The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for the Nomination

I know it has become conventional wisdom among the giant brains of Hillary backers that Barack Obama is personally responsible for stifling democracy in Florida and Michigan.

But do you mind if I ask a few questions?

  • How is Obama personally responsible for the parties in Michigan and Florida moving up their primaries against the DNC rules?
  • What role do the DNC sanctions have on the process?
  • Were state party officials aware of the DNC sanctions and consequences?
  • Who bears the greatest responsibility for the sanctions being imposed on these states, and, by extension, their voters? State officials, the DNC or Barack Obama?

I know it is convenient for the Clinton camp deep thinkers to pin the blame on Obama and make Hillary the True Champion of Democracy©, but if she is, indeed, the True Champion of Democracy©, why has her campaign constantly belittled the states Obama won and cried about how undemocratic caucuses are?

Weren't all these rules and caucuses in place before the primaries started? And shouldn't the wishes of all these good Democrats count, too?

Why all the whining and moaning and gnashing of teeth after Clinton got her ass handed to her throughout the month of February?

Blame her campaign for her failure. They were too arrogant and too lazy to work for the nomination.

Here's a good read on the topic from Jay Cost at the RealClearPolitics HorseRaceBlog today:

What Went Wrong with the Clinton Campaign

...

There is no doubt that it has been a poorly run campaign. But what has been so bad about it? We could point to a lackluster message, or Bill's various gaffes over the last three months, or the staff that couldn't stop watching soap operas long enough to pay the bills. There's something to all of these things, but I think they are symptoms of an underlying malady.

...

This is an organizational failure of monumental proportions. There is no other way to put it. The question is why did it happen?

There is no great skill that the Obama campaign possesses that the Clinton campaign lacks. Organizing caucus states still has a lot in common with 19th century politicking. You need a friendly smile, a good handshake, and a sturdy pair of shoes. Obama didn't develop a new way to organize. He just chose to organize while the Clinton campaign chose not to.

The only reason it would choose not to organize is if it did not think it was worth the cost.

That's right. All the whining and moaning and gnashing of teeth would have been avoided had Clinton and her campaign actually worked for the nomination.

Instead, they were hugely arrogant. As Cost summarizes:

I think its mistake was its starting point. It bought the same inevitability line it sold to the press. It began with the assumption that Clinton could not lose the nomination. If you assume this a priori, you will inevitably interpret all of the evidence in a way that reinforces your preconceived notions. It's like adding epicycles. If she cannot lose, there is no reason to worry about Obama's money, no need to anticipate that this might be an early indication of his appeal. If she cannot lose, those summer polls are not mere artifacts of her name recognition; they are critical pieces of evidence that demonstrate how the race is over before it begins. If she cannot lose, there is no need to organize in the caucus states because the race will be over by then.

What we are talking about here is plain old arrogance. I think this is the central mistake of the Clinton campaign. It presumed that the nomination was Clinton's. Not Clinton's to lose. Just Clinton's. Period. As a consequence, it behaved in an unduly confident manner. Mark Penn is to be blamed, for sure. So is Patti Solis Doyle. But so also is the entire upper-echelon of the campaign. Above all, it's Hillary's fault. She's the candidate. She sets the tone.

Truer words were never spoken. Place the blame for Hillary's failure squarely where it belongs: on the candidate, herself. And her campaign's incredible arrogance.

The whining about the process, after-the-fact, and after her campaign chose not to work hard in more than a dozen states, simply backs up the old adage, "There's no substitute for hard work."

In the best American tradition, nothing is handed to you. You have to work for it. And Obama and his campaign have outworked Hillary and her campaign.

Them's the facts, friends.



Display:


Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (1.80 / 5)

Well, call me a sexist, but I think she should have found some talented, experienced female campaign strategists.

Instead she hired the 4 Bozos - Penn, Wolfson, McAuliffe and Ickes, who drove her campaign straight into the ditch.


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:21:51 AM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 3)

By that same token would you think it would have been utterly ridiculous for Obama to exclusviely use only mixed race or people of color for his inner circle? If no why? If yes why?


by TMP on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:39:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton can't manage big egos (2.00 / 2)

 She doesn't have what it takes to lead if she can't even manage the egos of her own campaign staff.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:17:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (2.00 / 4)

I'd like to remind everyone that George W. Bush ran a well organized/disciplined campaign.  One's ability to win elections does not translate into one's ability to govern.  

As for Obama running a "great" campaign, does  running a "great" campaign mean not winning any big states?  Does running a "great" campaign mean disenfranchising Florida and Michigan?  Before you say, "they broke the rules," that doesn't matter.  Millions of people voted.  Are we really going to tell voters in Michigan and Florida, "well, your state broke the DNC roles so your vote doesn't count"?  Or that their votes count, but as long as they don't change anything?  That's change we can believe in?

Whoever wrote this post, don't start your victory dance just yet.  There is a lot of race left and guess what?  Hillary ain't going anywhere.  Deal with it and come up with something substantive as to why Obama is the better candidate instead of these lame arguments.


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (2.00 / 1)

Probably not worth picking the nit, but...

I'd like to remind everyone that George W. Bush ran a well organized/disciplined campaign.
While GWB certainly benefitted from that campaign, I'm certainly not willing to give him credit for running it.  (That's probably what you meant anyway.)


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:43:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama strikes me as much more arrogant (2.00 / 2)

and he is deceiving Americans on a number of important issues, like healthcare, which is worse than arrogant, its evil.


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deceiving Americans (none / 0)

Please do elaborate on the deception you state and how exactly that is evil. Can't wait for this one.


by Joe in Wynnewood PA on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about running Harry and Louise lookalike ads? (2.00 / 1)

Is that close enough?  Shall we parse deception?  If so, how does a health plan work without universal enrollment, ala Social Security?

Anyhow, it's not the word I'd have chosen, but what I have found troubling in the Obama campaign is the willingness to co-opt rethuglican talking points (tort reform), and to recycle the likes of Harry and Louise.


The fascist takeover of America has already occurred; but the people have not yet realized.
by magnetics on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:00:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama strikes me as much more arrogant (none / 0)

And that's relevant to my comment how?


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:20:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Karl Rove and Dick Cheney (2.00 / 1)

run Bushes campaign.

Setting that aside, its silly to argue that nomination winning skills are irrelevant.

While winning the nomination is not a an indicator of  how good of a president one might be you STILL have You have to get the nomination to run in the GE.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Karl Rove and Dick Cheney (none / 0)

Is the nomination fight over yet?


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:15:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All but the crying. (none / 0)


by dystopianfuturetoday on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but the crying. (2.00 / 1)

So true.  Remember when Hillary was going down in New Hampshire?  Wait...no...that didn't happen.  Or remember when she was supposed to lose Nevada?  No, not that time either.  Oh, but she was going down on Super Tuesday.  She was going to lose California and New Jersey.  No, that didn't happen either.  But, wait, she was supposed to lose Texas and Ohio.  No, that didn't happen either.

I guess the only way for him to win is for her to drop out.  Wow, he sure sounds like a fighter to me.  Maybe if Obama or his surrogates was in Hillary's shoes he would have dropped out by now.  


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but the crying. (none / 0)

Nobody really said that he was going to win in California or Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania, least of all Obama.  What people did start saying was this:  Could he win Cali? Could he win Texas? Could he win Pennsylvania?

What was impressive at the time wasn't that he was going to win those, it was that he was going to make them closer than anyone could have realized.  Whereas Hillary didn't come within 10 points of him (not sure about this...could be corrected, but not by much) in any state between Super Tuesday and Ohio/Texas.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but the crying. (none / 0)

Results in Dem Primary for big key/swing states:

California - Hillary +8

New Jersey - Hillary +10

Ohio - Hillary +10

Florida - Hillary +17


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:14:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just out of curiosity (2.00 / 1)

Are you saying that Obama, or any Democrat is going to lose California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts in November?

Cause if you are, please provide exactly how you came to that conclusion.

As for Florida, do you really think that if they held their primary on or after Super Tuesday and both campaigns had competed vigorously the result would have been 17 points?

How about Michigan? The best HRC could do against, quite literally, nobody, was 10 points.

I'll give you Ohio, well except for the fact that it's been on the reddish side of purple for some time, so it'll be a tough slog no matter who is our candidate, which, BTW, isn't going to be HRC unless she can get at least a 15 - 20% win in PA, and even if she does, she then needs to cut Obama's 20 point lead in NC at least in half and win Indiana by well more than 10% and even then she'll STILL be behind in both the delegate count and popular vote.


by Joe in Wynnewood PA on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just out of curiosity (none / 0)

I was responding to the earlier comment that Hillary has beaten Obama by large numbers in large and/or swing states.  

As for your question about Florida, actually Hillary pushed for a revote and Obama balked so I guess we'll never be able to answer that question.

Your statement on Michigan is just silly, but thanks for giving me Ohio.  I can't remember, but I think Ohio played a bit role in 2004....


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:41:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just out of curiosity (none / 0)

"As for your question about Florida, actually Hillary pushed for a revote and Obama balked so I guess we'll never be able to answer that question."

Can you give a cite for this.  I've been following these events closely and I have yet to see any stories indicating that Obama played any substantial role in quashing a FL revote.  I am aware of a story indicating that the state party (including many Clinton supporters) ruled out a revote for logistical reasons having nothing to do with the positions of the candidates.  I am aware that Obama was opposed to a proposed revote plan in MI that would have disqualified a demographic that would have skewed heavily for him -- Dems who voted in the Republican primary before they knew there would be a Dem contest and with no reason to believe that their voting in the Republican primary would disqualify them from ours.  I am not however, aware of Obama actively working against a FL revote.  Not saying your wrong, I'd just like to see the evidence if you have any.


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just out of curiosity (none / 0)

In Michigan Obama's surrogates were effective in blocking a revote through the Michigan legislature.

In Florida, the Obama camp used legal arguments for not following through with a revote.

http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-lawye r-questions-michigan-re-vote-plan


by polson on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:10:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just out of curiosity (none / 0)

That cite merely makes the assertion that Obama blocked revotes in FL without offering any details about what exactly he did to stop them from occuring.  I've seen other more recent cites asserting that Obama did not oppose revotes in FL.

"Obama has yet to declare his support or opposition, although his campaign has raised a number of procedural and legal questions about the most recent proposal for an early June primary in Michigan. "

http://www.buffalonews.com/357/story/303 563.html


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just out of curiosity (none / 0)

I guess we should ask does he support a revote or having the current votes stand?  A lack of action on his part, as well as voicing various legal concerns sure give a big sign that he would prefer that the votes in Florida not count and they should not have a re-vote.


by polson on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:20:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just out of curiosity (none / 0)

Fair enough, I suppose you could make that assumption.  Can you honestly say that if Clinton had lost the unofficial election that she would not have stuck with her original support for the DNC sanctions and "prefer that the votes in Florida not count and they should not have a re-vote". It also appears that a revote in FL would have been impossible for logistical reasons even if Obama had supported it.  

"A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option. Florida is finally moving to paper ballots, which is a good thing, but it means that at least 15 counties do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/03/breaking_florida_will_no t_hold.php


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just out of curiosity (none / 0)

I guess we'll never know...


by polson on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:26:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but the crying. (none / 0)

Is the commenter Polson really named Mark Penn?  

Is the Clinton campaign ever going to stop this silly dissing of medium sized & small states?  Go ahead, keep it up, but Hillary should sue her staff for political malpractice.


by howardpark on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but the crying. (2.00 / 1)

It's not about dissing small states, but I assume by your statement that you're saying big states aren't important?

Again, there is a lot of race left and Obama has yet to win a big state.  Until he is the nominee, I'd hold off on the victory dance.


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but the crying. (none / 0)

I guess Illinois is a "small state"? And Hillary did grow up in Park Ridge, IL after all - native daughter?

How do you define "win" in Texas? If you don't consider a delegate win a victory, then would you subtract Rush Limbaugh's Project Mayhem Republican crossover voters from Senator Clinton's totals?

(Using the same logic of Obama has to win California and New York in the Democratic Party primary) If Senator Clinton can't win a large number of smaller states in the primary whose electoral college total is greater than the big states and that are collectively critical for a Democratic win in November, does that not make her unable to win?

Oh, and don't forget Senator Clinton's massive 55 point blow out of Obama in Michigan. Wow - that had to be one of the hardest fought races ever! I can't believe Obama got zero votes. They must really, really hate him in Michigan. Maybe he should offer "Uncommitted" a spot on the ticket to help carry MI for the Dems in November.


by Reality Bites Back on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but the crying. (none / 0)

Um, a win would be defined as who gets the most votes, right?  Or would you prefer Obama to win the George W. Bush way?  Lose the popular vote, but win by delegates?

I have no idea what you're saying about Michigan.


by polson on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but the crying. (2.00 / 1)

"Or would you prefer Obama to win the George W. Bush way?  Lose the popular vote, but win by delegates?"

Wouldn't winning the Bush way be better than losing the Gore way?


by Aris Katsaris on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but the crying. (none / 0)

Ironically, if all the caucus states had primaries instead, the projected popular vote lead for Obama would be 1.3 Million, instead of 750 Thousand.

Anyway, since Obama is winning EVERY metric, (except he is losing the states won by Hillary Clinton - she is winning among those states), then Senator Clinton being chosen by the superdeletates would be far more like the Supreme Court's choice for Bush over Gore, even though Gore won the popular vote, and upon recounting Florida, the electoral vote.

RE MI: I find it laughable that Clinton claims a huge victory in MI, and given her assertion of how the primary wins somehow predict GE performance, then clearly Obama should put "uncommitted" as his choice for VP, since next to Clinton, that's the candidate who did best in MI and would help Obama carry the state.


by Reality Bites Back on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:36:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Care to make a wager? (none / 0)


by dystopianfuturetoday on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Denial. (none / 0)


by dystopianfuturetoday on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:44:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but the crying. (none / 0)

oh snap!


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:26:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (2.00 / 2)

How is Obama disenfranchising anyone?

  • Did the DNC set the rules?

  • Did the states know the rules when they set their primary dates?

  • Hasn't Obama consistently said he'll abide by the rules (see above)?

How is Obama the bad guy in this? His position is certainly more democratic that one claiming the votes should be counted even though Obama's name wasn't on the ballot (per the pre-agreed non-participation).


We are all complicit until we stop spying on citizens, restore the right to confront accusers and stop torture.
by Juan4All on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:52:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (2.00 / 1)

So then you're message to the voters in Florida and Michigan is "no, your vote doesn't count"?

It's difficult to come to the conclusion that Obama is completely innocent here.  For someone that likes to tout the "urgency of now" he is in no hurry to make the votes of Florida and Michigan count and at worst he has actually blocked any effort to make those votes count by stalling using various legal arguments.

Does doing away with the same old politics mean that it applies only when it's convenient to Barack Obama?


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:19:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (2.00 / 2)

So then you're message to the voters in Florida and Michigan is "no, your vote doesn't count"?

Not from me, not from that poster, not from Obama.  This message came from the DNC, and thpeople at fault is their own state's democratic party.  Sheesh.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (2.00 / 1)

The last time I checked, Hillary was pushing for those votes to count.  Obama's plan?  A 50/50 split in Michigan and nothing for Florida yet.  And as Tom Daschle said, as long as they don't affect the outcome.

Kudos Obama.


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (none / 0)

I don't want them to count. Cuz it wasn't a fair election. No one campaigned and Obama's name wasn't on the MI ballot. So don't blame Obama. Blame ME for disenfranching voters in two illegitimate contests. Illegitimate cuz we have no idea if the results actually measure the voter's intent.


by SeanF on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:03:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (2.00 / 1)

Correction, Obama chose to remove his name off of the Michigan (MI) ballot.  Again, his choice.  And he did have an effort to some degree led by people like John Conyers to get people to vote "uncommitted".

Obama did run ads in Florida.

Is it illigitimate because the state of Michigan certified the vote?


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Have you ever thought to ask yourself (none / 0)

why he would remove his name from the ballot in Michigan.  Is it because all these years he's been harboring a secret vendetta against MI and now is able to enact it.  Is it because for some unbeknownst reason he chose to disenfranchise them by not allowing them to vote for him.  Although completely illogical, that is how many an ardent Hillary supporter is treating the situation.

The truth is that he and Edwards felt like putting their names on the ballot was in violation of the pledge.  Hillary went ahead and did it anyway. Why was Hillary able to do this without feeling the wrath of party insiders?  Political capital. Which unfortunately Obama has not yet acquired.  So Obama plays the politics game according to the rules and now he's getting attacked by Hillary supporters.  Party unionity: what a ridiculous sham.


by Tenafly Viper on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:57:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you ever thought to ask yourself (1.50 / 2)

I'm dumber now after reading your comment.


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:02:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you ever thought to ask yourself (2.00 / 1)

i don't think it's the comment's fault.


by SeanF on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:09:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you ever thought to ask yourself (none / 0)

TR-ed for a complete lack of content.  If you have any valid criticisms I'm dying to hear them.


by Tenafly Viper on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you ever thought to ask yourself (2.00 / 1)

First off, don't die.  My comments probably aren't worth that much to wait for.

Second, I don't think the Edwards and Obama took their name off the ballot to show some sort of loyalty to DNC rules.  If they really felt this way, then why didn't they do the same for the other states that broke the rules - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida?

It was probably a miscalculation on their part at the time, but it appears to be working for Obama now because he's been able to block any sort of revote.  So definitely a short term gain for him, but may hurt him if/when he's a candidate in the general (which is not a forgone conclusion).


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the response (none / 0)

I honestly don't know why they didn't pull their names in Florida.  Perhaps the other states you mentioned should have been published by the DNC, but they weren't.

What seems pretty clear is that Richardson, Edwards and Obama came to a consensus to stand in solidarity with the DNC.  It's the only reasonable conclusion.  I honestly don't think that the mess is significantly benefitting or hurting either of them (The latest national map I've seen has Obama winning MI & losing FL, and Hillary losing MI and winning FL).

AP Oct 9: Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson have withdrawn from Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic presidential primary.

The three filed paperwork Tuesday, the deadline to withdraw from the ballot, said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's office.

All of the Democratic candidates already have agreed not to campaign in Michigan because it broke Democratic National Committee rules when it moved its primary ahead of Feb. 5. The decision by Obama, Edwards and Richardson undercuts the validity of the contest.

Other Democratic candidates had until the end of the day to decide if they'll stay on the ballot.

UPDATE: Per MSNBC, Joe Biden has opted to pull out as well.

UPDATE #2: Dennis Kucinich has issued a statement asking to be left off the ballot as well.


by Tenafly Viper on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you ever thought to ask yourself (none / 0)

Yet you didn't TR:

"I'm dumber now after reading your comment."

Seems like special pleading.


by BeerNotWar on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:08:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (none / 0)

In your mind, "an effort to some degree" equals a fair election, where everyone campaigned and all the voters voted cuz they knew their primaries hadn't been deemed invalid by the DNC.

you don't see how this looks ridiculous? The mental gymnastics are something to behold!


by SeanF on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:07:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (none / 0)

The candidates were ASKED to remove their names from the MI ballot and they complied.  Granted, it was partly to look good in the early primary states who HAD permission to hold their primaries prior to Feb 5th-as these early primary states were upset that other states were trying to 'upstage ' them.  This is why Hillary also said she would not campaign in MI or FL - to placate Iowa and the other early primary/caucus states.  So there is a little political face at play here.  However, it does NOT matter if any of the candidates 'campaigned'in what you say is illegally in MI or FL - the both did so, obama by running a national ad and Hillary by visiting FL for supposedly fundraisers and scheduling a 'victory' speech there on the night of their primary.  Whatever....it doesn't matter who or how they got there - the VOTES DID NOT COUNT.  Obama is not the guilty one here - get that through your head, okay???  It is so frustrating to see the absolute trickery being put out by Clinton and her supporters on this...if it was such a problem and she felt so sorry for these poor disenfranchised voters, then WHY DIDN'T SHE DO SOMETHING PRIOR TO THE PRIMARIES???  She only cared when she saw she might lose - period.


by mariannie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She is smart enough to know that disenfranchising (none / 0)

MI and FL can only hurt (perhaps fatally) the Democratic nominee (whoever it is) in November  -- and that ballgame ain't over yet, despite the triumphalism on view, here and elsewhere.

So I would argue that it is smart politics to seat MI and FL as is -- since there will manifestly be no revote.  I believe (and I am no mind-reader) that Hillary is smart enough to know that this is the percentage play no matter who's ahead at this point, and that she would argue for unconditional seating -- or at the very least, a full and fair re-vote -- even if she stood to lose.

As for why she didn't raise Hell early on, again, I am no mind-reader, but my take is that she figured that at some point the grown-ups would reassert control at the DNC, and straighten things out in a way which is fair to the candidates, and helps the party in November.  As we now see, that hasn't happened, and likely will not.

If her performance in the remaining balloting does swing the Super_D's to her side, the Obama supporters on the internet will throw a hissy fit of tsunami proportions; but my hope is that Obama and his campaign machine would (in that eventuality) react more rationally -- bite the bullet, and put their collective shoulder to the wheel.  That is what I expect of Hillary, should her bid for the nomination fail.


The fascist takeover of America has already occurred; but the people have not yet realized.
by magnetics on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (none / 0)

Yes... Hillary is pushing for these votes to count...  Why...?  Because she is the beneficiary.  Simple as that.  If she is so completely democratic, why is she asking the Super delegates to put more emphasis on the big states...?  Why all the dust-up about states that caucus...?  Simple... caucuses don't favour her and she won the big states.

I think if she came out and said, every vote counts no matter the size of the state or the manner of election, I would believe that she is being sincere and altruistic about Florida and Michigan.  But she won't.  It is a political ploy.

And, for the trillionth time, we were not disenfranchised.


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (2.00 / 1)

disenfranchise  
"deprive of civil or electoral privileges," 1644, from dis- + enfranchise. Earlier form was disfranchise (1467).

And the reason why Obama is objecting to making the votes count or revoting would be because he's the beneficiary?

But maybe this is just a states rights issue.


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (none / 0)

thanks...  I was pretty sure I had my definition stright...  nice to see the B.A. in Political Science did not go completely to waste.

We voted in Florida by the way...  we were not deprived of the privilege of doing so.  Our votes counted in fact.  We voted for state issues and races...  That our votes did not count for the primary was well known going in.  Had we been actually disenfranchised, we would not have been able to vote.

And one of the reasons Obama is objecting to counting the votes as set would be that he is the beneficiary if they do not.  He was not against a revote.  He had some qualifications for making it fair and legal, but wasn't not against it completely.


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:09:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (2.00 / 2)

I am a Florida voter and have no problem abiding by the rules (nor would I if the candidate positions were reversed).

DNC rules are the law of the party just as Separation of Powers is the law of the U.S. An organization ignores it's own rules at it's own peril, as we've all seen.

A bit of dusting and polishing is needed on the DNC rule book, yes, but that's not Obama's fault.

Meanwhile, Hillary, who agreed to the rules, looks increasingly worse everytime she tries to claim unfairness. If I were her campaign manager, I'd tell her to stop shooting herself in the foot.


We are all complicit until we stop spying on citizens, restore the right to confront accusers and stop torture.
by Juan4All on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (2.00 / 1)

Great message to the millions in Florida that voted.  Hey guys, those are the rules.  I'm sorry that you're Republican legislature and Republican Governor broke the DNC rules, but your vote doesn't count.  Oh, even though New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada also broke the rules, their votes count.

That sounds like a great democratic platform and I'm sure it will play well in November.

Yes we can! (wait, not you Florida and Michigan)


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:18:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice try (2.00 / 1)

except the FL Republican legislature that moved the date forward did so with a wink/nod from FL Dems. Dems did log a protest at the action but there is video of the exchange and it is clear that the Dem protest was a sham.

I've seen the video but don't have a link saved. If I thought it would make any difference in your opinion, I might make the effort to find it. But I don't so I won't.

You can spin this thing any way you want, but so far you have only proven that the rules need work. You most certainly haven't shown how Obama bears any responsibility.


We are all complicit until we stop spying on citizens, restore the right to confront accusers and stop torture.
by Juan4All on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's that putz, Senator Steve Geller (none / 0)

being a dick.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAwdE


by Bee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice try (2.00 / 1)

Again, with the rules.  Sorry voters.  Your votes don't count.  We have rules.

Democracy at it's best.  So much for the "urgency of now" and the "politics of hope".


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:55:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice try (none / 0)

Sounds like you prefer a "democracy" that doesn't follow the rules.

You may be in the wrong party. Not following the rules is generally a trait of Republicans.

The "Urgency of Now" implies we want a candidate that will re-instate the rules we used to operate under. It's urgent because so many politicians (and apparently you also) feel that the rules are just "quaint".

I join in the "Politics of Hope" that Obama can give us our country back ... that could even be restated as "give us our rules back.

Maybe you can explain at what point tossing out the rules is the good, fair thing to do. Would you do that? I know there are times it's a good idea, like in our Revolutionary Way.

So maybe there is something I missed and this is the time the DNC rules need revolutionary change. If that's the case, I have to ask:

Why does your particular "Urgency of Now" happen just after Her Royal Highness got her ass handed to her, but wasn't so urgent before that?


We are all complicit until we stop spying on citizens, restore the right to confront accusers and stop torture.
by Juan4All on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice try (2.00 / 2)

Actually, I believe in the bedrock of democracy, one person - one vote.

I guess because you feel that Her Royal Highness wants the votes to count then we shouldn't count them.  Politics of Convenience.

Casting aside whether or not counting the votes will tip the scales for her either candidate, does the Democratic party want to go into the general election with telling Florida and Michigan their votes don't matter?  I'm generalizing here, but do you think the majority of voters in Florida and Michigan care what the DNC rules say?  The Republican party came up with a solution, but we can't?  And as I said before, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada broke the rules as well, but their votes count.  


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:38:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice try (none / 0)

"One man on vote." A good rule.

Maybe the DNC should put that in the rule book.

You are railing against rules that have been in effect for years as if they violate the Constitution.

Well, they don't violate the Constitution. OUR party passed those rules. It seems they only make a mockery of Democracy when your candidate is harmed by them.

You don't like the rules? Change 'em. Meanwhile, stop whining as if Hillary is some kind of victim. I have been reading a number of diaries today and you would be surprised how many Michiganders and Floridians are saying ... "what's happened has happened, forget it and move on, I still get my vote in November." I, and I'm pretty sure many others, have confidence that voters in other states are up to the job, I'll trust their judgment then deal with screwed up rules later.

You may want to consider letting Florida and Michigan deal with the situations for themselves. Your concern is noted but misplaced. In plain English, mind your own effin' business.


We are all complicit until we stop spying on citizens, restore the right to confront accusers and stop torture.
by Juan4All on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:24:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice try (2.00 / 1)

Well, if diarists on MyDD say that we should move on, then by all means.  That's a good representative sample.  

Oh, and as far letting Michigan and Florida dealing with the situation themselves, Michigan tried but Obama and his surrogates blocked that.


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:14:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice try (none / 0)

Did they follow the DNC rules?

You keep forgetting the rules ... I know they can be quaint and inconvenient, but the do exist for a reason.

Hillary is the one that keeps trying to weasel her way around them, as are you.

How are the DNC rules Obama's fault?


We are all complicit until we stop spying on citizens, restore the right to confront accusers and stop torture.
by Juan4All on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:32:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice try (none / 0)

Sounds like you prefer a "democracy" that doesn't follow the rules.

You may be in the wrong party. Not following the rules is generally a trait of Republicans.

The "Urgency of Now" implies we want a candidate that will re-instate the rules we used to operate under. It's urgent because so many politicians (and apparently you also) feel that the rules are just "quaint".

I join in the "Politics of Hope" that Obama can give us our country back ... that could even be restated as "give us our rules back.

Maybe you can explain at what point tossing out the rules is the good, fair thing to do. Would you do that? I know there are times it's a good idea, like in our Revolutionary Way.

So maybe there is something I missed and this is the time the DNC rules need revolutionary change. If that's the case, I have to ask:

Why does your particular "Urgency of Now" happen just after Her Royal Highness got her ass handed to her, but wasn't so urgent before that?


We are all complicit until we stop spying on citizens, restore the right to confront accusers and stop torture.
by Juan4All on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:30:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton can't manage big egos (none / 0)

Oh and thanks.

All of us in Florida really appreciate your rabid outrage at how our votes are being ignored. From an out-of-stater such concern is startling ... er ... unless you have some self-serving reasons for your feelings.

At any rate, we will still be able to vote Obama in as President of the United States. I won't feel the least bit dis-enfranchised on election day. But thanks for your ... er ... concern.


We are all complicit until we stop spying on citizens, restore the right to confront accusers and stop torture.
by Juan4All on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:45:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Rules (2.00 / 1)

Clinton's #2 staffer sits on the DNC and voted for the rules.

Clinton is crying about Obama disenfranchising FL & MI voters while her guy, Harold Ickes, personally voted for the rules under which FL & MI's delegates would not be seated if they persisted in breaking the rules he voted for. So isn't it Clinton (by the usual rules of guilt by association, or in this case responsibility for the actions of your employees) who has disenfranchised FL and MI voters?

Ok, no is your answer to that (looking at my ever so accurate crystal ball), so then in the end, it is the legislators who voted to move the primaries and screw their own constituents, isn't that the unvarnished truth?


by Joe in Wynnewood PA on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:23:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Rules (2.00 / 1)

Again, do you really think the voters of Michigan and Florida care about the "rules"?  Do the rules only apply to Florida and Michigan, but not to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada?  Do you not think that Republican Governor will push the story line that after Democrats whined and cried in 2000, they still won't count your vote in 2008?


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:45:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Rules (none / 0)

The votes in MI and FL do not count because the DNC told them not to hold the primary prior to Feb 5th.  All candidates agreed to this, understood the language and said they would not campaign.  There may have been some (Hillary and Obama I guess) that broke those rules of campaigning, a little.  However, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the decision to not count the votes.  Obama and Hillary DO NOT decide what is going to count - they do not pay for the elections either by getting their big ticket backers to front the $.  NO ONE cared one fig about this (nor would Hillary care if the two states in question were Idaho or Montana - the votes/delegates would be insignificant).  After she saw she was NOT going to walk away with the nomination, she began her campaign AGAINST Obama - scapegoating him as the culprit.  What a laugh!  It is not the process, Howard Dean, Donna Brazille or anyone else's fault - the rules were clear - what part of that do you not understand???
The other four states are assured an 'order' of primary - New Hampshire did move their primary, but only because MI and FL were suddenly scheduled to occur before NH and that was not the agreed upon order.
Hillary and her minions are pathetic....and trying to change the rules that SHE agreed to because they don't suit her.  The caucuses do not count....except if its in Nevada where she won.  The small states don't count....because she can't win there!!  
I cannot believe those of you who see such garbage as being above board just because it comes from Hillary.
by mariannie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Rules (2.00 / 1)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think I've seen where Hillary has said that the results from caucuses don't count.  She did say that caucuses are undemocratic and to some degree they are.  They are scheduled only during a specific time of day.  If you can't make it during that time (working, no child care, elderly and too cold out, serving overseas, etc).  So caucuses exclude a lot of people.

But again, I will repeat, the millions of people that voted in Florida and Michigan do not care about the DNC rules or any other legal argument as to why their vote doesn't count.

And again, why do the votes in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina count if they broke the very same rules that Florida and Michigan did?  The Republicans were able to come up with a solution for Florida and Michigan.  Is the Democratic party that inept that it cannot do the same?  If we are then so much for a Democratic victory in November.


by polson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:32:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ummm . . . what about Maggie Williams? (2.00 / 2)


by DrPolitics on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:55:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 3)

Actually, I think it was "a too many cooks" problem, and that Hillary lacked the confidence needed to choose effectively between them. Thus, she'd listen to one set of advisors one day, then switch to a contradictory tactic from Penn the next.

Hillary is a loyal person. She doesn't want to alienate the people close to her. The problem is, she doesn't have any qualms about alienating Obama voters and the states they live in, so her empathy fails to come across to many voters. She's loyal when she should be tough and tough when she should be loyal.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:08:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Her contempt also includes prospective voters (2.00 / 1)

which goes a long way towards explaining her campaigns records.

This morning provides a perfect example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGeQ6dxGM FA

Clinton is asked a legitamate question and she gives a reasonable answer, but before getting to it she feels the need to laugh in the face (for a full half a minute) of anyone who would have the gaul to ask her who has financed her campaign or what her #1 surrogates sharply different view on the Colombia trade deal means.


by DSloth on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:58:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her contempt also includes prospective voters (none / 0)

She laughs....now that looks like a feint. She doesn't want to answer the question.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:10:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 1)

Loyalty got us Bremer and Brownie.  I am tired of loyalty, I need me some competence.


'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'
by stryan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:13:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 1)

I think you are right and I'm a male. I think you should add the name Bill Clinton. Today he has brought up the Sniper fire in Bosnia controversy. He's trying to defend his wife and he should be muzzled. This will not help senator Clinton who I think would be a much better President compared to Bill. What's happened to him?


by Politicalslave on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:19:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

Well, call me a sexist, but I think she should have found some talented, experienced female campaign strategists.

Talented?  Yes.  Experienced?  Ideally of course.  Female?  Why?
McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:37:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She had Patti Solis DOyle. (2.00 / 8)

So I don't know about that.


by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:24:15 AM EST

Re: She had Patti Solis DOyle. (2.00 / 4)

Yes, but Patti gets the boot and the 4 Bozos stay on the bus. What's with that?


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:26:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess Donna Brazile was out of the question. (2.00 / 8)

Heh.


by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:30:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She had Patti Solis DOyle. (2.00 / 3)

I think the thing is once you start a campaign strategy with it's theme, narratives and policy emphasis you are to some extent locked in. Despite the changes in her camapign she is pretty much stuck with the themes of exprience despite learning latter this was a "change" election.


by TMP on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:44:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She had Patti Solis DOyle. (2.00 / 8)

There's also the problem of the chief strategist in charge of message and the chief pollster being the same person.

Mark Penn decides to campaign on experience and inevitability, and then runs polls to prove his own point.

She also underestimated how many people held her war vote against her.  Recall that when she started out, her prescription for ending the war was "I'll talk to the joint chiefs".   (That's actually still what it is, but it's cloaked in much more dovish language).


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:01:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She had Patti Solis DOyle. (2.00 / 2)

I think that was a key mistake.  No way should the pollster and the chief strategist be the same person.  That was a plain dumb move.  


by vbdietz on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:32:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The point is... (2.00 / 1)

Solis Doyle, nor Maggie Williams ever had the experience to run a national campaign.  IT shows.  Yes, Maggie Williams is another Clinton loyalist, she was her private secretary, if I am not mistaken, but the Williams never ran a national campaign.  All this brings back and up the question of competence in HRCs hirings.  Ramblings of GWB is in comparison and warranted.  He is the one KNOWN to hire incompentent people and look what they have done from their decisions in this country.  From Katrina, Attorney General, Iraq.  All incompetent people, do we need to go down this road again?  And though there were some good things in the former Clinton Administration, there were bad things too.  One is the chaotic mess the former Clinton Administration always ran under and why many talented people ended up leaving that administration because of it.  If the general public after GWB want to go back to that, it will be gridlock again in Washington.♠


by tracey webb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:10:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Another hit diary? (2.00 / 0)

How many of them is that for you?

Up to 100 yet?

It's so funny, becuase I certainly will never endorse Obama because of attacks on Clinton.  I have little doubt Rospars and Felsen like these, but I doubt their effectiveness.  

I think it's just taunting and immaturity, just like the Clinton supporters who write odious attacks on Senator Obama.

These were the Obama campaign talking points a few days ago, weren't they?  

It's so boring.  


by TomP on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:43:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another hit diary? (2.00 / 1)

This diary is in response to endless hokey claims by Clinton supporters about Obama not wanting votes counted. I guess on this site that constitutes an "attack diary".


by kitebro on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:50:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, you assume (2.00 / 0)

I support Clinton.

A hit diary in "response" is still a hit diary.

Yes, I know, Clinton, the woman is evil, Barack is all good.   Indeed, Barack is a blessing form God:

The Gift of Barack Obama
by niaman [Subscribe]
Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:10:55 AM PDT
Two weeks ago Michael Kinsley was a guest on Charlie Rose. He was asked his opinion of the Democratic primary. And here I paraphrase. He responded that he thought Obama would win the primary. He said that this was because, sooner or later, the Democratic party would realize what a gift they had been given in Barack Obama. This is right on so many levels.

niaman's diary :: ::
Barack Obama is a gift to the Democratic party, he is a gift to his supporters, he is a gift to a new generation of political enthusiasts, and I feel he is a gift to me personally. This is not because I drank the Kool-Aid and became an unthinking adorer. It is because I seriously questioned whether the Democratic party could ever produce an inspirational leader who could succeed on the national stage without abandoning progressive Democratic ideals. I fully understand inspirational leadership is in itself insufficient to guarantee a successful presidency, or even warrant someone's vote. But an inspirational leader, with good political instincts, demonstrated judgment, an unflappable temperament, rare authenticity and the ability to generate enthusiasm in a new generation, can claim extraordinary an undeniable qualifications. The campaign itself has demonstrated the candidates managerial skills, and his ability to handle pressure and controversy, as well as his ability to learn and grow. Without even getting into policy, I believe the case can be made that Barack Obama is the most exceptional candidate the Democratic party has produced in several generations, and that an Obama presidency would have the most potential for success domestically and internationally in some time.

All so silly.  


by TomP on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:30:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, you assume (none / 0)

On this site the hit diaries are almost exclusively anti_Obama. Stop whining.


by kitebro on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tom, do you disagree with the idea that Clinton (2.00 / 3)

... failed to run a campaign in multiple states? That her campaign staff thought they didn't need to compete?

Had Edwards done better in Iowa, do you think he would have contested the later caucuses more thoroughly than Clinton?

Edwards and his staff were masters of the caucus process. I can't imagine they would have acted as arrogantly as Camp Clinton in thinking they didn't need to bother with those pesky "small states."


by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:57:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another hit diary? (2.00 / 1)

Hit diary?  Please.  If anything is UNTRUE about this diary, please point is out and back it up with LINKS.  From what I read, this is not a hit diary and you seem to be whining, from what I don't know, but whining none the less.


by tracey webb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:12:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I fail to see how this (none / 0)

is a hit diary.  Your so called neutrality is sometimes in question when you make ridiculous claims like this.  Especially about a diary that analyzed verifiable evidence.  This is tame is condemnation compared to the endless ad hominem, ad hoc diaries that a select few put up about Obama.  Instead of making baseless accusations try to dispute the diarists conclusions.


by SocialDem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd like to hear a serious post-mortem analysis (2.00 / 11)

of what went wrong, sometime after the brouhaha is over and we can all discuss it without yelling.  I would like to give Obama credit for being an oustanding candidate, but I can't help but feel that Hillary's loss is all her own doing.

My own vigorous opposition to Hillary came about because of her and Bill's boosting for the war, and a number of other items, like Bill's excuse making for Bush about Katrina and the WMDs, over the years.  So it was a long time in the making.  But Hillary was way ahead in the polls as we entered the last part of 2007, and she just went poof, up in smoke, very quickly, going from an unbeatable candidate to a losing candidate.

The Democratic Party and the country have changed since 2000.  I think they just never grasped that.  It explains a lot more than just their loss in 2008.  It explains a great deal of their behavior.  The fixation on DLC type strategy backfired because we have all had to move past the '90s in the face of Bush's overreaching.  Many people were so anxious to remove the current status quo that they couldn't find appealing the idea of reinstating the previous status quo.  


by Dumbo on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:36:46 AM EST

Re: I'd like to hear a serious post-mortem analysi (2.00 / 3)

This won't be a serious post-mortem analysis, but I'm looking forward to Ed Norton's documentary.  As soon as this whole thing is over.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:10:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

From a basic marketing perspective (none / 0)

It seems she never really did a good SWOT analysis of her candidacy.  A lot of what she's done has been great; but IMO, she slightly overestimated her strengths, grossly underestimated her weaknesses and threats to her image.  Not working harder in the caucus states could fall under lost opportunities.  Really just a sub-par marketing job overall.  

And she's still a contender.  Not bad, really.  If nothing else, that's a good measure of how well she is liked.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:14:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From a basic marketing perspective (none / 0)

It's no secret that one of the hallmarks of Mark Penn is his reliance on "media sensitive" voters.  That's industry speak for "stupid".

It's how she can do the "shame on you, barack obama" bit, when the only problem with his mailer was that it quoted her as calling NAFTA a "boon", instead of the more acurate "good for America".

That stuff plays in Ohio.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:17:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd like to hear a serious post-mortem analysi (none / 0)

Actually, this primary is the stuff upon which volumes of poli sci books and lectures are written.  It will be dissected and studied on a scholarly level for years and years to come...


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:11:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 11)

Yeah, I always hear how hard she will work for us, but she barely worked for herself in the month of February apparently.


by mefck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:37:33 AM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 5)

Where did Clinton's $150 million go? And she has not  been paying some of her bills too....


by TMP on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:40:45 AM EST

WOW I didn't (2.00 / 3)

 realize that this was over...did I miss something, hmm seem to remember 10 states left and a few million people yet to vote. THen you can talk about post mortem, but it might not be hers...


by artsykr on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:57:47 AM EST

Re: WOW I didn't (2.00 / 2)

A post mortem isn't only applicable to the loser of the contest; I think they are useful tools for any process that could use improving. Even you would have to admit that Hillary's campaign could've used a little improving.


unapologetic Obama supporter
by dantes on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:03:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WOW I didn't (2.00 / 1)

If an election had 80+% reporting and your candidate needs to outperform what she had in any one of the first 40 counties in essentially every one of the remaining counties, including several that are tilted heavily toward your opponent, to have a realistic chance you'd probably admit you'd lost right?


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:41:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

!0 states? (none / 0)

did I miss something?  Guam and Puerto Rico became states.  Guess I need to start paying more attention.


by newdealer on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:36:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

10 States? (none / 0)

Guam and Puerto Rico became states?  It must be me that missed soemthing.  Guess I need to start paying more attention.


by newdealer on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:52:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (1.57 / 14)

sigh another 'f*#k off Democracy in the interests of my candidate du jour' diary. There are higher moral principles at stake in this election than the rules ethics around FL/MI. Indeed, how have so many Democrats become more interested in championing adherence to antiquated party rules rather than the actual voices in our party. That so many Obama supporters are willing to say 'to hell' with FL/MI voters and their choices, they broke the rules. No, they did not break the rules. The union auto worker in MI went to vote for his presidential choice, but he broke no rules. An elderly person on medicare in FL went to vote for her presidential choice, she broke no rules. Yet they suffer the costs of voter disenfranchisement while their party plays fast and hard with democratic values and raw politics. This should not be about Clinton or Obama, this should be about standing up for the inalienable and fundamental crux stone of this republic and that is the right to vote.


by corunner26 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:59:08 AM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 11)

The "elections" themselves were disenfranchising.  A contest with one of the principles not on the ballot (Michigan), or where no campaigning is allowed (Florida) would not pass international standards anywhere.

They're not legitimate elections.  Adhering to their results is no solution at all.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:06:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 16)

Exactly.

The union auto worker in MI DIDN'T go vote for his candidate; he went to vote for Clinton or nobody. If his candidate had been Edwards, Obama, or one of the others, he's up the creek.

SO, a lot of those MI residents didn't go vote at all, or voted in the Rep primary.

Same in FL. Although Obama was on the ballot, a lot of people didn't vote because they thought it wouldn't count.

So the whole process was compromised. There are a lot of reasons in both cases, but to now say that two compromised, broken elections 'count' as democracy is ludicrous.


by vadasz on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:22:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And campaigning in FL was suppressed (2.00 / 2)

If an election's outcome is considered legitimate without campaigning, by collorary why campaign at all?  What is the role of campaigning and how does it add legitimacy to an election?

Because, clearly, a campaign is an education process (for better or worse) and a no-campaign rule favors candidates with existing name recognition--it protects the status quo. Who wants to certify an election when candidates were constrained from campaigning?

For those who would say, "But Florida voters had access to information," I would like to remind them of the indignancy expressed by a certain campaign when an Obama ad appeared in Florida as part of a national CNN buy.  The campaigning boycott was strict leaving MSM news as the sole information channel for most people--as if that's an information channel we want to rely on.

I'm a Florida voter (who voted for Edwards) and I was fine knowing that my vote was no more consequential than a straw vote.  


by sawgrass727 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:08:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We all know Obama blocked revotes in FL & MI (none / 0)

How does that behavior by your hero aid democracy? Have some values other than 'elect my hero'. It's wrong that the Obama campaign prevented MI & FL voters from having a voice in the primary election. The easiest way to have done that would've been to allow the FL vote and to allow MI to revote. But a revote in FL, fine, but something needed to be done. Instead the Obama campaign decided no democracy would be better for their candidate.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:48:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

No one campaigned in Kansas, should we eliminate the caucus results?
Should we negate the results of the New Hampshire election, because they broke the rules as well?
Too bad Howard Dean can't seem to take a leadership role in all of this, I'm disappointed in the lack of action from the DNC to solve this mess.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:47:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

wrong... (2.00 / 9)

the obama campaign campaigned in kansas.  i know, i know, you meant hillary didn't campaign there, and hillary is the only democrat who counts.

it's really sad that hillary's supporters have decided that hillary has to be handed the nomination -- just like she's been handed everything else -- and feel the need to blame howard dean for building a strong national committee that is independent of the clintons.  as a florida voter, as someone who knows that florida will vote for mccain regardless of what democrats do, i can tell you that hillary's insistence at embarrassing florida democrat because she ran a shitty campaign has only set us back further.  not that democrats are actually interested in florida ever voting for a democratic nominee again (witness your comments!).  the only thing that matters is that hillary be nominated.  the rest of the democratic party be damned...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:23:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here is where Obama campaigned... (2.00 / 1)

with exception to FL and MI which were fundraisers.  Again, Hillary Clinton has not stepped foot in at least HALF of these states.  And she is whining now?  Who cherry picked states and who did not?  Does Clinton have a map?  If so, she will never show it.  Too late now.  Her statements from her campaign has been stated and she don't care about most of the "little, no nothing states", only these states have propelled Obama to become the nominee.  Again, arrogance and don't give a damn, have truly damned her in the end.

LINK


by tracey webb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:19:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

Obama campaigned in Kansas. He had organizers all over the state, and went there personally.


by DeskHack on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just dont agree (2.00 / 15)

Since when have 'all 50 states' ever had a say in the democratic nominee primary process.  I have never had a say, ever.  My candidate has never made it through to my state and yet Ive always buried my personal choice and done whats right and support the candidate in the general election.

Id love to live in a perfect world and enfranchise everyone equally, but lets not lie to ourselves and believe that has ever been what the democratic primary has been about.  The primary process is not an election for public office.  It is a selection process for the democratic parties representative for the presidential election.

There are enough holes in the nomination process from its inception to show it is and never has been a democratic process.  Super delegates?  How is that democratic?

Id love to somehow allow Florida and Michigan to participate in this once in a lifetime primary, but you know what, this year, it looks like they wont get to.

Since when did we democrats ever worry about PA, NC, IN, PR, WV and on and on and on.  Never.

So this year, Florida and Michigan get to sit on the side lines while other states which have never had a say before get a bigger say than they ever have, or probably ever will again.

If this were the actual presidential election I would hope the entire country would be up in arms if states were excluded.  But this is the democratic party nomination primary process and it is most certainly not a democratic process.

Voting in the democratic primary process is NOT an 'inalienable' right nor a 'fundamental crux stone of this republic' - voting in public elections based on the laws of the land is.  I mean not everyone can vote in a dem primary, so should we start oevr to include them?  

Its just as disengenuous to try and claim the Florida and Michigan votes as they took place were democratic.  They would be banana repiblic standards at best.  They are seriously flawed contests by our ideal standards and must be discounted as such.

It is a shame that a solution couldnt be worked out.  It would sit best with the ideal you are putting forward, which is honorable and just.  But there is also reality and acceptance of the what the process is and what it is not.

But if the Florida and Michigan citizens cant accept that this year they sit on the sidelines for a change then boo hoo for them.

Sorry to be a bit of a boor about it, but sometimes states dont get a say in the process.  Its the way it is, has been and will be.  It sucks and I hope that this election cycle provides some impetus to change the process in the future to bring all states into each election cycle and break the stanglehold some states have on the early nomination process.  But right now, the process is what it is and it is not democratic, nor was it meant to be.


by pattonbt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:20:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, I was gonna post a comment (none / 0)

But yours says it all.  

Perfect- recs to you.


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:58:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And furthermore (2.00 / 1)

More this year than previously, there is an erroneous perception that this is even supposed to be some sort of national referendum on the candidates.  It's not, it never was.

The primaries are a mechanism by which the two parties select their candidate for the GE, that's all.  It is up to them how they want to do it, and it is up to them who they listen to.  Neither FL or MI, or any other state has a "right" to have their votes counted, that's absurd.  This is not an election, it's a process.  The parties have the right to choose their candidate any way they want, hopefully in a way that garners the most votes when it counts.

Tossing in yet another sports metaphor, these are pre-season games, not the real thing.  The managers get to try out different players and strategies to see which ones work and which ones don't.  Sure, lots of folks go to these games and cheer; but they still don't get to pick the starting lineup.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:26:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's a helluva difference between (none / 0)

(1) We'll let you vote when your time comes around, but we can't guarantee that the voters who went before you will not have already provided one of the candidates with enough votes to lock this thing up;

and

(2) We'll let everybody else vote and go all the way through the roll of states, and even though at the end neither candidate has a majority, we still won't let you vote.  


by Trickster on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:42:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's a helluva difference between (none / 0)

I will agree to an extent with your second point.  My preference would be for all states to get a say and what you say is true.

However, I would also say that even if we let them revote we still wont have a majority for either candidate.  Florida and Michigan will have zero impact on the nomination process even if they revote.  No matter what happens, barring catastrophe by a candidate, even with a revote, this thing is in the hands of the supers.  And I believe the supers will factor in Florida and Michigan to their decisions.  So whats the difference between letting them revote if the supers will make the choice anyway?

I have said all along that I want complete revotes for Michigan and Florida, and I put most of the blame on Florida and Michigan for them to have been proactive about having a revote strategy set up.  They knew what they were doing and they should have game planned a solution from the onset.

I have more sympathy for Florida and zero sympathy for Michigan.  So while the good guy in me agrees with the gist of what you are saying.  I dont think it changes my overall point - sometimes states dont get a say, it sucks, but the primary process is not a democratic election, it a process to choose a cnadidate and was never set up for democracy.


by pattonbt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 5)

Let's remember Mrs. Clinton wanted to limit the revote in Michigan to the people who had already voted. Now, you take a look at the turnout in Michigan, compare it to other states, and tell me that's not friggin' disenfranchising.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:17:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well, don't forget that hillary's campaign... (none / 0)

was challenging the credentials of texas caucus goers who were black, as well.

great example for fellow democrats...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:35:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

That would eliminate all of the "Democrats for Mitt" that crossed over to vote for Romney. Thousands of Democrats in MI voted in the Rethug primary and would not be allowed to vote in a "Democratic redo".

There is probably no way to redo either of these contests fairly, but MI could be especially problematic.

by power of truth on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:12:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More than problematic (none / 0)

MI is impossible.

If you limit it to those who only voted D the first time, you disenfranchise all who didn't vote at all or voted R because they thought it wouldn't count.

If you allow all registered Dems only, you disenfranchise all of the important Independents who might have voted for one of the D candidates if they thought it would count.

If you then allow all of the I voters, you then begin to allow some Independent voters a second bite in giving them a chance to vote in both the R and D primaries.  That's just not fair either.

So what do you do?  IMO, there is simply no possible way to set it up that is statistically fair to both candidates and the process.  Oh wait, there's one - follow the f*cking rules everybody agreed to in advance.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 11)

She would have be much more credible if she had been 'fighting' for the voters in in MI and FL prior to the primaries in each state...and prior to her taking a hit in February.

As it is, her 'fighting' merely looks self-serving with a distinct lack of credibility.

I say this as one who would actually like to have both states counted.


by Kysen on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:59:11 AM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 2)

Again, Clinton's stance on either of these states should be incidental on this issue. It is the duty of party members and party leaders to take a lead and champion the right of these voters. However, too many would rather burn the village, if necessary, to elect their village leader of choice.


by corunner26 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:04:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 4)

Again, you cannot call a contest where no campaigning is allowed a legitimate election.  The incumbent will win every time.  There are actually international standards that deal with this very issue.

And that's not even considering the fact that in one of them, only one name was on the ballot.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:07:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 3)

As I stated above:

I say this as one who would actually like to have both states counted.

I just think that Hillary pushing for it in the manner that she now is lacks credibility. That does not, however, negate my wanting the votes to count.


by Kysen on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:10:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 1)

How do you count Michigan?


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:11:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 3)

I wish I had the answers.

At this point, I think that what might end up happening is that one of them racks up the vast majority of Supers and has the delegate numbers no matter how MI and FL count. In my 'perfect' world, the other then concedes prior to the convention and both MI and FL are seated in full.

That is my WAY 'uneducated as to how the delegates works' opinion.

For now, I hold 2 opinions that (in my opinion) are not conflicting.

  1. The votes should count.
  2. Hillary should not front as though she is fighting  for those votes for any other reason other than she now needs them. Before she NEEDED them...she was fine with MI and FL not counting.

It is after 4am...I don't know if any of the above made sense. Mea Culpa.


by Kysen on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:22:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

Oh, yeah...another opinion:

I actually would have been ok if, because of 'breaking the rules' MI and FL had had their primaries CANCELED. NO votes cast.

But, since votes WERE cast...I believe they should count.


by Kysen on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:26:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

false assumptions, flawed logic... (2.00 / 2)

you can be as self-righteous as you want -- jerry falwell had that technique down.  but party leaders should be concerned about building a stronger, more organized and more disciplined democratic party.  you may wish to assert that only the voters matter because your candidate ran a shitty campaign and you (like her) figure that it's better to destroy the democratic party than for your candidate to be denied that which you believe she is entitled to.  but others don't share your belief structure.  if the democratic party was only going to be based in big states, maybe you'd have a point.  

democrats lose national elections because of thinking like your's.  you are obviously stuck on the refrains from the past.  others of us are more concerned with electing a democratic president who represents democratic values than coronating a queen...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:29:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (1.50 / 2)

Actually As early as September 2007, Hillary said that if the DNC does not resolve the FL & MI issue and she wins the nomination she will seat both delegations.

Obama was saying the same thing. Now that the difference in delegates is only 1% Obama is now saying that although the DNC rule intend and offer several paths to resolve problems with states whose contests have timing violations he now insists that both states be excluded.


Jon Winkleman
by Jon Winkleman on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:44:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

feel free to provide a quote or a citation... (2.00 / 1)

that can be independently verified.  i certainly don't remember obama or his campaign saying that.  i don't doubt that you believe that because, well, wishful thinking is a common human trait.  but i certainly never heard barack say that.  i seriously doubt he did...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:31:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

Given that in the dozens of diaries on this subject that has never been claimed, I would need a source for that please.


by interestedbystander on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:40:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 6)

Both quotes are meaningless - they promised to seat the delegations if they are the nominee.

In other words, after the meaningful votes have already been cast.  What people are looking for was Hillary Clinton's outcry that the delegations should be seated before she wins the nomination.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:57:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 1)

Also - one percent?  169 out of 4050 is not one percent, even if Bill says it is.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:58:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 1)

1% is such a funny looking number.  Not to mention wrong.

Why don't we put it like this:

Obama's lead is paper-thin!  It's only as big as Hillary's margin of victory in New York.

And California.

And Massachusetts.

And New Jersey.

And Arkansas.

And Oklahoma.

And Tennessee.

And Ohio.

Put together.  She can obviously turn it around!


by Rorgg on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:48:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama (2.00 / 1)

pledged delegate lead is ~6%.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 3)

Obama will seat the delegations as is. When the superdelegates swamp to him after the last contest (or sooner), and he goes over The Magic Number (c), it'll get done, believe you me.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:19:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

I, too, believe that this will be the eventual outcome.


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:02:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

She was talking about in January. Is that soon enough for you, or should she have been talking about it before January?


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:50:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 3)

She should have been talking about it before she started getting clobbered everywhere else.  She certainly should not have been saying that the elections wouldn't count, which she did before Iowa.

That's the problem with principles - they have to be true whether you're ahead or behind.  Suddenly arguing that failing to seat the results of a flawed election only when you start losing smacks of opportunism.  If it's as important as she says - if the nomination will lack legitimacy unless the two delegations are seated, you would think she would have cared about it at the time.  Was she willing to win the nomination without Florida and Michigan, and thus, by her logic, not be the legitimate nominee?


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:02:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 4)

She signed and supported the penalty of Florida and Michigan.  She pledged not to participate in those contests.  If you claim otherwise, please link.  You'd be the first.


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:45:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

you will get no response to this.  They can't come up with  anything.


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:17:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

Regardless how it looks or what her motivations are, she's fighting for the right cause, a basic one: the enfranchisement of MI and FL voters. Obama fought that and has succeeded. After gloating for awhile now the Obamabots want to rewrite recent history and pretend that's not what they did.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong as usual, Bob (1.40 / 5)

but I guess the die-hard Obama supporters are having a bad day because it turns out the Great Obama would throw them under a bus in an instance- if he could get away with it.
Sure hope those reinstated delegates show up on Sunday and protest.
by linc on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:59:18 AM EST

Re: Wrong as usual, Bob (2.00 / 5)

The next time I hear "__ threw __ under the bus", I'm handing out thesauruses.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:08:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Queen linc (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, God forbid if any looks at situation in a different way then linc...


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:29:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You got it (none / 0)

one big queen, gay as the night is dark.
by linc on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong as usual, Bob (2.00 / 1)

Oh my GOD, he made a mistake, listened to the people, and then FIXED IT!!!

I guess this isn't a standard we can expect from a President Hillary Clinton, hmm?


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:20:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (2.00 / 1)

but why the hell did he do it in the first place?
by linc on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:02:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong as usual, Bob (none / 0)

Oops.  He reinstated them.  Time to start rifling through his kindergarten papers again.


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The reality is (2.00 / 19)

The Clintons knew the primary process almost too well and got suckered a bit by believing they had the system gamed from the go (not trying to imply nefariousness - just that they felt they had all the aces).

And all you have to look at to see that they knew what to do is simply look at the super delegates who endorsed before the first caucus vote was even cast.

They had about 100+ supers already lined up.  Think about that.  They essentially hass 5% of the delegates needed for the nomination needed before any contest went to vote.

In some ways its almost impossible to conceive that any candidate could overcome such a disadvantage.

The Clintons knew that with proportional allocation and three candidates plus in the first few races would spread the pledged delegates enough to keep them way on top and in the race at the head.  They also knew name recognition would keep them up in the big states and this could keep any serious counter attack at bay.

But to think about what the Clinton campaign must have seen as their prospects knowing they already had 5% of the vote before a contest was held is the real insight to me.

It never occured to them that there could even be a contest.  But Obama hit a nerve with the public - right time, right place, right message, right person - and fought back in a way that the Clintons didnt expect.  And fought back in a way that the Clitnons couldnt counter.

Once Iowa wowed the public allowing for the possible thought of a David versus Goliath and that a downfall was possible.  Then the super Tusday split kept him alive.  Then the killer - Obama actually had a plan for post super Tuesday that was focused on the right goal - pledged delegates.

And before you knew it, not only had that 5% advantage already been reased, he had overturned it in a way that makes it almost (note almost) impossible for Clinton to come back.

The post mortem of this race will be interesting indeed.


by pattonbt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:00:30 AM EST

Re: The reality is (1.87 / 8)

She had like 200 superdelegates already before the first vote was cast so she was 10% of the way to being the nominee. The difference was a bit over 100 between her and Obama. I also they never saw his fundraising strength coming. Until now nobody in the party could outraise the Clintons and money has always been the problem for an insurgent candidate.  The post mortems will certainly be interesting on this race for both campaigns.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:35:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes! (none / 0)

And I believe this shows why Obama is a Bad-ass GE candidate.  To do what he's done in this primary-against the Clintons- and then to be handed a pathetic opponent like John McCain...


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:06:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant (2.00 / 6)

EVERY Democrat needs to read this important diary in my opinion.  


by reggie44pride on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:13:44 AM EST

Re: too arrogant and lazy (1.90 / 10)

LMAO.  Hillary Clinton is too lazy to work for it?  How f'in ridiculous.  She's supposed to drop out because it's over and keeps campaigning like the Energizer bunny.  She wins Ohio and Texas, is leading in PA, KY, WV and PR and is clearly one of the hardest working campaigners in the history of presidential campaigns.

Find something else, please.


by Thaddeus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:32:25 AM EST

Re: too arrogant and lazy (1.90 / 11)

She lost Texas


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:35:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

only because she won't play by the rules... (1.50 / 4)

royalty, you know, is supposed to be treated differently, with deference.  if only she had "worked hard," played by the rules, and been able to organize her supporters, she might have won texas.

i'm sure she thought she deserved to win texas, even if the voters don't agree...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:40:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Too little too late (2.00 / 10)

In the twilight days of the campaign this looks like the political equivalent of cramming for finals.

There is also a huge difference between working hard and working smart.


by Tenafly Viper on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:11:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too little too late (none / 0)

or just claiming to be 'working hard'...
by power of truth on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:24:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: too arrogant and lazy (2.00 / 7)

Yes, and this is the hard work and the "fighter" ethic she will bring to all who vote for her.

I say this as someone who voted for her for the Senate when she pledged 100k jobs in Upstate NY. 8 years later, it still hasn't happened and she has completely given up on the pledge (hell, she never even worked on it or had any actual plan). It was just an empty campaign promise, but one that worked--she got what she wanted, votes, and the voters got . . . .


by DrPolitics on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:05:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: too arrogant and lazy (2.00 / 2)

All the 'Energizer Bunny' does is go around in circles banging on a drum--so you're saying this is Clinton? I think that's the point of the diary, actually.


by Wary on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:26:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (2.00 / 2)

I dont think Hillary was lazy at all.  I just think she didnt plan well for all contigencies.

She had a plan of a first round knock out, a very good and well thought out plan.  To keep the boxing theme going (probably tenuously), the problem was while she trained for a first round knock out and trained well for that, she didnt train for anything else.

To change themes, she put her eggs in one basket and then got caught when that basket broke.

I think when she got caught short she didnt quit, but she didnt have any immediate plan to get back on track and it has taken her a while to get back on it.  But I dont believe that in that month when her campaign was walking in the wilderness that they werent working hard I just think they had to get back in the game.

So no, she and her campaign arent lazy by any stretch, but they were willful, arrogant and borderline stupid for taking the path they did and they deserve to be called on it.

I think now they are doing what they can and to the best they can and they shouldnt be discounted ever.


by pattonbt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:03:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i agree, she's helping mccain... (2.00 / 3)

better to elect a republican president than to help
"that man" (who just happens to be a democrat) win the white house.  but then, i thought she had that attitude in 2004, too...
peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:42:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (2.00 / 3)

Actually, the truth is that she needed to pull some of her eggs out of the Iowa basket and campaign harder in SC and for Super Tuesday.  She went "all in" in Iowa, setting up high expectations, and leaving her unable to compete equally across the Super Tuesday states.

The staffer who argued in Spring 2007 for pulling out of Iowa altogether may have been right.


by Adam B on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: too arrogant and lazy (2.00 / 2)

After 2/3 of the states had voted, Clinton was quoted in the press saying "I'm just warming up!" - all I could think was, too late, Hillary, too late.  Likewise, your point about her leads in 4 of the ten remaining races - too little, too late.


Defeat John McCain - John McCaingry.com
by AML on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:38:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, too arrogant and incredibly bad judgment... (2.00 / 1)

ONCE AGAIN!  you may see her trapsing from tarmac to tarmac as "hard work," but that only tells us that you have a rather lackadaisical view of what hard work means.

i'll agree that her campaign will go into the textbooks -- as an example of all the things not to do when you run a campaign.  her's has been the worst campaign ever.  if she wasn't married to bill clinton, she would have dropped out last august.  she has all the makings of another mondale-like defeat.  some readers, no doubt, would like that...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:38:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (2.00 / 3)

I think that distinction goes to one Fred Thompson.  I mean the repubs pleaded to give him the nomination and he couldnt bring himself to even try.

Then maybe Guliani next.  I mean at least Hillary tried to compete in the early races.

In the end though there will be quite a few campaigns for the historians to study from this election cycle.


by pattonbt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:18:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i'll concede the point... (none / 0)

i don't really think about the campaigns of republicans who fail in primaries.  the two parties are generally distinctive enough that failures in the other party isn't really instructive.

hillary's failure in this campaign is instructive for future and current democratic campaign people.  but i agree that there are worse examples on the other side...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: too arrogant and lazy (2.00 / 2)

She didn't win Texas.  For that matter, she didn't win Nevada either.


by vbdietz on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:40:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She keeps going, and going.... (2.00 / 1)

HRCbunny
by jwolf on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 6)

I remember one time in the fall, Hillary was on some morning show, and she made some comment about I know I'll be the nominee.

I remember it was a woman interviewing her, and the interviewer said, you mean you hope you're the nominee, and Hillary replied, No, I know I'll be the nominee.

I remember thinking at the time, Toots, you seem to be forgetting something, like you have to have people vote for you.

And that has been Hillary's campaign in a nutshell.  She knew she was going to be the nominee, without realizing there's a vote involved.  It wasn't even an air of inevitability, it was an assumption of mantel passing to her.

Our presidency is not a fricking dynasty, toots.


by xyz on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:05:29 AM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (1.66 / 3)

Toots...a normal sexist comment from a sexist Obama shill. (And no, I don't care if you're a woman)


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:09:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is the road to hell paved by (1.60 / 5)

oversensitive and overzealous so-called feminists?

Grow a pair and stop being so whiny!


by SleepingWillow on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:24:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (1.75 / 4)

Calling her Toots is sexist?

LOL, you're taking political correctness to new, lower levels.  One more reason not to vote for Hillary.


by xyz on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:14:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 2)

Just imagine the comment if you'd called her Buster instead!


by vbdietz on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:43:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 6)

I well remember her announcing at the very last debate that the nomination campaign would be 'over' on Super Tuesday--I remember that very well, and I recall Obama saying 'I don't know about that" Clinton didn't care back then if any other voters, all those other states, got to vote or not, it was all going to be 'over' come Super Tuesday.

I also recall her answering the question a month or so ago if she ever had any doubt about her being the nominee, she responded 'no' without a blink, the questioner asked her again, Never?, "No, never"--ok, I won't use the word 'toots' what I will use are the words "total arrogance' on her part.


by Wary on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:32:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

they believe in their restoration... (2.00 / 1)

as dem dem (et al) called it.  there's something very strange about the democratic party becoming the royalist party, but then, she was a goldwater girl.  i don't think she ever gave up those leanings...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:45:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant (2.00 / 4)

KUDOS to another great rec'd diary that isn't in the land of make-believe.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:13:00 AM EST

Word up. (2.00 / 4)

It's easier to buy $90,000 worth of sandwich platters (and then stiff the caterer) than inspire, recruit, train, and mobilize an army of volunteers to work in the trenches for every vote. If you're inevitable, that is.

Nearly everything about how the Clinton campaign has been conceived and run sends an ominous message about what a less-than-mediocre President she would be.


Impeach Bush and Cheney.
by urban shocker on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:46:42 AM EST

Talk about arrogance. (2.00 / 1)

Pot... kettle...


by JimR on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:30:06 AM EST

Re: Talk about arrogance. (2.00 / 2)

I don't know about you, but I'd say there's a difference between arrogance and confidence.

Like, in this case, success.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:25:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So, I guess with Bush... (none / 0)

it was confidence also, since he was successful.


by JimR on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:58:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

can you (2.00 / 1)

please not compare dem candidates to Bush?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:43:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

those aren't facts bob (1.50 / 2)

that's a lot of side lateral arabesques.  


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:39:09 AM EST

Re: those aren't facts bob (2.00 / 2)

Teresa, do you even know what you're saying?


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:26:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well... (none / 0)


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:37:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Teresa doesn't lack for passion (none / 0)

and it's almost enough, isn't it?


by Quarterbackjoe on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:43:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you mean (none / 0)

Something reminiscent of Arab culture?

or

An archaic, rudimentary firearm?

Either reference makes for an odd form of rebuttal.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:42:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

how are they (none / 0)

not facts?

Hillary did not really compete at all in tens of small states. That my friend if as a fact


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who is trying to end the primary prematurely? (2.00 / 4)

That's right: Obama. His refined strategy is to have his surrogates tell PA voters that they should stay home, as in what's the point? Their call for her to quit flopped hard.

Oh, and why is he afraid of revotes in FL and MI? Afraid to work, or afraid of losing?


Fight for Democrats in Congress.
by owl06 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:19:39 AM EST

Re: Who is trying to end the primary prematurely? (2.00 / 3)

- Heh, yep, you nailed his message. Good job. I can't believe the MSM, news pundits, other bloggers, etc, haven't picked up on this yet. Now I see it, though! His level of campaigning and financial contributions certainly indicate he's telling PA voters to stay home. Congratulations, sir!

- Well, I'd say the answer is clear. Obama can take thirty-point polling deficits in favor of Clinton and turn them into thirty point leads (see Virginia and Maryland, for instance), or turn them into narrow losses/wins (Texas) if he gets time to campaign there. Name recognition is the biggest attribute Clinton's had to bring to bear, not her message, policies, etc, and it takes time to fight something like that.

But I suppose the fact Clinton supports a revote in Michigan only comprising of those who voted the first time is a wonderful idea. Absolutely. Considering it had the lowest percentage turnout of every state in this process so far, I'd say that's definitely fair... for Clinton.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:32:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who is trying to end the primary prematurely? (2.00 / 4)

Sorry, but Obama does not control whether or not FL and MI revotes.  Stop pretending like he is stopping them.


by Bobby Obama on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:36:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

got a quote from obama? (2.00 / 2)

i'd love to see it.

if you asked me, it's the voters in pennsylvania that are worried that this primary has gone on too long.  they have a legitimate concern that this bitterly divisive primary sets mccain up as our next president.

some people weren't interested in that...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:39:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Caught by an uppercut (2.00 / 4)

Good diary Bob.  But I'd like to defuse the use of words like arrogant and lazy.  This reminds me more of a prize fight where a boxer has trained against right-handers, fought nothing but right handers, and then out of the blue gets knocked out by a surprise left uppercut that they never saw coming.  This reminds me of the Frazier Foreman fight.  No one - not the bookies, not the sportscasters, not the fans - expected Foreman to take out the champ. (well - Howard Cosell did - but he was a lone voice)

Like boxing, much of politics is based on past-performance. Polls are analyized based on likely voters, the data is collected based on previous election cycles, fundraising, etc. all founded in the past - and rarely has the chance of something unexpected happening ever been factored into to the data.  

At the beginning of the Democratic primaries (I would like to have been a fly on the wall in preliminary strategy meetings) I would assume that the Clinton staff sat down, and assessed those candidates who she would be running against.  I think they knew (or thought they knew) that Bill Richardson was running for either VP, or another position in a future administration, and when they made their assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition, they honed in on Edwards - as the candidate most likely to give them trouble.  

Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, Vilsack were assessed as being not a problem - for a host of reasons.  Neither Wesley Clark, Al Gore, nor Bill Bradley were in the ring - so that was another worry off the agenda.  

Barack Obama was not even in their radar.  Why?  From their pov - 1. He was black. 2. He had a weird name 3.  He was a freshman from nowhere who had given a nice speech in the past - and was essentially an "affirmative action candidate", to be relegated to the status of Jesse Jackson.  Secure in the knowledge that AA's - who have always been a solid Dem voting block were in their corner, the population they wanted to secure was the Hispanic voter - insurance for the run against the future Republican contender.  Hispanics (as they have assessed them) in several key states have had a past practice of voting for Repubs.  

Is this arrogance - perhaps.  I'd prefer to call it politics as usual, or the "conventional wisdom".  Who has ever taken black candidates seriously ?   Even many of the people now supporting Obama were not there from the beginning.  Many were for Edwards, some for others - and to be honest AA's had a host of reasons for staying comfortably behind the Clintons.  Most black folks don't believe - deep in their hearts that a black man can ever be President.  Others believe that a black man as a serious contender would be immediately killed.  They remember Colin Powell deciding not to run.
They also know that the machine, fueled by big money was never going to back a black man - so why bother to waste votes and wind up with another Republican.  This feeling or wisdom embedded in black folks is the same as the assessment of the Clinto camp - not for the same reasons but the end result is the same.  Obama was an anomaly, nice to see that our country is so liberal now that black folks and Mxicans can run for the Presidency, but of no real import - in the long run.  So Barack Obama was dismissed, out of hand.  Is this arrogance?  Again I say, perhaps.   Perhaps - only if you tar the entire history of the American political process as arrogant, elitist, and patriarcal.  Clinton - though female, is not a feminist candidate, though her gender at this point in time would turn out to be very useful, since the large number of female voters is of the age that they are finally ready to actually vote for a woman.  But the machine that Clinton depended upon was a male one, and the meme of "experience" was crafted and grafted from her wife-hood with Bill.

Those who might worry about having a woman in charge could sleep safely knowing that Bill would be there to guide her.  

I don't think they were particularly lazy.  They assessed the available data, (grounded in history) and mapped their strategy accordingly.  They figured that they could wipe out most of the opposition fairly early in the game, and that ultimately they could co-opt Edwards and his supporters if he proved difficult in certain regional battles.  Don't know what position they had in mind for him - VP or atty General - but I grow more suspicious each day he doesn't open his mouth.  

So they climbed into the ring, secure like Joe Frazier 's camp that this would be a fairly easy fight.  Would probably only go a round or two.  
Who could have predicted that Foreman would deck
Frazier 6 times?  Just like who could have predicted Obama's string of victories?

Frankly, not many people.  I find it interesting that Hillary has now compared herself to Rocky Balboa.  She reminds me more of pugnacious Jake LaMotta (Raging Bull) who did manaage a win against Sugar Ray Robinson and who refused ultimately to get out of the game till he had damaged himself badly.  

I can't stretch these boxing analogies too far - but I wanted to comment on how I view Clinton and where the failures came from.  

No one could have predicted the enormous netroots/grassroots financial machine and campaign put together by Obama.   Doubtful anyone really factored "the youth" vote at all, and certainly "white people" weren't going to vote for a black - or even half-black man.  

Hey - all this surprised me.  But then I've rarely participated in electoral politics anyway - giving it up as hopeless.  

Guess I was wrong.  Though I will say that I did bet 10 bucks against my dad on the Foreman Frazier fight.  He tried to give me back my money,
I insisted.  He told me I didn't know anything about boxing.  He was right - but I had a hunch.

Just like I have a hunch about Barack Obama.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing racism,sexism,homophobism, ageism and ethnocentrism.
by NeciVelez on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:21:55 AM EST

Only half the story. Where's the praxis? (none / 0)

Oh boy. I get to use a new word I encountered just the other day. :)

Your comment does a fine job describing the reasonable steps that led to Sen Clinton's campaign strategy.  But nowhere do you deal with hos the theoretical knowledge was put into practice.

The Clinton campaign raised a ton of money, spent a ton of money, but received very little on their investment.  She opened few campaign offices.  She did not recruit, organize, and direct a nationwide team of volunteers to put shoeleather on sidewalks from coast-to-coast. She outsourced the actual campaign WORK to local politcal bigwigs.

I would not call it laziness but I would call it a fatal flaw in judgement. The stakes are sky-high yet she still left too much to chance.  As the saying goes, of you want the job done right, do it yourself. Sure, it is harder to manage your own campaign workers, but quality takes effort. And as a matter of strategy you do not leave things like that to chance.

In summary it is the same old story: Sixteen years in the limelight have left The Clintons not quite remembering what it's really like to be young and hungry. Now mre vigourous new blood has arrived to replace the tired older blood. And so on.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only half the story. Where's the praxis? (none / 0)

I keep wondering how it is that until recently, Clinton and Obama were more or less equal in terms of total money raised, yet the Clinton campaign keeps issuing press releases on how they're being outspent.

Does anyone know how they can both be true?  It does not compute.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:55:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Explanation (none / 0)

Sen Clinton raised a lot of money before even the Iowa caucus, but she spent it all very early in the campaign. Also, a substantial portion of her fundraising total includes money useable only if she is the candidate this November.  Virtially all of the money Sen Obama has raised is useable in the primary season.

After her original war chest gave out, SINCE THEN yes, she has been out-raised and out-spent by the Obama camapign.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:04:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only half the story. Where's the praxis? (2.00 / 0)

For it to compute, someone needs to believe in math, however a Howard Wolfson internal memo directed all campaign managers and staff to, moving forward, abandon all principles of math and computation. In fact the mere mention of the word "math" is sacrilege.

Haven't you noticed that the campaign even refuses to "add up" how much money to spend where? The donors are actually doing that. Also, all computers at campaign headquarters now run on processors powered by experience instead of logic.


_____________
changiness
by lizardbox on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only half the story. Where's the praxis? (2.00 / 0)

Quicklund, you are correct - didn't discuss praxis - which is a word I don't use very frequently, but it's good to see it getting some exercise ;)

I didn't go there because I think there have been plenty diaries that have gone over the failures of execution, and the administrative breakdowns in the C campaign, and the spin that they have then had to manufacture to cover both faulty theory and inept execution.  

I was far more interested in how BHO managed to be "not in the radar", so to speak, which is interesting to me as a social scientist.

The corrective measures they have taken - goal post moving, dismissing states won, specious arguments about MI and FL, the kitchen sink...threats of delegate poaching, seem to me to be too little too late.  I'd have to switch boxers - Obama's praxis is rope-a-dope a la Ali; evading, counter-punching when necessary.  

The refs (super delegates) are in the ring..counting...the question is, when will she be counted out?


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing racism,sexism,homophobism, ageism and ethnocentrism.
by NeciVelez on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:03:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good points, good 'sweet science' analogies (2.00 / 1)

My comment was motivated almost entirely by a chance to use the newest word in my vocabulary. :)

To answer your question, I think the smart money is on the refs (CDs) calling a TKO after the final bell in the 15th round (ie Puerto Rico.)  At this stage I conclude their thinking goes something like this:

* The primaries are turning out massive voter intret and new registrations.  That's all good.

* With so few contests left to run, the Party might as well just let the full course play itself out.

* With the course played out, even the most ardent supporters (either candidate) will have to conclude their candidate was given every chance to win.  

So I expect the SDs to step in and slam their support home for the overall winner before the last vote cast in Puerto Rico has time to grow cold.

If you like longshots, put down a dime on the SDs stepping in after PA (in case of an Obama win) or after NC/IN (strong Obama finishes push the pledged delegate count beyond Sen Clinton's reach.)  Earlier action by the SDs is possible, but I think we're too close to the last primary. They'll probably just let the contest run out the string.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good points, good 'sweet science' analogies (2.00 / 0)

I think you are correct.  LOL - I don't know whether my blood pressure can take it though. I need to detox off of the primary race. Conserve energy for the main event with McCain.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing racism,sexism,homophobism, ageism and ethnocentrism.
by NeciVelez on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: (2.00 / 3)

I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that so many states were voting on Super Tuesday, and so many of the states were seen as favorable Clinton states with lots of delegates. Most people both in and out of the Clinton campaign thought that one way or the other, the nomination would be decided on that day. Obama fought her to a draw, and I really don't think anyone in the Clinton campaign anticipated that.


by dmc2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:22:40 AM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 2)

There was also Bill.
The nostalgic vote for a return to the 90's was not as broad as anticipated. (8 years of Bush/Cheney will do that.)
...and of course Mark Penn. Could he really care about anything she stood for?. After all she was just another client.
This is what Penn had always been about and Sen. Clinton knew it.
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/Bursoncache .jpg
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:23:32 AM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Arrogant? (2.00 / 1)

I lost a long reply do to a computer glitch, sigh. In shorthand form:

The non stop spin sickens me. Obama supporters latched onto "desperate" and "arrogant" early on in this campaign to drive up Hillary Clinton;s  negatives in a coordinated effort to negatively define her to voters and build on the hit job done by the right wing on the Clinton's for years; classic politics.

It used to be that  commentators would say that - let's call it the Wallabigby campaign - was "concerned" about a development they felt needed to dealt with. Nowadays that Wallabigby campaign is "desperate". It used to be that commentators would say thet the Wallabigby campaing erred by being over confident of their lead. That  is not good enough nowadays. Nowadays that Wallabigby campaign was "arrogant".

In Mid Summer 2007 most of the political universe was over confident in hindsight that Clinton would win this before Super Tuesday. For a moment many think Obama was over confident he would win New Hampshire. Over confidence is a danger to all favorites in any election contest. But it is clearest in hind sight. Before hind sight sets in campaigns make adjustments, sometimes they go for a knock out blow in order to settle a contest and move on to prepare for the General Election. Sometimes they begin working in the campaign theme of the General Election prior to the primaries ending if they are confident enough.

Clinton's team was wrong, Obama's team was right. Clinton's team was over confident and Obama's team husttled. This is not a new script. When a presumed overwhelming favorite goes on to win as expected, few ever say boy were they lucky they didn't get burned for their over confidence. Clinton's team was extremely confident she would win reelection to the U.S. Senate. They were right that time.


Blogging at http://www.aleftturnforclark.com
by Tom Rinaldo on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:55:43 AM EST

They got outworked. (2.00 / 2)

And why? Would you say that "overconfidence" is an outgrowth of arrogance?


by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:59:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They got outworked. (none / 0)

I don't believe in conflating words with different meanings. That's the bottom line. One can be over confident for many reasons; one could be lulled into a false sense of security by faulty data and that can perhaps more accurately be called stupid in such an instance, if you want to be accusatory. But over confidence is a state, and arrogance is a character flaw, and they do not mehanically line up.


Blogging at http://www.aleftturnforclark.com
by Tom Rinaldo on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:22:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Arrogant? (2.00 / 1)

Well, neither "desperate" nor "arrogant" were creations of the Obama campaign.

But really, the Clinton campaign was unique in pushing inevitability as their selling point all through 2007.  As a spectator it was absolutely fascinating - you know she never gave anyone a real reason to vote for her?  I mean, "experience" is like "character"; sure, it's a nice thing to have but it doesn't define you as any different from any other candidate.

John Edwards had a narrative and a reason to vote for him.  Barack Obama gave people a reason to vote for him.  Hillary Clinton's reason amounted to "I'm a Clinton and besides you all know I'm going to win anyway".  Look back on her speeches and her changing tag lines for the first two months and you'll see what I mean.

It wasn't until the runup to Ohio and Texas that she finally became a decent candidate.  The demographics during her long time in the political wilderness illustrate this - she was losing every demographic group except older white women for whom there's a built-in reason to vote for Hillary Clinton.  Only now is she a decent candidate - she's transformed herself into sort of a modified John Edwards; a tireless worker for the forgotten, and a women you can never underestimate.  

Presidential campaigns need themes like that - what Bush the Elder called "the vision thing".  Bill Clinton was finally a guy who understood what it was like to struggle, and besides, George Bush was out of touch.  It was time for change, and for a new generation to take over.  Reagan had a narrative.  All successful presidential candidates do.

Hillary Clinton treated this like a Senate race; her attitude was "I have a decent enough resume, I'm good in interviews, I'm famous, I have my talking points down - what's the problem?"  It took her until most states had already voted before she finally hit on the fact that she had never given anyone a reason to vote for her.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:30:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Arrogant? (none / 0)

"Obama supporters latched onto "desperate" and "arrogant" early on in this campaign to drive up Hillary Clinton;s  negatives in a coordinated effort to negatively define her to voters and build on the hit job done by the right wing on the Clinton's for years; classic politics."

I may be venturing a bit here as I do not have statistics, but didn't Hillary have high negatives long before most of America knew how to pronounce Barack Obama?  I suppose there are legitamate arguments to make against the Obama campaign's tactics, but driving up Hillary's negatives?  Not sure even they can claim credit for that.


To kill one person is murder. To kill thousands is foreign policy." - Chinese writer Moh-Tze
by ILean Left on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Arrogant? (none / 0)

The intent would be to drive up Clinton's negatives specifically within the Demcoratic base of potential primary voters where her intial ratings were higher - by picking up on and pressing themes in the primaries that the Right wing propagated and exploited against both Clinton's in tbe general electorate for many years to counter their political success against the Republican Party.


Blogging at http://www.aleftturnforclark.com
by Tom Rinaldo on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:46:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Arrogant? (none / 0)

Has it occurred to you that perhaps some of the those "right wing memes" about the Clintons were true?  The right wing way overreached and were pretty evil about it but time and this campaign has taught me there were some kernels of truth in those memes.

With the benefit of distance I am beginning to release I reflexively defended the Clintons because they had a D next to their names but in reality they did alot of pretty messed up things.  Our bar was just very low at that point.

Dean and then Obama set the bar much higher and she has failed to reach it.


by FinneganOregon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:27:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Working Hard vs. Hardly Working (2.00 / 0)

In this campaign, I am used to seeing Hillary run around quickly, with gravely voice and bags under her eyes.  She is clearly working very hard.  But she has built a terrible, terrible infrastructure which are not working very hard, not addressing the issues and are not making any of the necessary mid-stream corrections.

On the other hand, we have Obama who often seems to be fresh and well-rested and energetic, but somewhere in the background, I know there are an army of people making decisions, working hard and getting things done.  

I never doubted Hillary was a fighter but she doesn't inspire those around her to be fighters on her behalf.  That is why she will lose.


by zadura on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:23:44 AM EST

Breath of fresh air (2.00 / 0)

Thanks Bob.  The concern trolls are so numerous this morning I was threatening to stay away from this site until after the nomination (after which I could gleefully troll rate the lot of them) and then I saw your diary.

Your unfailing optimism in trying to use the hammer of reason to beat some sense into those who are immune to the truth, deaf to logic and blind to common sense should be commended.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:28:28 AM EST

people who live in glass houses (2.00 / 4)

shouldn't throw stones.  

Obama is the king of arrogance.  that's why he doesn't want to work for the nomination, he wants to "ride the wave", getting his surrogates to demand clinton step aside.

A little disingenuous BJ, after all you've said and how you've trashed HRC.  Can't hide your own hatred, can you?


by 4justice on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:33:27 AM EST

No. (2.00 / 4)

You think its a game? Obama and his campaign - apparently in an effort to ride a wave - are opening up offices in Guam. He had 5+ in Alaska. He has multiple offices in NC in OR...now Montana. Grassroots is the OPPOSITE of riding a wave. You should take a look at the diary again, the point here is that Clinton thought her name and her 'inevitability' would allow her to ride her own wave after Feb 5. The problem (which is CONFIRMED by her campaigns problems) is that she was not willing to give the people of the USA (at least those in states that she arrogantly felt didnt matte) the respect they deserve. Talk about disenfranchisement.


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:04:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work (1.50 / 4)

Your posts are satire.


by Sensible on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work (2.00 / 0)

So is the Colbert Report, but it delivers more truth than any other show/network/blog.


_____________
changiness
by lizardbox on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:23:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to (none / 0)

One thing that I think a lot of people miss is that the Clinton camp has it both ways on the caucuses - on the one hand, they are supposedly unfair and "disenfranchise" many Democrats, but on the other, the lower number of caucus-goers is about the only thing keeping the popular vote* within reach.  

*By which I mean the dubious logic of counting Michigan and Florida as is despite their severely flawed results.


by rfahey22 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:43:57 AM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 1)

I think this explains February and what followed very well.  Here in Colorado, there was almost no sign of any Clinton organizing for the caucuses.

Clinton expected a coronation, not an election.


by baghdadjoe on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:06:24 AM EST

True enough, but old news (2.00 / 0)

The basic difference between the two campaigns - one works hard everywhere and the other does not - has been obvious ever since circa Feb 1st, when examination of Sen Clinton's post-SuperTuesday schedule showed there was no post-SuperTuesday schedule.  Hasn't it?

I think at this point the Democratic Party just let's nature run its course.  The primary season will probably run to completion.  Everyone will have had their chance to vote*, and that is good for feelings of voter participation.  hen the SDs will line up behind the winner, and Sen Onama will go on to thash Sen McCain in November.

.
.
.
(* - Yes, FL.MI did have their chance to vote. No one forced them to get greedy and over-reach. They will have delegates at teh Convention, and the voters in those states can decide what to do about the politicians who delivered them to the current situation. That is now FUBARs are rsolved in reprosentative demcracies.)


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:16:15 AM EST

A good, another Fairytale Re: The Clinton Campaign (2.00 / 2)

It's good you want to show a humorous side and you write a tale for a diary.

Hillary has been the only candidate working hard not trying to stop the campaign and have the nomination handed to them.....and trying to stop states from getting to vote.....

...thank goodness you didn't try to write a serious diary.


by LindaSFNM on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:29:12 AM EST

Re: A good, another Fairytale Re: The Clinton Camp (none / 0)

How is Obama trying to stop states from getting to vote?  Matter of fact, I think that's impossible; for example, I know the Republican primaries are still being held.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A good, another Fairytale Re: The Clinton Camp (2.00 / 1)

His campaign was calling for Hillary to concede for one and two, he has rejected Michigan and Florida getting delegates based on the unsanctioned primary, and blocking any effort to hold a revote to get their delegates based on the DNC sanctioned primary.


by LindaSFNM on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A good, another Fairytale Re: The Clinton Camp (none / 0)

Not a shred of truth or fact in this entire comment.  Jeebus


by FinneganOregon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its ok to disagree - but this is silly (2.00 / 2)

"Hillary has been the only candidate working hard not trying to stop the campaign and have the nomination handed to them.....and trying to stop states from getting to vote....."

The Obama camp is opening up an office in Guam! Sounds like he is in it for the long run.

You may not like the diary - b/c it is very harsh - but at least admit that Hillary's campaign managers have failed her. Heck - regarding the votes, Ickes is one of those brilliant DNC-types that voted for the penalty.


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dishonest diary, i'm sorry, i though dems (2.00 / 3)

liked to rally around the idea of a fair press that doesnt choose our candidates for us?


DEMOCRATIC 08!
by rigsoHC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:46:28 AM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work (2.00 / 3)

Hey Bob have a great time bashing Hillary but save the best for last. Your guy  Obama I would is losing ground against McCain. If the trendline holds he won't beat McCain so you will need your worst Hillary slams in November to blame her for the Obama  defeat. So again save some hatered will ya Bob and clones? I wouldn't want you to run dry.


by coolofthenight on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:49:45 AM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 1)

The only person I recall saying that a revote in Florida was out of the question was Debbie Wasserman-Schulz - she's Hillary Clinton's national co-chair in Florida.  Robert Wexler, Obama's counterpart, agreed.

The very next day, Hillary Clinton went on TV and accused Obama of blocking revotes in Florida.  I'm a patient person but I do get tired of this constant slander that Obama is blocking revotes.  If he were that powerful none of this would be an issue.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:00:46 PM EST

MI FL is worrying Obama folk, hence the diary (2.00 / 4)

Why this diary and why now? Oh I know. It's catching fire that Obama is disenfranchising two states by stalling the revotes.


by catfish1 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST

apparently you did not (2.00 / 1)

read the diary


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:58:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI FL is worrying Obama folk, hence the diary (none / 0)

Catfish:

Please provide one shred of independent reporting that shows that Obama or his surrogates are blocking or stalling re-votes in MI or FL.

You can't so plese stop posting lies.


by FinneganOregon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:37:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI FL is worrying Obama folk, hence the diary (none / 0)

Obama's camp wary of mail-in redo in Michigan and Florida

The plan is still being developed and significant hurdles remain, not the least of which is strong opposition by the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama


by catfish1 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:45:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI FL is worrying Obama folk, hence the diary (none / 0)

LOL.  YOU HAVE NOTHING.  NOTHING.

In the very article you cite as evidence we have the following quote:

"All of the House members, Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, neutral, we are united in the fact that we know the mail-in vote is a bad idea. It's not well thought out," said U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor of Tampa, who hopes to bring in former Sen. Bob Graham to help broker a deal"

Yep, sure Obama is "blocking a re-vote".

Look, I am from Oregon.  I also happen to be the campaign manager for the 1998 Vote By Mail initiative.  I know just a few things about the subject and I am a huge fan of the system.  That said, it took us 10 + years of doing it before we even ran that ballot measure and decided to make it for all elections.  If you do not have the infrastructure and the system set up, the post office trained, the voters trained it would be a disaster. Plus we ARE talking about the Florida Dem. Party on top of that.

Those were perfectly legitimate concerns that all parties shared and quite frankly I think the Secretary of State of Florida was very very happy when the plan fell through.  Would have made 2000 look like child's play.


by FinneganOregon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 1)

First off, her campaign is not a failure yet because it's not over yet.
Second, while I may agee that there was a degree of arrogance on the part of people around her, I don't believe that Hillary was arrogant.

I believe that Hillary didn't think that Obama would have become the "Jesus Christ Superstar" that he became.  Many thought that her challenger would be Edwards (I sure did), so this had come to a surprise.  With Mark Penn running things, the campaign wasn't run the way it was supposed to (Howard Ickes was right "She [Hillary] is better than her campaign", but I think after the February debacle, she came back very strong (much to the chagrin of the Obama camp who thought they had her knocked out).   By Ohio and Texas, Hillary changed her game plan and now she's all over the place, even in states (like NC) that may strongly go to Obama (and that's a BIG maybe). IMO, I feel change in the wind.

One thing is true... this campaign and this election cycle will be studied for decades to come.  


by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:42:35 PM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

Any campaign is the reflection of the candidate.

You cannot seperate the campaign from the campaigner.  

I have worked for many candidates in my years and every single one understood that.  They understood that how their campaign was run and conducted itself was a direct reflection of themselves as the candidate.

Just because we are talking about Hillary does not change this fact. She hired, and failed to fire, these cast of bozos.  It's on her.


by FinneganOregon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

I think Hillary trusted people who claimed they could deliver.  You see it in life all the time.  Companies hire bozos to run departments and projects on the assumption that they can do the job because they say they can do the job.  But then they don't deliver.  I've seen good projects run into the ground and I've seen companies get rid of people who proved to be incompetent.  

That doesn't mean the company is bad.

Ickes is right, Hillary is better than her campaign.


by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:13:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent diary (2.00 / 0)

As others have said, this is much more an indictment of her campaign rather than Clinton herself.  Although, ultimately she is the one with the final say.  It just reminds me of the arrogance of the machine political structure that is present in many of the old major cities like Chicago.  It is the assumption that because I am endorsed by the "regular" (read machine) Democratic power structure, I am therefore the "true" Democrat and how dare anyone think that they can beat us.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:50:32 PM EST

Re: Bob Johnson - Too Arrogant, Period (2.00 / 4)

Yeppers.

You really can get me to read on with a comment like this for starters -

"I know it has become conventional wisdom among the giant brains of Hillary backers that Barack Obama is personally responsible for stifling democracy in Florida and Michigan."

My list of reasons to vote for someone other than Obama come November
(IF Obama is the Dem Nominee) is lengthened by one.  

Oh - and by the way Monsieur Johnson - my giant brain can count to one.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:07:19 PM EST

He's just writing in dailykos 'style' (2.00 / 2)

It's a front page and 'hit diary' requirement there: be abusive to Hillary and/or her supporters. Bob's giant brain can't adjust to this more civil environment.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:40:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To Obama supporters re Bob Johnson (2.00 / 3)

I know he's a pretty good writer.

However, his level of honesty is not high.  I have attempted to engage him to provide support for assertions he has made on a couple of occasions, and in both cases he wound up simply abandoning the argument when he couldn't answer me.

His level of snarkiness and snideness, on the other hand, is all you could ever ask for, and more.  His MO, as well-demonstrated in this piece, is to gather a collection of assertions swathed in half-truths, snark, and irony that seem to be calculated to anger those who disagree with him.

I wish you folks would find someone else's diaries to constantly elevate.  Johnson's diaries are not at all educational but are extremely confrontational and dismissive.  He does not represent you well.  It is difficult for me to ignore his diaries and even more difficult for my problems with Obama not to solidify when I read them.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:37:11 PM EST

Bob Johnson is a very careful diarist (2.00 / 1)

All of his assertions are 100% TRUE FACTS. You just don't like his conclusions but I'm afraid his logic is always unassailable. I think this blog would be seriously improved if Bob was elevated to front page status.


by Quarterbackjoe on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:51:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To Obama supporters re Bob Johnson (2.00 / 1)

A lot of generalities in your accusations, Trickster.
Why don't you be more specific - what are the "half-truths"? Is it possible that his diaries make you angry because they are effective and to the point?
by jwolf on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One thing we can say for sure .... (2.00 / 3)

we can now refer to silly rhetoric interjected into the campaign process to denigrate one candidate incessantly as 'Bob Johnsoning', similar to use of the new political verb 'swiftboating'.

If indeed Hillary is so inept and so arrogant that she is assured a loss, as they seem to say, why are they so arrogant as to work tirelessly to continually smear her?  Can't you naysayers simply sit back and relax and let your super candidate's joementum play out?  What's next from these folks, incessant broom writing in the sky that says 'surrender Hillary' ?


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:57:23 PM EST

I don't recall writing that she should get out. (2.00 / 1)

These are observations on the campaign to this point. She and her campaign staff chose not to compete in more than a dozen states and derided small states and caucuses and now want to present Hillary as the champion of democracy and defender of the voter (in MI and FL).

The irony is not lost.

Had she and her team run a real campaign, she may have even made good on her claim to George Stephanopoulos long ago that "It will all be over by February 5."

Frankly, I don't care how long she stays in. But she was the overwhelming favorite. She was a lock bet. A sure thing. Inevitable. And she and her campaign geniuses were overconfident and arrogant enough to believe their own line of bull.

No one is saying it's over, But it sure didn't end on February 5 as Hillary predicted.


by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:03:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or there is the other expression (none / 0)

Bob 'Brass Cojones' Johnson for withstanding the full brunt of hyllsteria and remaining sane and civil.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:18:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL!!! SMEAR!!!! (2.00 / 1)

We are talking about a candidate who did not give a "rats ass", again a "rats ass" about Michigan or Florida.  This is a candidate who said this is OVER on February 5th and stated this to Katie Couric and George S of ABC.  Please, smear?  No one is smearing Hillary Clinton.  No one.

She has put herself in this situation, she did it, no one else.

She has run an inevitable campaign, listened to the notoriously WRONG Mark Penn, had people in the most important jobs of her campaign ending up being incompetent, wasted over 140M dollars, mismanged her campaign funds, did NOT invest in organization in all the 2/5 states and the post 2/4 states of February, and allowed Obama to run the numbers up on her it is impossible for her to catch up.  

Now she decided that, all the above.  Now it is desperation time.  Any time to keep me on TV.  It really is.

Most of the Dems know this is over.  These last few races are not enough to change the metric, AT ALL.

In the end, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign on "you are going to vote for me, I am inevitable", instead of letting voters KNOW THE REAL HILLARY and decide for themselves.

The voters decided and it is NO to Hillary Clinton.


by tracey webb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:27:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama supporters: too lazy to write decent diaries (2.00 / 4)

I haven't wandered into any of your diaries before (purposely)but now that I have, I find them  rude and not well written. Just some words meant to inflame, thrown down on a computer screen. And some Obama supporters cry about the rec list and being treated so badly.  Maybe if supporters like you actually did the work required to write a meaningful diary, it would help solve their problem. Aren't you embarrassed?


by Scotch on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:17:48 PM EST

Kind of funny... (1.00 / 1)

I think you're a secret admirer! (I'd bet you read all my diaries!)


by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:38:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 1)


by emsprater on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:57:23 PM EST

If indeed Hillary is so inept and so arrogant that she is assured a loss, as they seem to say, why are they so arrogant as to work tirelessly to continually smear her?

---------------------------------------- ---------------
Love it- Love it- LOVE IT!  Thank you.


by darlamc on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:30:05 PM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

Ummmm please point out the "smear" in this diary.

It seems to Hillary supporters if you question the "envitable one" it's smear.  It's not.  Sorry.

Everything in this diary is substantiated by fact and the numbers.  That's not smear, it's called the truth.


by FinneganOregon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:44:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

Please provide one shred of evidence anything you have stated in this comment is true.  Please point to independent reporting that shows Obama or his surrogates blocked re-votes in MI or Fl.  

You can't so stop saying so.


by FinneganOregon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:35:09 PM EST

Citing jeralyn? (none / 0)

Now THAT'S funny! You should have cited Larry Johnson, susanUnPC and Taylor Marsh while you're at it, too!


by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh. (none / 0)

Now I'm Nixon.

Hilarious.

Obama didn't block anything. There needed to be compromise and Clinton wouldn't compromise.

Nice try.


by Bob Johnson on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Michigan legislature opted not to revote. (none / 0)

But I know, according to conspiracy theorists like you, that's Obama's fault, too.


by Bob Johnson on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:31:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (2.00 / 2)

You titled your post in such a way as to pick a fight.

Obama and his supporters blocked revotes in Michigan and Florida. Don't pretend they didn't. Trying to weasel your way out of this is just sad.

If Obama is the nominee he will lose these two swing states and take the party down with him in the GE, because of his OWN arrogance. He doesn't want the states counted because he knows he will lose them. That is completely selfish.

Voter disenfranchisement is never acceptable. You people who support Obama USED to know that. But you have thrown your ethics to the wind over personality worship.


by cc on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:20:20 PM EST

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

FREAKING AWESOME COMMENT! Thanks!


by Nobama on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

Please give me one, just one concrete example from an independent news source that shows that Obama or his campaign BLOCKED recotes in MI or Florida.  Anything.  You don't got it so you talk in b.s. general terms.

The term disenfranchisment USED to mean something specific and powerful (think AA voters in Florida 2000) but thanks to the Clinton folks you have completly misused and abused the term.  It does not apply here whatsover - do you even know what it means?


by FinneganOregon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

"Please give me one, just one concrete example from an independent news source that shows that Obama or his campaign BLOCKED recotes in MI or Florida."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/pol itics/21delegates.html?_r=1&ref=poli tics&oref=slogin

Michigan Lawmakers Won't Back a New Primary

Excerpt:

Several wealthy Clinton donors offered to pay the estimated $12 million cost of the revote, but Mr. Obama's allies in the Legislature blocked it for a variety of legal, technical and political reasons.


by Nobama on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:30:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

I don't buy it; I don't see how he would be capable of blocking it if the legislature wanted a revote.  Are they all his allies?


by Mostly on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:15:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

"You titled your post in such a way as to pick a fight. "

The NERVE! A quick look at diaries clearly show Clinton supporters NEVER would do that.


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:34:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for (none / 0)

One person. Just one person, pleeeeeeeease try to explain the disparity between Hillary's position on those primaries before the Iowa caucus (they won't count') and her position now. Nobody has ever explained why she changed her mind. The obvious answer is that she's trying to change the rules of a game she is losing, but maybe someone could come up with something better.
Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]


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.