MyDD :: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most?

What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most?

by Big Tent Democrat, Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:49:46 PM EST

Instead of pretending we know anything about what the state of the race will be by meaningless June polling, let's instead think about what could happen to shake up the race. Specifically, what is it that the Clinton campaign would fear most?

The top pick of many will no doubt be the entry into the race of Al Gore. Should that be her fear? Or would Gore simply splinter the vote, securing Hillary the nomination? Let's consider that and other questions on the flip.

Let's talk about a Gore entry. How and when would it happen? One way it could happen is as a pseudo-Stop Hillary movement. Suppose that the "Hillary is inevitable" meme catches hold in the Media and she creeps up close or takes the lead in Iowa to match her lead in NH and nationally. The judgment is "made" by the Media that Obama and Edwards can't beat her. Could Gore pull a "here I am to save the day" act? It would be tricky but doable. But I do feel it would be an absolute precondition for this that Obama and Edwards be perceived as unable to beat Clinton. In such a case, I think Gore would be a very formidable challenge to Hillary. Under those circumstances, I think this is the scariest scenario for Clinton.

I think the chances of it happening are about 2% at the most. Why? Because Obama and Edwards will not be perceived as unable to beat Hillary, if at all, until it is much too late. Gore can not come in after Iowa. It would have to happen before Iowa. Which means September-October at the latest. Too early to write off Obama and Edwards and when they could be written off, too late for Gore to get in. It'll take a perfect storm, ironically, the high performance of a Clinton campaign would be the most important factor for it happening.

What's next? Losing Iowa to both Obama and Edwards. Clinton finishing 3rd in Iowa would be crippling to her campaign in my opinion. It would take a miracle in New Hampshire for her to recover and I doubt there will be any miracles there. Clinton supporters are not deeply committed to her in my opinion. I actually think this is the most likely of the events that could happen to derail Hillary.

What's next? Losing Iowa to Obama. See above. But not as severe as she would have finished second.

What's next? Losing Iowa to Edwards. She would be vulnerable and do or die in NH to Edwards. If Edwards could beat her in NH then he would win the nomination.

Notice a pattern here? Yep, you guessed it. Iowa is the key to the whole race. Hillary wins Iowa, the race is over. Hillary lose to both Obama and Edwards, her campaign is practically over. Lose to Obama, her campaign is in serious trouble. Lose to Edwards, she is in for a life or death dogfight in New Hampshire.

So, Iowa is the ballgame really.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Tags: Election 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 132 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

Hillary's fears

1.. a bill zipper problem (UNLIKELY)

2. Edwards and Obama somehow unite.

3. gore enters and obama and edwards back him

4. edwards and obama meet every resident of NH or Iowa personally to get their votes

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:55:45 PM EST

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

Add to the lists Kennedy/Edwards/Gore/Kerry all support Obama

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:58:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

not gonna happen.

Neutral I am sure.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:58:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (3.00 / 0)

Here is why I think it will...

Kerry and Obama have been seen having dinner together a couple times - Kerry drastically wants to be "hip" and relevant.

Kennedy says that Iraq was his best vote ever - in 4 decades...and he and Kerry usually act together.

Tom Harkin will likely endorse Obama, he had him headline his annaul big fish fry - he endorsed Dean he has a long history of liking insurgent campaigns.

Does anybody think Edwards will endorse Hillary over Obama unless the nomination is clearly hers. The only way this happens is she promises him something.

Gore - Ok, I'm being hopeful here...but it is not out of the realm of possibilties.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:06:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (3.00 / 0)

And I'm not sure about Fiengold, yet... but one would have to say he is leaning Obama.

If Obama's people could ever get a press conference with Colin Powell/Tom Harkin/Tim Kain/Jim Webb/Ted Kennedy/John Kerry/Tom Harkin/Claire McKaskill/Gov. Patrick together it would be a mighty day.

Remember it is a surpises when somebody doesn't endorse Hillary - she can parade whoever she wants across the stage, but a united, experienced, front for Obama would be HUGE news.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:11:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold (none / 0)

Absolutely a possiblity. For some reason, Feingold really seems to dislike Edwards.

I bet Feingold will insist that Obama come out vocally for Reid-Feingold.

From my perspective, that would be a fair trade.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:14:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Question is this (none / 0)

Would Obama WANt Feingold's endorsement? I would think he would, but Obama's campaign is very strange. They really fear being pegged as Left.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:16:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question is this (none / 0)

Not true. We don't fear anything , but we are concerned about associating ourselves with those who are POLARIZING, NON-INCLUSIVE TO NON-WHITES and PHONEY like other candidates! There's a big difference.

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:40:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sooner rather than later, I hope. n/t (none / 0)

by andgarden on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:18:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sooner rather than later, I hope. n/t (none / 0)

I based the other off of who he campaigned for in 2004 - and who seems to have a good relationship with him. We can probably add Harold Ford to the lists too, and (my god I hope) Jimmy Carter

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Harold Ford? (none / 0)

Ummm, no. President of the DLC? Ummm, no.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:24:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Harold Ford? (none / 0)

ummm he is running against Clinton, and you want to talk about the DLC

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:25:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you want to talk about Harold Ford (none / 0)

and NOT talk about the DLC?

Do you know who the President of the DLc is now?

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:29:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you want to talk about Harold Ford (none / 0)

that doesn't, to my knowledge, prevent him from supporting Obama... I don't agree with the DLC on a number of points, but I would sure welcome Ford's support.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

your knowledge is incomplete (none / 0)

The DLC is a pro-Clinton organization.

Ford is much more likely to endorse Clinton. Hell, I'd imagine Obama would NOT want his endorsement personally.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:37:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your knowledge is incomplete (none / 0)

but, reciprocity is one of the iron laws of politics...and Ford owes a lot more to Obama than Clinton, and he wants to run again.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your knowledge is incomplete (none / 0)

No possibility Ford will endorse Obama.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um (none / 0)

reciprocity is the iron law of politics?

Fred Thompson?

Come now.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um (none / 0)

I was quoting Jim Thurber - one of the nations leading political scientists

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 0)

Guess Fred Thompson ain;t too impressed either.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:50:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Didn't Ford (none / 0)

endorse Hillary months ago?

by jforshaw on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:27:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Becoming a co-sponsor (none / 0)

would be nice no?

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yah. (none / 0)

OT: we might all be Jerome Armstrong, but we shouldn't all have to have to same subject line in our comments!

by andgarden on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold (none / 0)

What's the point to have an 'Unknown' to endorse Obama. The more endorsements he has, the more likely he'll be perceived as an insider. Endorsements rarely matter any way, I take those endorsements as baggage, not something to brag about.

by kostner on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For me it's about (none / 0)

what Obama can do for the bill, not what Feingold can do for Obama.

Getting more exposure for Reid-Feingold would be a very good thing.

by andgarden on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:29:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I suppose you;ve noticed that (none / 0)

nobody at MYDD actually gives a shit about the Iraq Debacle.

Or any other issue as far as I can tell.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Vapid Rah, Rah, Rah land. (none / 0)

I know you had your differences with Stoller and Bowers, but at least they actually attempted to talk about stuff.

MyDD now reminds me of nothing so much as Hardball: silly people displaying their ignorance for a large audience--with occasional bursts of wisdom.

by andgarden on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:39:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The conceit of savviness (3.00 / 1)

is what really galls me.

And frankly, Chris and Matt were central to that.

But definitely, they would write about issues some. In bad ways on the Iraq Supplemental, but at least they would write about it.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose you;ve noticed that (3.00 / 1)

I have to agree. i wrote about healthcare, and have challenged all the pollster porno stars to do the same with issues- totally nada.

by bruh21 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:43:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure (none / 0)

I am certainly not going to do any issues stuff here.

Waste of time.

Actually, this diary was sort of written in a fit of pique. It is almost a parody diary.

I'm gonna pull an "in the old days" on you and tell you that in 2003, at daily kos, people would demand specifics to the point of absurdity on issues - taxes, health care, the war, the environment, energy plans, etc. The wars would be awesome on the issues.

I actually thought it was ridiculous as HORSERACE analysis but people really cared.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:47:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What does it tell us (none / 0)

that your parody diary has more substance than most everything else around here?

by andgarden on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:50:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I dunno (none / 0)

But I am through being a scold as of today.

Heck, some intelligent and realistic non-rah rah analysis migvht be of interest, but I imagine we won't see it UNTIL the race really begins after Labor Day.

In the meantime, there are bigger fish to fry - the Iraq funding issues are going to be the big deal in the coming months.

But I could be wrong, these polls COULD dominate the news until December - uh no.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah Right (none / 0)

You'll be finished scolding when there's nothing left to scold.

by andgarden on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I meant here (none / 0)

I'll be scolding like a motherfucker at Talk Left.

Without the purple language of course.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You came here just to say "fuck" (none / 0)

admit it!

by andgarden on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:12:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh (3.00 / 1)

A little.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:30:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I dunno (none / 0)

I am of the opinon we lost the Iraqi battle when we granted funding. Basically it made us look weak. There is no spinning things somethings you got to do the right thing the first time around and we didn.t

by bruh21 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is time (none / 0)

If Dems end the war before the next election.

I wrote a multivolume book on the issue at TalkLeft.

andgarden will tell you.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:30:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Indeed (none / 0)

Anyone who wants to really get a sense of the mess Democrats are in should go read the TalkLeft archives from the last 6 months or so.

by andgarden on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is time (none / 0)

If democrats 'end' the war before next election, they will most likely lose the next election.

by kostner on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:52:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Assuming you haven't left out a word (none / 0)

This, in a single comment, demonstrates exactly what's wrong with the "thinking" on MyDD. I assume that you're a member of the small cadre of "strategists" who think it's a good idea to prolong the war in Iraq in order to run on it. Not only are your politics stupid, they are also shameful.

by andgarden on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:00:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Assuming you haven't left out a word (none / 0)

He didn't.

And he will be explaining to us why after Hillary is President, she can't get us out of Iraq for political reasons.

Him and Talex. Watch.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:29:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and to be honest (none / 0)

I was and remain basically a one issue man - Iraq.

Though I did a lot of Politics of Contrast stuff.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and to be honest (none / 0)

Who then are you supporting - and you are you supporting when that person is no longer in the race?

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nominally Chris Dodd (none / 0)

because of his co-sponsorship of Reid-Feingold.

I like Edwards better on his vocal support of not funding the Debacle after a date certain than I do Obama, who has used bad framing on the issue.

But he did vote for Reid-Feingold and against the Supplemental, as did Hillary.

Of course, Obama got it right on the war in 2002 and that is a big plus.

But, truth be told, I am not thinking too much about Presidential preferences. Almost all of my writing at Talk Left is devoted to ending the Iraq Debacle.

It is the most important issue to me by far. To me, the way I think about the Presidential campaign is how it can be used to increase pressure to end the war.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nominally Chris Dodd (none / 0)

I respect that

I think mydd is becoming election 08 central, and I'm cool with that...

I happen to think Bush will change course in Iraq before the Dems get a chance...did you see today's testimoney from Batiste and Kagen?

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:04:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bush will change course (none / 0)

Heh. Uh, no he won't.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:07:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nominally Chris Dodd (none / 0)

Hope springs external. You remind me of this woman at work who said "he has no choice but to fire gonzo now." I politely said back to her- you know- if I had a dollar for everytime someone on the left thought bush would compromise I probably wouldn't be sitting here having to listen to you dream a little dream right now. Okay- maybe not so polite. The point is bush is what he is. I would call him a stubborn mule- but he puts mules to shame. i respect that about him if nothing else. Our leadership could learn a thing or two about being obstinate from him. While they are all falli ng over themselves to appear 'reasonable" he is not.

by bruh21 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nominally Chris Dodd (none / 0)

I like Chris Dodd, but my problems with his candidacy are:

1. We lose a Senate seat if he wins, and
2. We haven't had great luck nominating senators from the northeast

But he would be a good president, I have no doubt about that.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:03:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and to be honest (1.00 / 2)

I have multiple issues, and am flexible within limits. Iraq is important. I mention healthcare because it's the clearest sign to me that HRC doesn't intend to lead. She intends to triangulate, and what's worse she is triangulating with the beltway rather than with where the american people are.

I lean Edwards, and have donated to him, but honestly I can be convinced by another candidate too. Well, except HRC. I am convinced at this point that this is the race she will run. Cautios safe and ultimately it smells more like DLC stuff.

I am very passionate about the economic state of this country. It's crazy that people are graduating with debate that equals what they might pay for ahouse , that insurance is increasing at a rate that would be considered hyper inflation in anyother country, that wages are going down or are stagnant. The whole litany.

I recognize there is only so much a prez or congress can do because to be honest some of this is the fault of the american people. When I talk to my friends about not shoping at wal-mart- they retort but its cheap.

Sometimes I think my pol sci professors were right- when a society becomes too fat and coomplacent, it's the begining of the end.

Sorry for the pessimism, but I look at the fact that 37 percent (even if its not real) are present HRC who has basically said nothing about anything. her people here are to put it nicely morons. I ask what any descent politically minded person would ask - what about her favorables? And George- lord- don't get me started- he spends most of the time talking about Edwards and Obama like they have been around 14 years. When you asked him about that- you get shit like "sourgrapes" and "basher" I want to say to him, but realize its a waste of time- if you think I am tough waith until the GOP gets a hold of you.

I mean not that she has to run a strong campaing now. Look at the debates horrible stuff for my choosen candidate- Edwards. - Edwards hasn't really done what he needed to do. You know something is wrong when people are liki ng your wife better than you. Obama- my second choice- still has the kumbaya issue (you know- the one where he ask why can't we all just get along? and I want to say politely- because we don't.)

To me- the only thing that's maki ng me hopeful is that because this will be a long process (lord willing) that means whoever come out of this will have to be prepared. No more of this kerry annointing shit. This above all is what pisses me off about the whole Clinton inevitablity meme. It's like they (her supporters) want us to pretend we didn't just go through this.

by bruh21 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I dunno (none / 0)

truth be told, I am not thinking seriously about the election yet.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and to be honest (none / 0)

May ask who gave me a zero rating. There are some people here seriously abusing the ratings.

by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:03:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold (none / 0)

is an unkown to you I guess, but to the progressive wing of the oparty, a pretty important constitutency in Democratic primaries, Feingold is a revered figure.

Can I ask you folks an insulting question? do you folks know anything about Democratic politics?

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold (none / 0)

i dunno, but i think you might be confusing progressive politics for democratic politics. i still like to bring up this number, although it's a few years old, but the only poll i remember where progressive was a self-identified label, only 2% of respondents claimed to be progressive. the interesting thing about that is that respondents still self-identified 24% as liberals (which was the prevailing national average).

perhaps more to the point, i stood in awe as i watched a democrat stand up and tell a room full of chicago machine democrats that "we're all progressives here."

so i suspect whether anyone here knows anything about "anything about Democratic politics" depends on where you and they are in this rather wide spectrum of understanding what progressive politics (or "the progressive wing of the oparty") is. if you are a two percenter and they think everyone's a progressive here, you may not share a common understanding of the term, let alone history or policy preferences, of progressive politics...

peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...

by bored now on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

I just don't see it.

All the endorsements in 2004 fell flat.

I just don't see it.

I'll tell you one that I think MIGHT happen that will piss some people off immensely - Clark might endorse Clinton.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

Until Dean Screamed I think Gore and Carter made a big differince... And, I still remember Kennedy stumping for Kerry in Iowa...and Tom Harkin's face with Dean Screamed.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:19:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ummm (none / 0)

Dean lost Iowa remember? What difference did Gore and Carter make?

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:21:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm (none / 0)

just because he lost doesn't mean they didn't have an effect... Since Obama needs experience these people add the aura of experience. And, Tom Harkin has a huge sway in Iowa.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:24:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok (none / 0)

Their effect in IOWA was . . ?

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok (none / 0)

you cannot argue one historical event - and then say endorsements don't matter...they are different circumstance. Obama is not running as an angry insurgent, like Dean, he is a "new kind of politics" and these people's endorsements add legitamize those claims. Especially if Kennedy says something like "In Barack Obama I see that same hope and promise I saw in my brother, Bobby"

In 2004 Kennedy reenergized the Kerry Campaign, and Tom V's wife made a difference. Surrogates are important.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was arguing (none / 0)

that people wil be reticent to endorse this time around, not that endorsements don't matter generally.

but in 2004, endorsements did not do jack shit for Dean.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:42:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was arguing (none / 0)

what was that question you were asking? do you know anything about democratic politics?

i think you're getting carried away by asserting that endorsements didn't do anything for dean.

* they got him the dominant buzz before iowa voted.

* they got him a prominent place in the polls.

* they kept the media focused on him (some say too focused).

* they created expectations of inevitability

dean's endorsements, though, could not compensate for the utter lack of experience in his campaign organization, or the fact that they (in iowa) were inadequately trained, or that they didn't do mock caucuses with both their staff and volunteers, or that they basically had no idea that they would be expected to participate in the horsetrading aspect of the caucuses. but one cannot accurately say that endorsements did nothing for dean. they just weren't sufficient to win...

peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...

by bored now on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:14:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You must be kidding (none / 0)

Endorsements got Dean what?

* they got him the dominant buzz before iowa voted.

He had DOMINAT buzz. The endorsements wer supposed to be the KO.

* they got him a prominent place in the polls.

He HAD a prominent place in the polls.i

* they kept the media focused on him (some say too focused).

That hurt him.

* they created expectations of inevitability

And that helped him how?

Ok, I'm bored now with you.

dean's endorsements, though, could not compensate for the utter lack of experience in his

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:25:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You must be kidding (none / 0)

sorry, i was one of those people who argued that "bloggers don't vote." the fact that he had the dominant buzz on the progressive blogs was not what i was referring to. i was thinking more along the lines of in iowa.

dean did not have a prominent place in iowa polls until we started working on getting him local endorsements. i'm unsure if you didn't pay attention in 2004 or you simply mean harkin and gore's endorsements, but working on getting dean iowans to endorse him was part of moving him up in the polls. at least this is true in the eastern half of iowa, where i was.

your argument that endorsements didn't mean jack is clearly wrong, at least if one has an accurate understanding of what happened in iowa. i won't speak to the various myths that have grown out of it...

peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...

by bored now on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was talking about the Gore endorsement et al (none / 0)

And I never questioned the GENERAL importance of endorsements. Indeed, you have just ID the ones that matter, because they imply orgainization behind them.

That is why the Christie Vilsack endorsement of Kerry was so important.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:14:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was talking about the Gore endorsement et a (none / 0)

i missed that...

peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...

by bored now on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

Clark is definitely a Clinton man. In my opinion, as a military guy, he's very sceptical about buzz candidates such as Obama and Edwards.

I can see Clinton pick him as VP.

by kostner on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:30:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clark (none / 0)

I think he has been close to the Clintons for a pretty long time frankly.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:32:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

rumor around D.C. is that Clark and Clinton broke up becuase Clark really wants to run this year - I also don't think Clark is surrounded by ex-Clinton people, as much as real progressive .com types.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Getting late for (none / 0)

THAT rumor.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:39:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Getting late for (none / 0)

yeah, he is not going to run... but the question is, how progressive has he become and how far from the Clintons has he drifted since 2004.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

Agreed. Clinton/Clark sounds very good to me. It changes the general election dynamics in Arkansas, and possibly Oklahoma and Missouri.

by domma on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

If Clark makes an endorsement I would estimated there is about a 99.9% chance it will be for Clinton.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:44:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep (none / 0)

I think it will shock a lot of people.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep (none / 0)

why do you believe it will shock a lot of people?
There's no secret that Clark and Clintons are close both in terms of personal/professional relationship and, may i say, ideology.

Clark definitely loathes Edwards. I can't imagine him respect rookie Obama.

by kostner on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because Clark (none / 0)

has embraced and been embraced by the Netroots.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:02:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because Clark (none / 0)

So you're basically saying most netroots are retarded? Not that I disagree with you on this one. LOL. I mean it's so obvious the cozy relationship between Clintons and Clark.

by kostner on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:07:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 0)

I think most everybody is retarded so . . .

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:12:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep (none / 0)

I have been wondering lately on the timing of a Clark endorsement. Clark could not help much in Iowa since he skipped it in 2004. He did very well in NH coming in 3rd. He also still has a lot of supporters especially online.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think he will wait until after Iowa (none / 0)

So that Clinton can get the maximum bump from his endorsement. She's going to need it after Iowa!

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:05:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

1 and 2 ain't happening.

2 would have to be 3 really.

4 will happen but they all will.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:58:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

she fears nothing becuase she is going to win. the question is what do obama or edwards fear? losing like they are at this moment. their fears are already reality.

by terry70 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:36:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

Notice who I do not mention? Dodd (my candidate), Biden or Richardson.

Wonder why? Cuz they have no chance to impact the race. Richardson spent money ion Iowa and NH and got a bump.

Edwards and Obama spend money now in NH and Iowa respectively and shockingly, they'll get a bump.

These bumps are transient.

Come the end of the year, EVERYBODY will have ads up. And then we'll see the effects.

But we have all seen the kind of candidates Dodd, Biden and Richardson are. And while they are al fine men and could be great Presidents, they do not have the campaigns or candidates to get it done. They simply do not.

Will they stay in the race? Richardson will to no avail. Will Dodd and Biden?

Gravel and Kucinich have no shot and will have no impact.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:57:15 PM EST

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

I think Richardson is getting some movement and I think there is a possibility Dodd will as well in NH.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:46:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I read your diary (none / 0)

and obviously I disagree with you.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't count out Richardson (none / 0)

He's a longshot, but I would not rule him out. A lot of people are looking for alternatives to Clinton and Obama. Many will land with Edwards, but not all. Richardson is the only governor in the race, and he is looking much stronger now than Edwards was at a similar point in 2003. And Edwards almost won last time.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:06:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

IMO Clinton could skip Iowa and would still win. She enjoys the highest popularity with Democrats (about 80%) of all candidates and happens to have the dempgraphics that are the most likely to show up on primary and caucus day: Stronger percentage of older voters, women voters, hard-core partisans. Her support is quite strong, generally stronger at this point than either Edwards' or Obama's. The general softness of their support shows up when they flip #2 and #3, sometimes poll at 16%, sometimes at 8% (Edwards) or 25%, then 16% (Obama.) There is very strong support Clinton has that is almost etched in stone now, and that will factor in every state, regardless of how Iowa fares.

I think Iowa will have less influence on this election than most believe. Those who even paid very loose attention to the race have almost certainly heard by now that Edwards' hopes rest on Iowa, that he is ahead in Iowa, that he has been campaigning there for a very long time. There is no surprise factor if Edwards does win, unless it is with an ubelievable, stunning margin.

People in California and Florida are not going to be swayed by a #2 or #1 or #3 placement in Iowa too much. This is not a race where we are dealing with 5 ho-hum candidates battling it out. This time we have 2 very strong candidates and one strengthened candidate (after 2004.) This race has been amazingly stable and promises to be just that for the rest of the year.

by georgep on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:09:59 PM EST

Umm (none / 0)

COULD still win.

But it would be nuts.

Are you predicting she will? IF not, then there is not point to discussing it is there?

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:13:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Umm (none / 0)

IMO, if Clinton were to skip Iowa, not much would change in the other states. New Hampshire would not suddenly flip, Florida would not suddenly flip, Nevada would not suddenly flip.

Of course, she is not skipping Iowa, and she may very well win that state, but Iowa itself will not be the kingmaker except for the potential case that Obama wins a surprising, strong victory in Iowa after having been no better than second in the polls throughout. That seems unlikely, but were that to happen, it would have strong ramifications for the rest of the schedule.

by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 07:39:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

agree only in part (none / 0)

If Obama wins Iowa, he'll get a huge bump.

But come on, georgep, how can Clinton skip Iowa after hiring "the best" staff, and having the Vilsacks campaign for her all over the state?

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:11:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: agree only in part (none / 0)

i don't see how she can skip iowa now that she's said she won't skip it. she already has the image of someone who changes her mind as the wind blows (iraq, health care, etc) so this would feed that perception...

peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...

by bored now on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:52:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: agree only in part (none / 0)

I said "even if." It is a hypothetical to show how strong I believe she is in other states, regardless of how Iowa fares. I believe that an Edwards win in Iowa, unless a huge, rousing victory with double-digit margins, does not change the race appreciably. I believe that a Clinton victory will not change the alignment appreciably. Even an Obama victory will just make the race more competetive, not "throw the election" to Obama. People in other states have a few words to say about that. In short, Iowa is not the kingmaker, and actually has never really been in history.

by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:55:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The best laid plans. . . (none / 0)

turn to shit in the cornfields of Iowa.

by andgarden on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:19:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If she skips Iowa (none / 0)

then she's afraid to compete among Democrats in a swing state. How could she claim to be able to compete among the whole electorate in November?

You are right that Clinton could survive a narrow win by Edwards. That's why I am hoping she will be far back, more than 10 points behind the winner. If she finishes third or fourth in Iowa, that will dominate the media narrative barring some incredible surprise on the Republican side.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:09:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If she skips Iowa (none / 0)

She is NOT going to skip Iowa, and if you look, the race is very tight, in any way. I was just putting out that even if she were to skip the state, she would still be the strongest candidate in most of the other states.

She has institutional advantages in most of the states, she has built and is in the process of building enormous operations in these states, she has key endorsements in most of these states, and more than just a "Yeah, I like her" endorsement these trusted and popular people (like Vilsack in Iowa) are actively campaigning for her. She hits the key "come out to vote" demographics like no other. Think about it: Obama supporters have to pray that on caucus day it does not rain or that Iowa does not move their caucuses to a date when the universities are not in session, because a lot hinges on "young voter" turnout. If the support in the demogroups stays roughly the way it is now, Clinton does have a built-in sure vote, as older voters are a sure bet to show up, even if nobody else is. Her strong performance with women in general is a plus, because women have proven to be more reliable voters over the years than men.

I don't think this race can be compared to other cycles in which 5 relatively unknowns were being tried on by the American people, like in 2004. The reason poll leads during the year of 2003 changed from Kerry to Gephardt to Lieberman to Dean to Kerry was that none of these gentlemen got Democrats excited, so candidates who were not running were much more popular (i.e. when Clinton was included in any poll, she outpolled every one of them typically 4 to 1, when Gore was included he would best those actually running every time.)

by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

Gore is not going to run. How many times does he need to say it?

Edwards, even if he wins Iowa, cannot turn the campaign around. That's just pie-in-the-sky. Nationally, he does not have the support.

They fear Obama, who I feel is the only one who has a chance to take the nomination from Clinton. He will really have to start catching fire more, though- but we've still got a way to go. I am a Clinton supporter but if Obama turns things around and wins, I will support him. I'll be disappointed about Clinton, but I respect him.

by reasonwarrior on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:25:57 PM EST

I'm no Edwards shill (none / 0)

but the idea that him winning Iowa wouldn't matter? Pfffft.

by andgarden on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:30:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore is not going to run (none / 0)

I think I wrote that. did you miss it?

As for the rest of your comment, typical ignorant comment here at MYDD.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:33:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good post (none / 0)

something from a Hillary supporter I agree with. Obama has to do better than hillary in Iowa, (winning the state over both Edwards and HRC would be so huge I think it would end the race, and needs to hope to get the "Mccain" voter in New Hampshire which the pollsaren't showing now but never really show until it happens, if he doesn't do it barring Gore, Hillary will be the nominee.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:45:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what a great diary you nailed it (none / 0)

why eles is Obama basically stalking the Clinton's in the state over he July 4th holiday, because Hillary decided long ago to "play for every state" she has to do well in Iowa and they knwo it despite all the "inevitability bs" you hear from Penn and his minions on these boards. the second Obama beats her in Iowa the entire narritive of the race changes and hoping New Hampshire who's indies are not reflected in the polls saves her from looking unelectable is not a good strategy. disregard the BS than a candidate with the negatives Hillary has can recover after 2 early state losses, do they really a party desperate for a win wouldn't abandon her a lost cause in favor of the person who proved themeselves in the early states. She would be done and her team knows it now which is why they will do everything to win the first 2 states. Oh and the early voting BS, the people that vote realy in primarys are the type that wouldn't swing support from one candidiate to another under almost any circumstances so that is very overrated. If I were Obama I would try to meat every last Iowa voter because if he wins the state he will be the nominee, if HRC wins Iowa and dosen't bomb in NH it's over as well, Edwards in my opinion is almost irrelevant, an iowa win is expected and I just don't see him being able to have the presense to follow it up in either NH (a bad state for him) of on Feb 5th where the money edge and orginazational edge his main opponent Hillary or Obama would have would simply be too much.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:41:11 PM EST

Re: Feb. 5th. (none / 0)

I think people are really underestimating the effect and voting patterns of the States who are finally in a position to affect things. As a Californian, I am stoked that finally, as the largest State in the country we will get to be heard. As a voter, I don't give a damn about what the people Iowa and NH do, in fact, if anything, I am completely dismissive of them precisely because they've had unfair influence all these years. It's our turn this year. And I'm sure the other States who have had to sit back and watch the rest of the country pick our candidates feel the same way.

by Doug Dilg on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My last comment was a reply to this (none / 0)

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:05:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My last comment was a reply to this (3.00 / 1)

I don't understand why some people don't get that once you lose the first race, you become a loser, thereby creating psychological doubt on their entire candidacy. Anyone who loses in Iowa will come out of Iowa with the question: Can he/she win the General? If he/she lost in Iowa after spending so much money and time, then what's going to happen in the general election? Essentially the Iowa Caucus is about electability in the general. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that.

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:42:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My last comment was a reply to this (3.00 / 1)

It's not hard to understand, but it does get in the way of denial and/or trying to spin

by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:04:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feb. 5th. (none / 0)

Yes, I am stoked about Florida this year. We finally have a big say. No longer will the candidate be picked by people in far-away Iowa.

by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 07:28:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good for you (none / 0)

"As a voter, I don't give a damn about what the people Iowa and NH do."

But history tells us you are the exception not the rule.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:04:09 PM EST

Re: Good for you (none / 0)

Doug is a bit delusional about the importance of what he thinks of as important- for him its "I think therefore it is." Dont think you are going to change that reality.

by bruh21 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good for you (none / 0)

No surprise another ad hom attack. Don't attack the opinion or the post, go after the poster.

by Doug Dilg on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:54:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good for you (none / 0)

I really don't get why bruh21 is on this attack kick. Hope it ends soon. Discussion is tedious this way.

by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 07:25:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good for you (none / 0)

i dunno, i think there's a lot of resentment in the big states about iowa and new hampshire having a disproportionate role in nominating the democratic nominee. i'd bet his sentiment is shared by more democrats than you think. history, instead of being a guide, is the reason for this...

peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...

by bored now on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:19:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

A terror attack on US soil right before the November 2008 election that is just enough to stir up the "Democrats are weak; we need a strong Republican" sentiment to cost her the election.

by hwc on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:07:11 PM EST

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

If that happens and either Obama/Edwards is the nominee, the election will be a rout especially in light of Edwards' 'WoT is a bumpersticker' comment.

by kostner on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

Pretty much.

Edwards has already Dukakis'd himself. The Rebublicans would just run the "no war on terror" clip from sunrise to sunset and blow him out of the water, even without another terror attack.

A terror attack would also bring Obama's complete lack of defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs experience into sharp relief. He's be pretty easy to "Dukakis", too. And, as inept as his campaign has been, he might even climb up on a tank for a reprise of The Photo.

Clinton has been laying the groundwork to survive a "weak knee Democrat" attack since she took office seven years ago. So she might have a fighting chance, although she'd get "a woman can't be strong" message from the Republicans. Naming Wes Clark as her VP could serve as further innoculation.

It's not something I want to see. Obviously because nobody wants another terror attack. And, it would be bad news for the Dems. I don't think the netroots really appreciate that dynamic in the electorate.

by hwc on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

...Obama's complete lack of defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs experience....

So was it "Obama's complete lack of defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs experience"
that led him to get it right on Iraq, or was that something else?

And -- I'm sorry -- was it Clinton's unimpeachably thorough "defense, intelligence, and foreign
affairs experience" that enabled her to help lead us into this g*dd***ed, motherf***ing war?

I'm obviously confused.

by horizonr on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:12:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

I can understand the confusion over what role the Illinois statehouse played in getting anything right or wrong in terms of defense policy.

by hwc on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:34:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

So was it "Obama's complete lack of defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs experience" that led him to get it right on Iraq, or was that something else?

no, it was his sense of morality that allowed him to see through the bullshit.

this contrasts dramatically with hillary, who not only refused to listen to her church in their quest to make the president (also a united methodist) aware of their church's moral opposition to invading iraq without just cause -- something deemed lacking. i believe her reply was that she knew that the president was right, harking back to her days as an occupant of the white house.

that's experience for you. i am very, very comfortable with barack sense of morality and his understanding of just war and the duties of a superpower. i cannot say the same about hillary...

peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...

by bored now on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:23:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

I agree -- hope you could tell that my original comment was dripping with sarcasm.

by horizonr on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:31:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

I think Clinton as the nominee could survive that but it would especially hurt Edwards because of his bumper sticker comments.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

you people are truly delusional and sadly predictable. which means the GOP will kick our ass if clinton really thinks the way you do here.

by bruh21 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They don't (none / 0)

One thing they are pretty good at is running their own campaigns.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They don't (none / 0)

being good at running campaigns - i dont think thats enough. their problem isn't that they aren't good. it's that they have history. it's like being married to someone. i dont care how good someone is at something in a marriage- you are familar with whatever they do. so the effect is lessened

by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:06:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dont think it will matter (none / 0)

by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:06:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 0)

I am not sure it would play exactly like that.

Imagine a campaign where the Dem candidate is attacking the GOP for not doing enough to keep the "homeland" safe?

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting (none / 0)

that could work, but the reality is that there is a reason why democrats are perceived of as weak. more than likely they will come out and try to so und reasonable and test the wind to see where things are etc- meaningwhile the GOP will be attack, atack attack - ask questions later. I respect that about them. It's hurt them but its also good in situation such as an attack because it seems 'strong' even if its bullshit.

by bruh21 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I dunno (none / 0)

about Dems generally, but in campaign mode the Clintons are good on the attack.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:20:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I dunno (none / 0)

of course, this is one of the reasons why hillary's negatives are so high. any attacking that she does only reinforces the image that she's not a very nice woman, and that she's a little too mean. some people might like that...

peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...

by bored now on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:25:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

ummm. not to be sexists, but the Women will most likely suffer from that...

and, remember an attack would still take place under the Bush Administration.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:17:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mebbe (none / 0)

but what about all the B. Hussein Obama BS sure to come?

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mebbe (none / 0)

Maybe that will have some sway over the Anne Coulter people... but, I think most Americans are above that. I think, I hope, most Americans are ready to grasp the idea that terrorism happen for a reason - and Barack Obama, who was raised in a Muslim nation, bings some skills to the table to confront that.

Maybe I'm wrong - but I think he offers a lot more than Clinton and Edwards on the terrorism front.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are wrong (none / 0)

It depends on what type of women. Ms. Thatcher certainly thrived under such circumstances. She basically won her second election on that war despite dismal economy.

Hillary is pretty much running in Thatcher mold. I read a lot on Thatcher. Many British folks absolutely despised her, but she just kept on winning until being handicapped by her own party.

To me, Hillary appears the strongest, or shall I see, the only democrat in this race, who has balls.

by kostner on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does The Clinton Campaign Fear Most? (none / 0)

Iowa is important. The damn thing about an inevitability campaign is that losing gives one a wizard of oz moment: the curtain is pulled back and nothing is there.

Good diary, BTD.

If you get a chance, check out okamachan13's diary that has Elizabeth Edwards' answers to questions on Dkos when she liveblogged tonight. You may find it interesting. Nothing earthshattering, but it is nice to have a blogger as a spouse of a top candidate.

by littafi on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:02:02 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.