makes a lot of unforced errors and has little experience. If I lose the big match, I can't very well say "well, I won more points" or "I won more of the long rallies" and expect everyone to be convinced that I really did win except for the kid got in a few lucky shots, especially when my unforced error tally was even higher than my opponents. You played a shitty game and should have wiped the court with even a really talented up-and-comer - now own up.

  • Taktix&#174||

    I think that Washington experience is a big net loss for a candidate at this point in our political history. Ask Chris Dodd and Joe Biden about that.

    Yeah, there's no way the two major parties will run a couple Senators...

    Er.. uhh...

  • Hillary Clinton||

    Shes still not out, she refuses to leave. Its like she doesn't know how. Like she can't say the words "I've lost". When is someone going to get the cane, hook it around her and pull her offstage for good? Obama needs to demonstrate that this is his party now. If he doesn't, hes going to look weak.

    Awful nice Democratic Party you got there. Sure would be a shame if anything happened to it...

  • zoltan||

    Has no one commented on that last sentence because they thought it was a joke? Come on, I want to hear an argument about that than watching the joe show on every thread. Colin Powell: discuss.

    In retrospect, now that Clinton supporters are rending their garmets at Rules and Bylaws Committee and threatening to start a third party, that probably would have worked.

    Garments is spelled wrong.

  • ||

    For being such a great candidate, Obama is letting Hillary Clinton play him (and the press) like a violin for the last day. Shes still managed to make it all about her, even though she has clearly lost.

    Actually, now that Obama has it sewn up, it's in his interest to cede the floor to Hil and not do anything that might be perceived by her or her supporters as gloating.

  • Taktix&#174||

    I'll tell you, those Appalacian voters weren't motivated by "kneejerk feminism."

    Nope, they're motivated by knee-jerk racism. So they went for the next biggest name on the ticket...

  • ||

    I can't very well say "well, I won more points" or "I won more of the long rallies" and expect everyone to be convinced that I really did win

    I'm not claiming she "really did win," just that she played a good match. Her vote total, and the closeness of the race, and her continued lead over McCain, all demonstrate that she did.

    Wow, Taktix, you're the first person I've ever seen claim that Obama has too much Washington experience, and is seen as a DC insider, because of his time in the Senate.

  • Episiarch||

    Episiarch - Great Top Secret reference.

    Actually, it's a Real Genius reference, Brian.

  • ||

    Nope, they're motivated by knee-jerk racism.

    I'm sure a lot of them were, but there was also a lot of residual affection for Bill Clinton, which transferred to her. The 1990s were the first period in a long, long time where areas like western PA, West Virginia, and other parts of Appalacia saw meaningful economic growth.

    TVA Democrats LOVE the Clintons.

  • No Name Guy||

    Brian, that only makes sense to do if she would be graceful enough to concede, or at the very least suspend her campaign. Thats what 99% of politicians do when they lose campaign. But not Hillary!

    Shes so craven shes going to have to be forcibly removed, screaming and crying, off the Presidential stage.

  • ||

    Do you have yourself a punk rock girl, P Brooks?

    Unfortunately, no.

  • Episiarch||

    The guy with nothing to back up his assertions except feelings shouldn't lecture those of us who have objective reality on our side.

    Hmm, joe, I don't think there's a single person that agrees with your "objective reality", from Weigel to anyone else. That doesn't mean you're wrong and we're right, but you might want to rein back on the smugness. I know it's hard for you, but you can do it, joe! YES YOU CAN!

  • Taktix&#174||

    joe,

    I'm not claiming Obama to be a Washington insider, just that he's a Washington politician.

    No governors are running, no wealthy businessmen either. Shit, there's no wacky computer programmer from Texas on a third party ticket.

    Nope, with the exception of the Constitution Party (fair exception, right?), the four largest parties are running Washington politicians. Kind of ruins your little narrative about the electorate wanting something other than Washington politicians. Who's dealing with reality now?

  • Kolohe||

    . She ran a great campaign. He ran a slightly better one.

    This is like saying the Patriots played a great game by the Giants played a better one. Yeah, it was a close game, but it shouldn't have been one.

  • Taktix&#174||

    I'm sure a lot of them were, but there was also a lot of residual affection for Bill Clinton, which transferred to her. The 1990s were the first period in a long, long time where areas like western PA, West Virginia, and other parts of Appalacia saw meaningful economic growth.

    TVA Democrats LOVE the Clintons.


    Thanks for proving my point, that she was based mostly on name recognition...

  • ||

    Sorry, but politics always demands this Dead Milkman song...

    It's a boring day - I've got nothing to do
    Except to get a load of retards
    and drive 'em to the zoo

    Oh oh oh takin' retards to the zoo

    Load 'em on a bus just for laughs
    Down a winding road stepping on the gas
    Down a winding road just daydreaming
    Down a winding road with the retards screaming

    Oh oh oh takin' retards to the zoo

    One of them blowing a big spit bubble
    Slam on the brakes at the first sign of trouble
    Head on collision bodies everywhere
    Head on collision retards beware

    Oh oh oh takin' retards to the zoo

  • ||

    just that she played a good match.

    But that's just the point. If you should have wiped the floor with your opponent, *almost* winning is never considered a good match unless you can show that you played to the best of your ability and were still beaten.

  • ||

    Epi, was it a dream where you see yourself standing in sort of sun-god robes on a pyramid with a thousand naked women screaming and throwing little pickles at you?

  • ||

    Just wait 'til Hillary walks onto the podium in Denver wearing a suicide-bomber vest.

  • No Name Guy||

    BTW, check out McCain's new sit design. Hes totally ripped off Obama, complete with rising blue sun in the back and A LEADER WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

  • Episiarch||

    Why am I the only person that has that dream?

  • kinnath||

    Colin Powell: discuss.

    My first thought was "Two black men on the ticket will never work"

    I am so racist.

  • Episiarch||

    How can Powell work? Weigel was obviously joking.

  • Taktix&#174||

    The Patriots analogy is spot on.

    She should have had this locked up by Super Tuesday. This was a huge upset.

    And let's not forget about the Operation Chaos vote...

  • ||

    No governors are running, no wealthy businessmen either.

    What I'm saying is, because of the short time he's been in Washington, he isn't seen as a "Washington politician," but as an outsider. The talk about his inexperience hasn't hurt him, but has helped him, because it promotes the idea that he's not a Washington politician. He doesn't get the blame for the mistakes DC has made in the past few years, and he isn't perceived as part of the DC scene. Especially when he's being compared to Clinton and McCain.

  • Taktix&#174||

    "Two black men on the ticket will never work"

    Might be racist.

    "Two black men on the ticket will never work in America"

    Might be prescient.

  • ||

    Yeah, it was a close game, but it shouldn't have been one.

    The Giants' D-line was real. It wasn't "supposed to be" a close game, in the sense that everybody had an unrealistic overestimation of the Patriots, and an underestimation of the Giants.

    I don't think the Giants were a fluke, and I don't think Obama was a fluke.

  • zoltan||

    kinnath, my thoughts exactly. It's not racist to think that other people won't vote that way. That's what surprised me about that ticket.

  • Episiarch||

    So no luck with the predictions site search then, joe?

  • ||

    Colin Powell?
    No. That would not work.
    Does anyone else remember him sitting in front of the UN making the case for war with Iraq over weapons of mass destruction? Whether he knew or not, "I was fooled by Bush" is no longer a publicly acceptable excuse for those who were in the administration at the time.

  • ||

    So no luck with the predictions site search then, joe?

    What are you talking about?

    You know what? I don't care what you're talking about. Actual adults with actual ideas are more interesting to talk to.

  • ed||

    you spent a year assuring us [Clinton] owned the Democratic Party, was guaranteed the nomination, and only a blind partisan fool wouldn't realize that

    No, I said long ago when others had already crowned her that she'd never be president and might not even get the nomination.

  • ||

    The Giants basically pulled off one majorly fantastic play in addition to very good defense. I don't think they're as good of an analogy as could be, but the point remains clear.

    Unless of course, you're suggesting that Hillary was actually a not a strong favorite to begin with and that all the estimates of her being one were unbased. I wouldn't make that claim, and I suspect that had she kicked Obama's ass to the curb, our Democratic Party fans here wouldn't have said "yeah, but she's still not a very strong candidate."

  • ed||

    I also said it would take a wooden stake through her heart to finally finish her off. I still believe that.

  • Episiarch||

    You know what? I don't care what you're talking about. Actual adults with actual ideas are more interesting to talk to.

    Don't cry, joe. Still wondering why your "objective reality" isn't supported by a single person.

  • kinnath||

    So what does each candidate need in a VP?

    Obama needs a socially-conservative, white woman to appeal to the populist wing of the Democratic party (and to be a Hillary clone without actually running with Hillary).

    I have no idea who McCain needs, but I have a nagging concern that it could be Lieberman.

  • Taktix&#174||

    What I'm saying is, because of the short time he's been in Washington, he isn't seen as a "Washington politician," but as an outsider.

    I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing your assertion that Washington experience is a net loss.

    Democrats: Obama, from Washington (albeit a short time)
    GOP: McCain, from Washington
    LP: Barr, from Washington
    Green: McKinney, from Washington

  • Episiarch||

    Obama needs a socially-conservative, white woman to appeal to the populist wing of the Democratic party (and to be a Hillary clone without actually running with Hillary).

    Geraldine Ferraro?

  • ||

    The Powell thing is a joke. If he wanted to reach across the aisle, he would pick someone who was either against the war from the beginning, or who made a loud conversion.

    Besides, he's spent two weeking winning the foreign policy argument vs. McCain, and is trying to push a message about old, DC thinking vs. a new vision.

  • ||

    Question - is it normal for there to be discussions/bargaining about one candidate paying off the other candidate's campaign debt, as seems to be going on now with Obama and Clinton (at least I've heard a lot of speculation about it; I don't know if they're actually talking about it)?

    Does that happen occasionally and I've just never noticed it?

  • ||

    Today is officially "Dance on Hillary's Campaign's Grave" Day.

    Woohoo! Ha ha ha haaaaaaa ha! You lost! /rasberry

    I am dancing like Gene, Gene, the Dancing Machine right now.

  • ||

    your "objective reality" isn't supported by a single person.

    You don't know what "objecive" means, do you?

    I guess it can't be objective, if there are people who don't think that way.

    Lolz

  • No Name Guy||

    Does anyone really think Hillary is going to drop out by the end of this week, or even by the convention?

  • ||

    Unless of course, you're suggesting that Hillary was actually a not a strong favorite to begin with and that all the estimates of her being one were unbased.

    That is exactly what I'm saying, and exactly what I've been saying for a good eight months.

    Ask Cesar.

    Being the institutional candidate in the Democratic Party ain't all it's cracked up to be.

  • stephen the goldberger||

    Don't cry, joe. Still wondering why your "objective reality" isn't supported by a single person.

    I certainly agree with Joe that Obama ran a terrific campaign, and that Clinton ran a good one.

    But I think Joe is ignoring Clinton's terrible performances in caucuses as indicative of poor campaign structure for one, and the revolving door of managers as a sign that she didnt' have a firm grasp on what it took to win from the beginning.

    She let the nomination slip away from poor organization and the fact that Obama ran a better campaign, not just because Obama's so amazing, which is what Joe seems to be selling.

  • ||

    Being the institutional candidate in the Democratic Party ain't all it's cracked up to be.

    Oh, yes it is.

  • ||

    Taktix,

    Of the seven candidates who ran for the Democratic nomination, the one with the least Washington experience won.

    I can't speak for the Republicans. In that primary, I guess staying the course with Dubya for the past seven years really is a net plus.

    And as with most things this year, the independents look a lot like the Democrats on this.

  • ed||

    Geraldine Ferraro?

    Laugh Out Loud.

  • Taktix&#174||

    joe 11:59 a.m. Actual adults with actual ideas are more interesting to talk to.

    joe 12:07 p.m. I guess it can't be objective, if there are people who don't think that way.

    So arguing semantics is for "actual adults with actual ideas? joe, quit while you're ahead, man...

  • kinnath||

    Does anyone really think Hillary is going to drop out by the end of this week, or even by the convention?

    Hillary has limited ability to raise funds after she drops out to pay campaign debts (FEC rules). She is prohibited from repaying herself (about $10M) from funds raised after leaving the campaign.

  • ||

    Obama needs a socially-conservative, white woman to appeal to the populist wing of the Democratic party (and to be a Hillary clone without actually running with Hillary).

    Smart comment. The more popular speculation, that he nees to make up a "national security gap" in his pick, is almost certainly wrong.

    stephen the goldberger,

    I actually brought up Obama's superior organizing in the caucus states. I agree that the decision not to focus there, just to work on a big national strategy in an effort to sweep to victory (like every other recent nominee in either party has done) - or rather, that sticking to this strategy after the first few contests showed a tight race - was a mistake by Kamp Klinton, but it would not have been a fatal one against even an A minus opponent.

  • stephen the goldberger||

    Being the institutional candidate in the Democratic Party ain't all it's cracked up to be.

    This is an interesting point, because I noticed once it became clear Obama was going to be the nominee there was a surge of support for Hillary. The democrats seem to want to support underdogs/victims, so they went for Obama first, until he became the establishment candidate so they went to Hillary who suddenly became a wounded puppy who needed support.

  • ||

    Teddy,

    You won election forty years ago.

    Remind us, how many of your kids have won in the past decade and a half?

    It ain't the sixties anymore, old man.

  • ||

    So arguing semantics is for "actual adults with actual ideas?

    No, no. That was addressed to Episiarch.

  • kinnath||

    CNN has a long list of potential VPs for Obama. These caught my attention.

    Kathleen Sebelius: The two-term governor of mainly Republican Kansas, Sebelius has proven cross-party support but the rising Democratic star still lacks a national profile.

    Also mentioned: Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano.

  • kinnath||

    Smart comment. The more popular speculation, that he nees to make up a "national security gap" in his pick, is almost certainly wrong.

    Thanks, I agree that he doesn't need a national security gap.

    This is going to be another "Its the Economy Stupid" election. Obama needs to prevent socially-conservative populists (that were attracted to Clinton) from going over to McCain (as they did with Reagan and W).

  • ||

    s. the g.,

    I think most of that "surge" was the consequence the primary calender. A string of Obama-friendly states in February made people overestimate his strength, while a string of Hillary-friendly states in April and May made people overestimate hers.

    If you look at the tracking polls, Obama was actually opening up a big national lead over Hillary as he was losing PA, WV, and KY.

  • Episiarch||

    I guess it can't be objective, if there are people who don't think that way.

    I guess you missed the part earlier where I said "it doesn't mean we're right and you're wrong".

    If you have such a grip on reality, why is it no one else shares your viewpoint? It must be that everyone else is just not objective, and you, of course, with your hard-on for Obama, are totally objective.

  • ||

    Trollin trollin trollin
    Attempted thread controllin
    Episiarch is trollin
    God, why?

    No ideas! Got no point!
    Obsessive posts! Like a 'bot!
    Crank 'em out! Sit and fume!
    Buh-bye!

  • ||

    Regardless of the winner in November, I nominate Bill richardson for sec. of state.

  • ||

    Does anyone have joe's phone number? I don't think he knows his six year old is using his account.

  • ||

    I guess you missed the part earlier where I said "it doesn't mean we're right and you're wrong".

    If you have such a grip on reality, why is it no one else shares your viewpoint?


    I was right. You really don't know what objective means.

  • Bingo||

    I've heard lots of talk of a Napolitano VP nomination around these parts. It seems to be a good fit, but I don't think it would have much effect on McCain winning Arizona.

  • Episiarch||

    I was right. joe can't even consider the fact that his "objective reality" isn't...real.

  • Guy Montag||

    Taktix,

    Out of curiosity, since married couples file taxes jointly, and are basically considered a single unit by the Federal government, wouldn't Hillary getting elected by the same as electing the Clinton household to a third term, and therefore unconstitutional?

    I believe that is still up-in-the-air until the Ohio Statehood thing is settled.

    BTW, has joe declared himself the thread winner through his "pwning" of all who dared disagree with him?

  • ||

    If you have such a grip on reality, why is it no one else shares your viewpoint?

    As will most things having to do with Hillary Clinton - like, for example, whether she owns the Democratic Party and is guaranteed to win the 2008 nomination - I tend not to fall into the trap of letting my loathing of her seduce me into reflexively believing whichever interpretation of events makes her look the worst. At least, not quite as much as some, who've had strong feelings about her for a decade or more.

  • Steve Verdon||

    Maybe there's some other reason why one might believe Hillary Clinton ran a good campaign. What could it possibly be?



    Interesting comment joe, doesn't really square too well with your "greatest politician in our life time" comment though, IMO. After all, how great can he be when the opposition made very serious missteps? Granted, Obama and his team were smart to capitalize on them, but that isn't the samething as being the greatest.

    I'm going to go with you having a man-crush here. Just my opinion, feel free to toss out "facts" such as poll results.




    And Penn was right. Soft, humanized Hillary fell behind Obama in February. Tough, pugnacious Hillary stormed back in March through May.

    vs.

    That "regular gal" shtick she put on starting in PA worked.



    joe vs. joe.

    Talking about her "mistakes" and "poor performance" is foolish. She ran a great campaign. He ran a slightly better one.



    Not according to the Obama people. She messed up, for example, Nevada. Obama targeted certain districts with odd numbered delegates and got a close enough split in the voting to pick up the extra delgate, and in the end that strategy worked for him very well. Clinton and her team either didn't know the rules (unlikely since some on her team helped come up with some of the rules) or she just didn't give them enough attention. That isn't great, its dumb.

    In any event I have no dog in this fight, so to speak. I detest them all, McCain, Clinton, and Obama...meh.

  • ||

    Bingo,

    I don't think that picking a VP to try to snag their home state is still seen as a smart strategy. The candidates who've won the last several presidential races have picked candidates based on the two figures' stregths and weaknesses.

  • Guy Montag||

    Who should Obama choose as a running mate? Obviously, Colin Powell Allen Keys.

    Fixed that one for ya Dave!

  • ||

    Steve Verdon,

    After all, how great can he be when the opposition made very serious missteps? I don't think she made serious missteps, just small ones.

    And Penn was right. Soft, humanized Hillary fell behind Obama in February. Tough, pugnacious Hillary stormed back in March through May.

    vs.

    That "regular gal" shtick she put on starting in PA worked.


    Those aren't contradictory, they're the same statement. March through May WAS when she was running on her "regular gal from Scranton" shtick.

    The issue of "attention" works both ways. She didn't as much attention to the caucus states, because she wanted to run up the totals in big primary states, and rack up big delegate margins there, which she did. Had she put more attention into those caucuses and less into the big primary states, she would have gained some more delegates from the caucuses, while losing a few in the primary states.

    I actually agree with you that she would have been better off doing that, but only a little.

  • ||

    Besides, he's spent two weeking [sic] winning the foreign policy argument vs. McCain,

    Not too sure about that. The only significant foreign policy call of Obama's career was that the surge would fail and that we had already lost Iraq. McCain took the precise opposite position. As events stand today, McCain is looking a lot smarter than Obama.

    If you have such a grip on reality, why is it no one else shares your viewpoint?

    I was right. You really don't know what objective means.


    And here we have joe explicitly disclaiming the consensus approach to determining right v. wrong on questions of fact. File this away for the next global warming throwdown.

  • ||

    I'm confused. What was objective again? Was it that she won the popular votes and democrats? I don't think anybody disputed those, did they? I think they disputed that that meant that she ran a "great" race, which cannot be determined objectively.

  • Episiarch||

    File this away for the next global warming throwdown.

    Oh, it's already done, R.C. You think I brought that up for no reason, and that I just felt like arguing with joe today?

  • Guy Montag||

    RCD,

    Don't forget about his wish to have tea with Hamas, just like President Carter.

  • Guy Montag||

    Epi,

    I just felt like arguing with joe today

    My guess is that segment may come back in one of those quotespasms in the future.

  • ||

    RC Dean,

    Not too sure about that. The only significant foreign policy call of Obama's career was that the surge would fail and that we had already lost Iraq. McCain took the precise opposite position. As events stand today, McCain is looking a lot smarter than Obama.

    You may feel that way, but in case you haven't noticed, that is not how most Americans feel.

    And here we have joe explicitly disclaiming the consensus approach to determining right v. wrong on questions of fact. File this away for the next global warming throwdown.

    I have never claimed that consensus determined right vs. wrong on the question of global warming. I have always stated that the applicaiton of the scientific method to data is the best way to do so. That the people who do this come to agree with one another in such overwhelming numbers doesn't mean it's their agreement that determined what reality is.

    Please, file THAT away, becasue I've explained this to you literally hundreds of times over the years, and you still don't get it.

  • No Name Guy||

    GM when did Obama say he wanted to meet with Hamas? A link would be appreciated.

  • x,y||

    Get a grip joe.

  • Steve Verdon||

    Look at joe dance, weave, and bob.

    People, I give you...

    the MIGHT JOE

    And Penn was right. Soft, humanized Hillary fell behind Obama in February. Tough, pugnacious Hillary stormed back in March through May.

    vs.

    That "regular gal" shtick she put on starting in PA worked.


    Those aren't contradictory, they're the same statement. March through May WAS when she was running on her "regular gal from Scranton" shtick.



    Recall what Penn said.

    Her early attacks on Sen. Obama, on the other hand, had moved numbers in her favor. "People don't care if you have a beer with the guys after work, or whether you're warm and fuzzy about your mother," Mr. Penn argued -- they care about issues like health care.



    A person who has a beer afterwork with fellow co-workers is a "regular guy/gal".

    But keep on dancing joe, its fun to watch.

  • ||

    I work at home and drink alone. Does that make me a regular guy?

  • Steve Verdon||

    Joe,

    Regarding this comment on Nevada,

    The issue of "attention" works both ways. She didn't as much attention to the caucus states, because she wanted to run up the totals in big primary states, and rack up big delegate margins there, which she did. Had she put more attention into those caucuses and less into the big primary states, she would have gained some more delegates from the caucuses, while losing a few in the primary states.



    I'd argue it was a serious, serious blunder. Clinton won Nevada, but, IIRC Obama walked off with more delegates. If she had paid attention to which districts had the odd number of delegates she might have won more delegates making the win there all the better. Instead she won the popular vote, but lost in the delegate count. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Similarly in the big states,

    Some pundits saw Pennsylvania as Obama's possible undoing. Plouffe and his team saw it merely as another puzzle to crack. Clinton was popular across the state -- but delegates were apportioned based on turnout strength in previous elections, meaning that heavily Democratic districts were disproportionately valuable. The biggest Philadelphia district -- an Obama stronghold -- was three times as big as the Altoona district.

    "Maybe Hillary will do better in popular vote, but because of the way the delegates are apportioned, she won't get a big delegate lead out of it," Berman predicted two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary.

    Clinton won the state by nine points, but of the 158 pledged delegates up for grabs, her net gain was just 12.

  • ||

    Your confusion, Mr. Verdon, stems from not understanding that "regular guy" and "humanizing" are two different things. Where your ill temper comes from, I couldn't say.

    Softening one's image is a quite a different thing from working to look like a regular guy. Hillary worked to look toughter, and more of a fighter, during her regular guy phase, not softer and more human. Softer and more human was what she was doing before the New Hampshire primary.

    I doubt you'll be able to grasp this distinction, especially now that you've backed yourself into a corner that you can't leave gracefully. It's too bad, you could have made your point in a civil manner, maybe discussed the nuances, but hey: gotta get that bad, bad Democrat, right?

  • ||

    Obama needs a socially-conservative, white woman to appeal to the populist wing of the Democratic party

    How about Janet Napalitano, governor of Arizona? I believe she is a Democrat.

  • kinnath||

    Of course, the Populist Dream Ticket (tm) would be McCain/Clinton.

  • alphaman||

    Another slow day for Joe at his unionized job...

  • kinnath||

    How about Janet Napalitano, governor of Arizona? I believe she is a Democrat.

    Already noted upstream.

  • Steve Verdon||

    Your confusion, Mr. Verdon, stems from not understanding that "regular guy" and "humanizing" are two different things. Where your ill temper comes from, I couldn't say.



    No ill temper here Kreskin...err joe. I'm actually enjoying your dancing on this one. You can spin it however you like, but we have the fact of what Penn said and the fact of what you wrote. They don't jibe.

    I doubt you'll be able to grasp this distinction, especially now that you've backed yourself into a corner that you can't leave gracefully.



    Read the quote by Penn again. It isn't just about being mushy and gushy, but also about being seen as a regular guy/gal. Here I'll quote the relevant part again for you.

    "People don't care if you have a beer with the guys after work, or whether you're warm and fuzzy about your mother," Mr. Penn argued -- they care about issues like health care.



    In other words, they don't care if you are a "regular guy/gal" or if you are "mushy and gushy", they care about the issues. You do know what it means when a sentence has the word "or" in it right?

    It's too bad, you could have made your point in a civil manner, maybe discussed the nuances, but hey: gotta get that bad, bad Democrat, right?



    Please joe, you are often very abrasive in your comments. Spare us your indignation...on second thought, don't. Your indignation also makes me laugh too.

    Carry on joe. You are making a boring day at work somewhat more amusing.

  • ||

    That's much better:

    I'd argue it was a serious, serious blunder.

    It's easy to say that in hindsight, but looking at it from the p.o.v. of somebody in real time: since when are presidential nominations won by grabbing a couple of extra delegates here and there? In the decades before this race, the process was that one candidate beat the other in some contests, picked up momentum, won more contests, and ended up the obvious winner. The actual delegate count was a technicality.

    That the Obama team was able to break out of that mindset and the Clinton team was not seems to me to be fore a credit to Obama than a demerit for Clinton.

  • ||

    Actually, Mr. Verdon, rather than your truncated quote, let's look at the actual paragraph I responded to:

    When one insider pleaded during meetings in 2007 to humanize the candidate, witnesses say Mr. Penn responded: "Being human is overrated." His polls, he said, showed "soft stuff" -- talking about Sen. Clinton's mother, for example -- had no effect. Her early attacks on Sen. Obama, on the other hand, had moved numbers in her favor. "People don't care if you have a beer with the guys after work, or whether you're warm and fuzzy about your mother," Mr. Penn argued -- they care about issues like health care.

    That is a statement about humanization, about softening the image of a candidate who isn't seen as likable - you might remenmber the word "likable," is was getting a lot of press at the time that conversation happened. There are no references to being a "regular guy."

    And, as predicted, you are both 1) utterly unable to rebut my explanation, beyond using the word "dancing" as if it were a talisman, and 2) completely unwilling to admit that you were wrong about that point.

    Please joe, you are often very abrasive in your comments. Yes, when people give me shit, as you have done. There is no need to open up like an asshole on someone who has not.

  • Steve Verdon||

    It's easy to say that in hindsight, but looking at it from the p.o.v. of somebody in real time: since when are presidential nominations won by grabbing a couple of extra delegates here and there?



    Obama and his team got it right away. That Clinton and her team didn't and never really did was their undoing, and may very well be what cost her the nomination. That makes it a serious oversight, blunder whatever, IMO.

    In the decades before this race, the process was that one candidate beat the other in some contests, picked up momentum, won more contests, and ended up the obvious winner.



    Another mistake, thinking that since it has always happened that way, it always will. By the way, she lost the first round in Iowa, so she was off to a bad start already.

    That the Obama team was able to break out of that mindset and the Clinton team was not seems to me to be fore a credit to Obama than a demerit for Clinton.



    That she and her team never caught on to the other sides strategy is the the demerit.

  • ||

    "Her early attacks on Obama" - as opposed to talking about her mother - moved the polls.

    Are "attacks on your opponent" presented in contrast to being soft, human, and likable? Or are they presented in contrast to being "a regular guy?"

  • ||

    Colin Powell is a great idea in fantasy land. If Colin Powell had any real interest in politics he would have run for President himself. Further, I doubt Powell would want to be associated with some of the ilk like the Ayers and company that Obama and Michelle keep company with. I will say this, only someone as shameless and devoid of integrity as Obama would after claiming for two years that his opposition to the war was the right decision on the most important issue of his life chose as a VP the man who made the case for said war before the UN. How exactly would that be explained away? Oh I know Powell was just under the control of the evil George Bush when he did that. Yeah that will work.

  • No Name Guy||

    "Keep company?" Isn't that a bit strong? I thought he met him once or something.

  • Steve Verdon||

    That is a statement about humanization, about softening the image of a candidate who isn't seen as likable - you might remenmber the word "likable," is was getting a lot of press at the time that conversation happened. There are no references to being a "regular guy."



    Yes, and "having a beer after work"--i.e. being a regular guy/gal--is part of it. Regular guys/gals do stuff like that. It isn't necessarily about making her seem mushy and gushy.

    And, as predicted, you are both 1) utterly unable to rebut my explanation, beyond using the word "dancing" as if it were a talisman, and 2) completely unwilling to admit that you were wrong about that point.



    1. Because you are dancing.
    2. I'm not wrong.

    You keep saying you are right as if you repeat it often enough people will eventually believe it. You seem to want Clinton and Obama to be great and so too yourself.

    Yes, when people give me shit, as you have done. There is no need to open up like an asshole on someone who has not.



    LOL. All I've done it point out that you want to have it both ways. Clinton is great! Obama is Great! Humanize the candidate--i.e. regular gal schtick! Don't humanize the candidate. If disagreeing with the great and glorious joe is "giving you shit" I do sincerely apolgize. Well, okay, not really.

    Oh, and thanks for the fun.

  • ||

    Obama and his team got it right away. That Clinton and her team didn't and never really did was their undoing, and may very well be what cost her the nomination. That makes it a serious oversight, blunder whatever, IMO...Another mistake, thinking that since it has always happened that way, it always will.

    We're certainly in agreement that the Obama team bettered the Clinton team on this score. Still, I can't look at Kamp Klinton and shout "Dumbasses!" for not adopting what's really a revolutionary change in how to run a presidential campaign, so much as I can appreciate the insight of the Obama people.

    By the way, she lost the first round in Iowa, so she was off to a bad start already. So did Bush in 2000. And New Hampshire. So did Bubba in 1992. And New Hampshire. So did McCain this year. And yet, they all went on to win the nomination in the way I described.

    That she and her team never caught on to the other sides strategy is the the demerit.

    That's a fair point - you're talking about them not counteracting his strategy, rather than their not coming up with it on their own. I imagine they thought it was as silly and unserious as Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, which the Clinton cabal also rolled their eyes at.

  • ||

    Yes, and "having a beer after work"--i.e. being a regular guy/gal--is part of it. Regular guys/gals do stuff like that. It isn't necessarily about making her seem mushy and gushy.

    Dude, just walk it back. The first line in that paragraph is: "When one insider pleaded during meetings in 2007 to humanize the candidate, witnesses say Mr. Penn responded: "Being human is overrated." His polls, he said, showed "soft stuff" -- talking about Sen. Clinton's mother, for example -- had no effect."

    All I've done it point out that you want to have it both ways. Nothing wrong with that, but your chest-beating, the link to the flip-flop guy - if you come at me like an asshole, I'm not only going to make you look wrong, I'll do a little dance afterwards. Ask joshua corning.

  • ||

    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/06/no_shame_no_gain.html

    He's right. And may I say once again, I can't stand the bitch. There should be far fewer people in the world like her.

    From SNL: "Bitch may be the new black, but Black is the next President of the United States, bitch."

  • fed up||

    Another interesting thread ruined before it got started because someone decided to have a pissing match with joe.

  • No Name Guy||

    Maybe the Clintons and Bushes can form a third party and run together. Call it the "Fuck up the Country" party.

  • M2||

    If Hillary had run for the Illinois Senate Seat in 2000, instead of New York, Obama wouldn't even be a US Senator. See what carpetbagging New York earned her?

  • ||

    And Hillary only received more votes if you count Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, you know, actually respecting those party rules.

    Does anyone really think,that had he been on the ballot he'd have received zero votes? WITH Michigan she's still only 250,000 votes ahead. Without Michigan, Obama has the popular vote as well.

  • ||

    I think M2 wins this one.

    She could have even kept the Cubbies cap.

  • Kolohe||

    in the sense that everybody had an unrealistic overestimation of the Patriots, and an underestimation of the Giants.

    You're right, this is a more accurate characterizization of the Pats:Giants::Clinton:Obama analogy.

  • Kolohe||

    And to bring balance to force, I must now disagree with joe after agreeing:

    Your prediction of few months ago that an Obama/McCain election will be the most civilized in history is the worst since "Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? Surely you overestimate their chances!"

  • ||

    Hillary ran a terrible campaign, considering that she started out with every advantage possible.

    And the chaos and ineffectiveness of her campaign operation obviously reflects the kind of White House she would have run. Though from a libertarian perspective, that might not have been a bad thing.

    Oh, and not a chance that Obama names her as his VP nominee. There'll be pressure on him to do that, I suppose, but that will fade a couple of news cycles after he declines to do so. Most Hillary supporters will vote for him, and what we'll have is another close election where a state here or there determines the outcome.

  • ||

    First, Kolohe, I didn't say "in history," but "in the past 20 years."

    Second, so far, the race has been remarkably civilized. They're had fairly high-minded arguments about policy, and much less mudslinging and character assassination than Bush/Kerry, Bush/Gore, Bush/Clinton or Bush/Dukakis. Only Clinton/Dole comes close, and I'd still say that was nastier.

    If anything, Hillary/Obama was nastier than the general election fight has been. I guess we'll see if it turns worse.

  • ||

    More joe v. joe:
    One the lack of consensus for his views:

    If you have such a grip on reality, why is it no one else shares your viewpoint?

    I was right. You really don't know what objective means.


    On the lack of a consensus for mine:

    You may feel that way, but in case you haven't noticed, that is not how most Americans feel.

    On consensus in global warming:

    I have never claimed that consensus determined right vs. wrong on the question of global warming. I have always stated that the applicaiton of the scientific method to data is the best way to do so. That the people who do this come to agree with one another in such overwhelming numbers doesn't mean it's their agreement that determined what reality is.

    Nice straw man, joe. No one is claiming you are some kind of radical solipsist, since no one is claiming that scientific agreement creates reality.

    We're just chuckling at how you use the argument from authority/consensus when convenient, and discard it when not.

  • ||

    Keep it going, people. I'm a fuckin' legend in my own mind.

  • Steve Verdon||

    By the way, she lost the first round in Iowa, so she was off to a bad start already.

    So did Bush in 2000. And New Hampshire. So did Bubba in 1992. And New Hampshire. So did McCain this year. And yet, they all went on to win the nomination in the way I described.



    I know all of this, so do you. So should have Clinton and her team. According to your narrative they were going to go the traditional route, which hasn't been the case in several elections for both parties. The point is, she went with the conventional wisdom when there was plenty of evidence the conventional wisdom is wrong or no longer holds.

    That's a fair point - you're talking about them not counteracting his strategy, rather than their not coming up with it on their own. I imagine they thought it was as silly and unserious as Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, which the Clinton cabal also rolled their eyes at.



    Its both. Some of the people on Clinton's staff helped write some of these rules Obama took advantage of. It isn't like everyone can say, "Wow, I had no idea it worked that way!" Then to keep on going like Obama wasn't doing it right just makes it even worse.

    Dude, just walk it back. The first line in that paragraph is: "When one insider pleaded during meetings in 2007 to humanize the candidate, witnesses say Mr. Penn responded: "Being human is overrated." His polls, he said, showed "soft stuff" -- talking about Sen. Clinton's mother, for example -- had no effect."



    And you chastize me for using truncated comments. Oh, and the way I see it joe, making a candidate look more like a "regular guy/gal" is making them seem more human, more approachable, etc. and so on and so forth.

    Nothing wrong with that, but your chest-beating, the link to the flip-flop guy - if you come at me like an asshole, I'm not only going to make you look wrong, I'll do a little dance afterwards.



    *thump*thump*thump*thump*thump*

    Unfortunately joe, you are the one who is wrong. Fortunately for you, and everyone else, I don't dance.

  • ||

    I think even a badly-run campaign, though, could have survived if its candidate made a different decision six years ago. If Hillary Clinton had voted against the authority to go into Iraq, there never would have been enough oxygen to fuel the rise of someone like Obama.

    Exactly. This is what I throw back in the face of every deluded fool who claims that Hillary is proof that no woman can ever get elected due to the terrible misogyny of our society.

    Then again, they'd just claim that misogyny forced her to vote for the war because she had to look tough, and thus it's still responsible.

  • ||

    Since your statement was about public opinion, RC, the state of public opinion IS objective data.

  • ||

    Uh, Steve, all of those candidates I listed WON using the strategy I described, after losing Iowa. I'd be curious to see what you are calling "evidence that the convention wisdom no longer holds," since it has held for every election up to this one, as well as the 2008 Republican primary contest.

    Some of the people on Clinton's staff helped write some of these rules Obama took advantage of. It's not the rules, it's the strategy.

    Oh, and the way I see it joe, making a candidate look more like a "regular guy/gal" is making them seem more human, more approachable, etc. and so on and so forth. And I disagree, and point to Hillary's "regular guy" act from Pennsylvania onwards, which most certainly did NOT involve softening her image.

    That's fine that you feel I'm wrong, but you haven't offered any logical reason to think that you're right, beyond not understanding the difference between softening a candidate's image and putting on a "jes folks" act.

  • ||

    What do you expect from poor Joe?

    He's a liberal.

  • ||

    Obama's VP should be Ron Paul. Duh!

  • Gray Ghost||

    Surprised that Clinton bowed out; I always thought she'd push it to the convention. Still agree that if I were Obama I'd like to a see a wooden stake and holy water used on her before I'd start to feel comfortable.

    My thought for awhile on his VP nom has been that he'll pick James Webb from Virginia. Ex-one year Secretary of the Navy, ex-Marine, bit of a rhetorical bomb thrower, kid in Iraq---he seems to give the impression of being a hawk without actually wanting to bomb the crap out of everyone in the Middle East.

    And with that in mind, I'm still amazed that W hasn't taken a page out of our last Texas president's book and manufactured an incident with Iran. God knows he's been trying: what do we have 2 CVNs in the Persian Gulf now? Old growth redwoods are smaller than the chip that sits on our shoulder.

    My crystal ball is quite hazy and cracked though; I thought/dreaded all along that Giuliani would have won the nomination and the race.

  • ||

    SugarFree:
    How does Obama have .5 of a delegate? Did one of them lose their legs in an accident, or did a black female canidate literally undergo mitosis so she wouldn't have to choose?

    When the RBC met they halved votes from MI/FL. Thats how there are half delegates.

    Like the racial diggs though.

  • Jeff||

    "Who should Obama choose as a running mate? Obviously, Colin Powell. He fixes Obama's national security deficit, strengthens the Republican/independent appeal, and completes Obama's narrative about post-partisanship."

    How sexist! Obviously The correct choice is Condi Rice. [/sarcasm]

    Identity politcs FTL.

  • ||

    joe: Since your statement was about public opinion, RC, the state of public opinion IS objective data.

    How is pointing out that McCain is looking smarter than Obama a statement "about public opinion" when Obama was objectively wrong in his prediction and McCain was objectively right?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement