Be Honest O-folks. Hillary's problem is not that she's a bad candidate...

[sfam]

Its that Obama has just captured a wave previously unseen before. Had there not been a figure as inspirational and uplifting as Obama, who had a built-in critical constituent base (african americans), Hillary would have walked over the competition. And even given this, had Hillary somehow pulled out Iowa, the race probably still would have been over.

She had the best overall operation, had most of the institutional support and flat-out has the issues down cold.

Yes, she voted to support the war, but even given this, had there not been a candidate as truly stellar as Obama has been, this really would have been a footnote as far as the primary was concerned.

So what's the point of this OP? Simple, for Obama supporters to acknowledge that had this is not about Hillary being a flawed candidate as it is that Obama has run a flat out awesome campaign. Same for Hillary supporters. Prior to actual votes being cast, I think virtually 100% of us would have said Hillary probably takes the nomination in a walk-over. Hillary made some missteps (or perhaps Bill did - we aren't positive if this was planned or not), but so did Obama (re: NH). The real issue here is that Obama is just that good a candidate in terms of capturing excitement and interest and support. Had he not been this good, Hillary would have steamrolled him.

This is not a prediction that Obama will win, but is more my description of how we got to where we are today, given where we were a few months ago. And as great as Obama's "Big MO" is right now, Obama supporters really need to acknowledge that nobody takes a punch like Hillary and still ends up coming out on top. She is the counter-punch King if you will.

That said, Hillary really has to demonstrate that ability today. If she doesn't take Maine, and loses out tomorrow, her ability to counter in Texas and Ohio will be truly tested.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I STRONGLY support Obama.

[stray cat]

1. Agree completely

I'd take Hillary any day over McCain

[davhill]

2. Gore and Kerry were not bad candidates either

They and Clinton were just victims of the same incompetent campaign staffs.

[sandnsea]

3. Oh god, yes she is a bad candidate

As was posted here earlier, anybody who makes decisions on war with a finger in the air is not fit to be President. There's a lot more than that against her, but that ought to be enough for anybody who is using their head to choose a President.

[Eurobabe]

4. Amen sista.

GOBAMA!

[sfam]

6. Again, even given this, without someone like Obama..

Hillary would have steamrolled the competition - Edwards, Biden, Richardson, whomever. I'm talking about her as a candidate in terms of taking the democratic primary.

Bottom line, it really took someone as awesome a candidate as Barack has been to even have a chance.

[sandnsea]

10. No, I think someone else would have risen

It would have been a lot tougher, but I think the anti-DLC vote in the Dem Party is strong enough that we would have rallied behind somebody. It wouldn't have taken her out, but she wouldn't have had a walk either. She represents everything DU has been bitching about for the last 8 years.

[sfam]

54. I disagree. Obama is unique...nt

[Kittycat]

11. I completely agree.

[Windy]

14. thank you. She voted for IWR because of her own political goals. she is a terrible candidate! n/t

[sandnsea]

46. It's the 4 years of war support

after the vote and the fact that she didn't support any withdrawal strategy until popular opinion changed. The vote is the least of it.

[Big Blue Marble]

35. sandnsea, I so agree with your premise.

To me her Iraq vote is the pivotal determent as to her fitness to serve as president.

In voting for the Iraq war, she took a calculated gamble that backfired. It was an
expedient decision intended to position her to run for president when the war went
as planned. It speaks to her character as well as her judgment. It disqualifies
her for the office.

[no name no slogan]

5. Hillary is the Ed Muskie of 2008

She's entitled to the nomination because she's "earned it". She's "the only one who can beat _______". She's safe, centrist and not some "wild-eyed" radical who's "safe". And she'll also "end the war", even though she was originally for it and has NEVER voted against bills that fund the war. Hell, she's even been near tears several times on the campaign trail.

She's safe, and pragmatic. Like Muskie. Or Mondale. Or Dukakis. Or Kerry.

[LittleBlue]

7. Issues down cold? Nonsense. I will never forgive her for the Iraq vote.

Her Universal Insurance Program does not sound to me like a Universal Health Care plan.

[sfam]

12. Again, this is different from not having the issues down cold...I'm not talking about...

her judgment, but her understanding of the nuisances of all the issues.

Just to be clear, I absolutely support Obama and really turned away from Hillary just for that vote, but this is not the point I'm making here. As a candidate, given what happened prior to this election, she's still a very strong candidate. YES - she has problems, but most candidates do. Simply harping on the war vote is not what I'm talking about here.

[LittleBlue]

21. I don't like her healthcare plan. That's an issue, right?

Single payer = good
Universal Insurance Boondoggle Payoff with no guarantee of healhcare = not so good

get it?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

25. No, there was Edwards, by far much better than Hillary

Hillary has the Clinton Machine, which is a plus but also a very big minus.

It comes with tons of baggage, and it hasn't changed for the better either.

[sfam]

55. So are you saying if there wasn't a Barack that there would still be a race?

That's really what I'm asking. You can say the clinton machine has minuses, but that's only after you have survived an incredible gauntlet. Do you really see anyone else doing what Barack has against that?

[Avalux]

8. I'll be honest and no flames please.

I am an Obama supporter but only recently made up my mind after some time and research. I had decided I would not support Hillary and would not actively work for her but would vote for her if she was the nominee because I am a Democrat. My decision on who MY candidate would be excluded her from the beginning.

My opinion of Hillary has been formed over years of watching her and listening to her. She has always been a flawed candidate in my eyes; I cannot put to rest how she has handled her IWR vote since it became apparent it was a mistake. I can forgive her for the vote, but I can't forgive her for not standing up and admitting it was an error in judgement. There have also been instances where her statements are deceptive, purely because she measures everything as a political calculation.

It has been a pleasant surprise to me that Barack Obama has run such an awesome campaign and is now poised to take the nomination. I would count part of his popularity to people like me who weren't satisfied with the choices in front of us and realized that we have, in Obama, the chance to buck the establishment and truly change the status quo.

He is riding a wave; he is the right person at the right time for those of us who believe we can do better in this country and the world.

[sfam]

17. Good point on the dissatisfaction. I support Obama too, but again...

even with Hillary's IWR vote (which I TOTALLY disagreed with), Hillary's chances of steamrolling the competition were still VERY high.

Be honest - did you really think someone would take her, or even make the race this close at this point? I think most of us thought her advantages were such that it would be over by Super Tuesday.

My point is it really took someone like Obama to make this such a race. In retrospect, I can understand why the Clinton campaign has been in shock at times - this stuff is just not supposed to happen. Having a presidential candidate more popular and garnering more enthusiasm than U2 is NOT supposed to happen. You just don't plan for that.

[Avalux]

24. I thought Hillary was inevitable. I was afraid to think Obama could challenge her.

He is a remarkable man - completely underestimated by the Clinton campaign. Hillary should have won this by now and their strategy planned for the win by Super Tuesday.

It's a combination of Obama himself and dissatisfied Americans. Not supposed to happen but sometimes, in the course of history, extraordinary things happen. I just hope the establishment doesn't crush him if it comes down to superdelegates.

[sfam]

53. Even the democratic party isn't THAT stupid...and..

they are pretty damn stupid at times. Bottom line, the superdelegates have been trained to read polls. AND they REALLY want to win. They won't end up with the doomsday scenario - they just won't.

Furthermore, neither will Hillary or Barack allow this. I just don't buy it that both of them want to win the nomination more than they want to win the presidency. They both know their chances are dead if this happens.

If after the big three states are done and Obama has the majority of the delegates, the majority of the states and does far better in polls against McCain, I think Hillary will back out. Same for Obama in the reverse.

[Avalux]

57. I hope the scenario plays out that way.

Otherwise our party, which could be triumphant and as a result gain more seats in the House and Senate, will only hurt itself. :hi:

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. honestly, she's not that good of a candidate

anyone with her name recognition, money and machine backing should be winning this in a landslide.

[sfam]

18. That's my point...but I differ on the results...she IS a good candidate...

but Obama is flat out extraordinary. THAT is how he's made this a real race.

Just for the record, I don't think you get all the up-front advantages Hillary did WITHOUT being a good candidate. Look at Romney for a counter-point. He did all the same stuff as Hillary but was NOT a good candidate, and did not really get the advantages.

[HughMoran]

13. I'm pleased about the youth support that Obama is getting

I'm not always inspired by the Hillary bashing Obama crowd, but I've always stated that either candidate is a fine choice and that I would support either with whatever resources I can muster. Also, if Obama can inspire Dems to come out in force this fall, this bodes well not only for his candidacy, but he may be able to sweep in some Congressional seats which we really need at this time in order to get things done.

[Yael]

27. This is the piece that has my attention

Which candidate has coattails?

We have a 20 year seated (R) Congressman who is being challenged by a young and unknown Dem.

Dammit -- I WANT that seat and that means we need a whole lotta people out pulling the "D" levers in November because the over 60 crowd here will keep putting the (R) right back into power.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Hillary is a good candidate, but she has some inherent problems.

I'll vote for her if she gets nominated, but I worry about the negative energy she generates among the Republicans.

And, yes, there is something about the Obama campaign that is truly awesome.

[Armstead]

16. I partially agree

Obama does have that indefinable magic that can upset the usual applecart of conventional wisdom.

However, I believe that if it hadn't been him, some other candidate would have run strongly, bercause it is not simply a matter of Obama's charisma.

There is a large current of discontent in the nation about the stagnant and toxic atmosphere of recent politics.

There is also a large current in the Democratic Party that is opposed to what Hillary Clinton represents. The fact that she was initially the presumed nominee is one symptom of that -- It felt to many people (myself included) that the Beltway/Corporate Elite Status Quo was once again going to shove something down our collective throats, and kill off the desire for meaningful liberal/progressive reform.

That is a large part of the fuel for Obama. Originally it was split with Edwards, but the presence of Obama siphoned that away from Edwards. But if it had been race between Edwards and Hillary, I believe Edwards would have captured that lightening in a bottle.

[sfam]

22. Then why didn't a similar candidate emerge against Kerry?

Lets face it, Kerry is the anti-charisma candidate. Hillary has at least 3 times the charisma as Kerry does, but Kerry ended up taking the thing.

Why? Because there was no Obama out there. Yes, Dean caught a wave, but he couldn't keep on the surfboard. Worse, he had no built-in constituency.

And just for the record, I think Hillary would have brutalized Edwards had there not been an Obama. Yes, he would have put up more of a fight, but I truly doubt he would have been viable past Super-Tuesday.

[Armstead]

33. Dean got a bum rap from the Democratic elites

What I belieev is happening is that Obama has the skills to overcome the bum rap that the DLC Democratic Establishment ties to any candidate who tries to break their stranglehold.

Dean is basically a moderate liberal Democrat who had the foresight to oppose the Iraq War.

But the Clintonian/DLC Democrats went all out to paint him as "too far left" and a crazyman. I remember endless hearing party bigwigs labeling him that way. The wanted to strangle the baby of reform in its crib, and they succeeded.


Edwards got a similar bum rap. He doesn;t really "live large" any more than most people at that level. But little memes were put out like the $400 haircut and the Mcmansion that claimed he was a phony. Also his record was misrepresented -- He WAS more moderate in the Senate, but there was a consistent set of values for the most part.

I also believe the DLC contingent helped to neuter Kerry. Instead of going with his liberal reformist instincts, Kerry tried to be a "centrist" and waffler on Iraq and came out weaker as a result.

[sfam]

50. Those were tactics...successful ones in retrospect...do you honestly...

think that Hillary hasn't tried similar ones against Obama? The empty suit thing was pushed for months, for instance. Bottom line, Dean could have survived, so could Edwards. But they didn't - and Obama has. They didn't run a good enough candidacy to. And again, they didn't have a built-in constituency like Obama has.

Lets face it - South Carolina was HUGE. Had Obama not dominated there, his chances in Super Tuesday were virtually nil.

[hedgehog]

44. There was a similar candidate against Kerry. The problem is

that most voters weren't paying any attention until after Iowa. Dean was introduced as a loser, so he was never able to develop any traction.

[sfam]

51. Here's my point - who's fault was that? Dean just didn't cut it...

He wasn't a good enough candidate to overcome the tactics thrown at him. Obama has withstood a TON of this shit and is still smelling like a rose. That's the difference. But make no mistake, his built in constituency TRULY has helped him overcome this stuff as well.

[dailykoff]

19. Her campaign has been a wall-to-wall disgrace.

Race card, victim card, one transparently juvenile trick out of the RW haters playbook after another. She needs to suspend this trainwreck yesterday.

[sfam]

26. Wal-to-wall disgrace? Bullshit. The race-baiting was the one...

truly dumb thing they did. But this hardly qualifies as making her campaign a wall-to-wall disgrace.

She's turning out white women like nobody else ever has. She apparently is even getting a good percentage of republican women

She's got the entire latino block.

She's getting the working class vote out in large numbers.

These are not the markings of a campaign that is a wall-to-wall disgrace. Bottom line, Barack is in this right now because he is just flat-out awesome, not because Hillary sucks as a candidate, or that her campaign is a wall-to-wall disgrace.

[dailykoff]

29. "Now you're hurting my feelings"?

Iron my shirt? Handshake? Gangbang? Drug dealer? Election funny business in state after state? Disgrace is putting it mildly.

[sfam]

34. Oh common. Most every candidate does stupid shit like this...

Are you honestly saying that the Gore campaign or the Kerry campaign, or even the Obama campaign hasn't resorted to dump tactics on occasion?

Case in point, Obama's folks have slyly let on that Hillary would support off-shore drilling in Maine - is this above board?

Bottom line, from my standpoint, most of these things are just penny-anny tactics that local folks on the ground engage in. The race-baiting is possibly the one thing I see differently.

[dailykoff]

37. Get back to me when Obama cries about being gangbanged.

:shrug:

[sfam]

41. That wasn't the Clinton campaign, that was a left-wing wacko in...

the NY NOW organization.

Is it really that hard to look at what Hillary has done well as a candidate? Are you saying the majority of Hispanics, working class folks and women are all brainwashed idiots?

[dailykoff]

58. Hilly cried on cue, twice, and the rest was left to surrogates.

As candidates go she's the biggest joke since Dumbya.

[sfam]

61. Yeah...see you and I disagree there. I LOVE Obama but...

I do not see Hillary as being anywhere near in the same ballpark as George Bush. And really, I have a hard time seeing how you or anyone else does think that.

[dailykoff]

64. She's always been a paper tiger.

Whatever her personal merits she's compiled a shameful voting record, she's a lousy campaigner, she's a cheat and a liar and she's got nothing going for her but Bill, gender, and a big bag of dirty tricks. And it shows.

[sfam]

67. Think through the implications of your statement...

You really are saying that everyone voting for her has been duped - that essentially, they're all idiots. Do you really believe that?

Are Hispanics so idiotic that they've been duped by a lousy, cheating, lying campaigner? Do you think women vote for her even though they know she is a liar and a cheat who uses dirty tricks to get ahead? do you? Same question for working folk...

Sorry, but I just don't believe that all those people who turned out to vote for her are as idiotic as you suggest. I don't think my mother is an idiot, for instance (she'll be voting for Hillary this Tuesday, regardless of my efforts to change her mind).

And really, that's a fairly crappy thing to say about that many voters.

[dailykoff]

70. Do I have to add links and quotes?

Most of the pro-Hilly threads posted here daily if not hourly are loaded with 100% fact-free nonsense (archetypal witch, etc), so on the basis of their many hundreds of ardent responses my answer would have to be yes.

[sfam]

74. Newsflash...most hillary supporters are not on DU...

I'm always amazed by people who make any sort of inference based on idiots on DU, regardless who they support.

So in any event, we disagree. I do not think that the 8-9 million folks who voted for Hillary (or whatever the total is) are idiots. That you do is a personal problem I think.

[dailykoff]

75. No. But it's a reflector we're both familiar with.

And in fact I rarely hear people come up with points IRL that I haven't already seen rehearsed on DU.

[HannibalBarca]

43. They underestimated him

simply. They were not at all prepared for the competition he is giving them nor may I add are her supporters, hence the unrelenting attacks and accusations of "cults" etc. He is a remarkable candidate and one of the best public speakers I have heard in a long time, vastly superior to Hilary in that respect and I believe that is frustrating her advisers and the big dog to a large extent. She would make an excellent president, of that there is no doubt, however I believe Obama is simply better and would have a much greater chance of beating his polar opposite i.e. the aging and somewhat disturbing J Mc Cain as national polls have indicated.
It remains to be seen how this will play out but if Hilary gets the nod thanks solely to the superdelegates and loses in Nov then there'll be a significant backlash.

[sfam]

49. I absolutely agree they underestimated him. My point is that NOBODY..

could have expected someone like this to emerge. I'm not sure you can blame her campaign for that.

Whether or not Obama can win against McCain (I think he can), or whether he makes a great president (I think he will) is a separate issue.

[pdxmom]

20. I will vote for Clinton is she is the nominee, but the mere fact that Obama

has run this awesome campaign and has knocked her back on her heels a bit concerns me for the general. She has underestimated Obama or else she has overestimated her own inevitability. Whichever it is, I don't think her campaign has been that well-managed.

[frazzled]

23. Nothing to disagree with, but one addition

Hillary would normally be the unrivalled candidate were it not for the savvy and inspirational campaign of a new and gifted talent on the scene, but also because of two (not entirely unrelated) things:

(1) a real anti-insider (or read: anti-Washington or anti-incumbent) sentiment in the nation. (We sense this from last night's surprising challenge to McCain as well as the challenge Clinton is facing).

(2) the war. People realize it was a problem for Kerry. It's a problem for her, too.

[sfam]

28. Absolutely agree. But Richardson could have exploited those...

Both of those issues are real weak-points for Hillary. Again, all candidates have them. But even with them, I think it took a truly terrific candidate running a close to flawless campaign to take her down.

Her up-front advantages were that great, and she really has put together a coalition of support.

[thoughtcrime1984]

30. Status quo does not go away easily

The transparency that Obama wants in gov't will change the way gov't works. IF we are willing to use this transparency to our advantage.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

31. wow, I really think this is an objective post, thank you for your sanity!

I really do think you're right, and Hillary supporters must acknowledge how much good Obama has done for the democratic party in the last few months. He has brought in some voters that might align with dem. party for the rest of their life,

But, I think those votes will go to whoever the nominee is,

Bottome line, there's a movement towards liberalism in this country mirroring the big movement to conservatism in the 80's and any and every figure that capitalizes on that is a hero in my book, which includes Obama as well as Hillary

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. I'm Proud Of Them Both And Think They've Both Done Great. They've Each Impressed Me.

That's why in the end of it all, I'm excited no matter what. We have two awesome candidates this time around, one of which will end up becoming the next President, and a great one at that.

[Cha]

36. hilary's a dlc, political machine that's

spitting out hilary as the candidate..but, oooopps. They've made a few mistakes like bil going out and lying. That went over really well. And the desperate smearing of Obama 'cause he won Iowa..you could smell the fear oozing outta hilary.

[sfam]

38. You and I differ on this...I hardly think the DLC is responsible for Hillary's success...

She's gotten massive numbers of politicians and regular party organizers all around the country to support her. Her super-delegate count advantage is more an acknowledgment of Hillary doing all the critical steps up-front necessary for a long-term race.

Yes she supports the DLC and likewise, but I personally don't think of this as similar to garnering support from Karl Rove, for instance. I know others disagree.

Bottom line, she's done lots more as a candidate than simply been anointed by the DLC.

[Lex Talionis]

39. Maybe this is the right thread to post this

Before anybody gets all wild eyed about what I am going to ask. A little about myself. I'm an Independent, pure and simple. So that may disqualify me right there from posting on this site. Always loved how the Big Dog acted during the 90's. Until I had a Daughter and realized that maybe my thinking about women was wrong. Since I treated women the way Bill did/does. Truly was shocked when NOW gave Bill a pass on Monicagate. I mean, after telling me all those years that it is wrong when a man in power uses that to influence young women. Born in the South raised a racist, had an epiphany,Black man stood up for me when no one else would, and realized that real men come in all colors. I believe that Obama is the truest and best way to change this country. I'm part of America that thinks, Democrat or Republican, they are two sides of the same coin. I have lurked here for years and I also learned that some Liberals think like me. So here goes.

Do all those who support the Clinton's, really believe that Bill will just sit back and stay in the background?

Do you think that it was OK for Bill to take advantage of young women the way he did When he was President? If so why? Please don't use "its personal business" argument. Also don't use that Bush.....fill in the blank. The reason I asked that question is,in my experience, if your spouse can't trust ya, I can't either.

If Obama wins the most votes in the primary, but not enough to win the nomination and the super delegates give it to Hill/Bill. Will you be as outraged as people were about the selection of Bush? I was very surprised when Donna Brazil(sp?)said she would quit the Democratic party if that happens. And final question.

In the last election did anybody here notice that the two candidates were both megarich white men, who went to the same elite college, were both members of the same secret organization, and during all the debates( that I saw)wore red ties and blue suits? Thats just something to think about when you say you are given a choice. Cause if Obama isn't enough to shake our political landscape to its foundation, nothing is. Sorry in advance if I did not follow protocal or I hurt some of the more sensitive feelings here. Thank you for your time.

[sfam]

45. Its a fine post, but a completely different issue than my OP...

Whether or not Bill will destroy the Whitehouse if Hillary wins is a fine issue to discuss.

Whether or not the party will disintegrate if the Superdelegates is also a fine issue to discuss.

My issue here was to just get folks to recognize that Hillary really is a good candidate (whether or not we agree with her votes, positions), and that the only reason we're still in a race right now is because Obama has been an extraordinary candidate, and has run an extraordinarily good campaign.

And BTW, I consider myself a left-leaning independent. I have always voted democratic for president (and representative for that matter), but have voted for John Warner consistently (certainly, ever since he ousted Ollie North's candidacy).

But if I were you, I would consider reposting your response as its own thread. You'll probably get much better discussion on the points you raise.

[Lex Talionis]

52. Thank you sfam for the input,but

I don't have enough posts to make my own thread. I think I would qualify as a left leaning Independent, too. Just can't lean the Bill and Hill way. Respects to you and yours.

[sfam]

56. Ah, right...forgot about that...I think you can at 25...

And you really should post that - its a really interesting discussion.

And again, for the record I am a STRONG Obama supporter...3-time contributor and everything. So I really don't lean towards Hillary. At all.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

40. Good on domestic issues; bad on international issues

The main reason I do not support Hillary Clinton concerns her hawkishness on foreign policy. Not only did she vote in favor of the IWR and Kyl-Lieberman, but she also voted in favor of Jesse Helms' bill amendment in 2002 against recognition of the International Criminal Court and in favor of invading The Netherlands and the Hague in case any US military were held there as war criminals. She also voted against a ban on cluster bombs and she was a big war hawk on the Israeli incursion into Lebanon. When Tony Blair proposed a cease-fire and the introduction of international peacekeepers in Lebanon, Hillary Clinton was silent on the subject. She has lamented the Israeli war dead in that 2006 war (I don't criticize her for that) but said nothing about the large number of Lebanese civilians throughout the country who died in that conflict. She spoke at rallies near the UN building highly critical of the UN and called for the release of Israeli prisoners (I don't criticize her for that) but said nothing about the hundreds of Palestinians held by Israel. She has supported Israel's right to exist (I applaud her for that) but said not one word of compassion for the suffering of the Palestinian people. I think Hillary Clinton would be completely incapable of brokering the all important peace that we must have been Israel and the Palestinians, which has led to a great deal of the strife in the Middle East. Unfortunately, I think Hillary Clinton would be a foreign policy disaster and would not help improve America's image abroad or lead to diplomatic breakthroughs with difficult countries like Iran, Syria, or North Korea. Her vote in favor of branding the major national military branch of Iran a terrorist organization, one which contains thousands of conscripts had no apparent diplomatic purpose. It advanced no goal of entering into a dialog with Iran and only could antagonize both the government and the thousands of people who are family members of the draftees in Iran's Republican Guard. It's a bad sign that Hillary Clinton would not be willing to engage in effective diplomacy in trouble spots throughout the world.

[dkf]

42. Her voice drives me nuts. That is what makes her a bad candidate.

On the other hand if she had no competition, she wouldn't be using any of the dirty tricks that drive me crazy so maybe I would be less pissed at her.

But it is true that in comparison with Obama, she doesn't look so great.

[sfam]

47. She did have competition...she would have won easily if not...

for someone like Obama. Personally, I see Obama as a truly extraordinary candidate - someone I've never seen (currently 42 yrs old).

Regarding the voice thing, I can't help you there...

And again, I TRULY believe the dirty tricks things have been completely overblown. Tactics are fairly normal...even Obama does them. He's just winning the perception battle on them.

[calteacherguy]

48. No, she's not a bad candidate. It's just that Obama is the better and stronger candidate. nt

[Tatiana]

59. She has run a piss-poor campaign. And that is why she will not win.

Obama's camp is in this to win it. Not for national exposure, not just to "get the message out." Hillary's camp has only just realized that he's not a vanity candidate (like Jesse Jackson, Bill reminded us) and people are responding to him in terms of his policies and his character.

Mark my words, Hillary will not win OH, TX and PA. Obama will take at least one, because it is a proven fact that the more people get to know Obama, the more likely they are to vote for him. Also, Presidential campaigns (like it or not) are about stump speeches and baby-kissing. A third of the electorate are policy wonks, a third are going to vote based on the "like-ability" factor, and another third are going to ask themselves "who is the least likely to F*CK things up like Dubya did?"

Hillary's public speaking skills seem to have disappeared. She sounds canned on the stump and not very exciting. I think she appeals to those people (of which I'm probably one) who are still angry and want to make the Republicans PAY for the $hit we now have to clean up. I'm angry, but (and I do think this is a result of Obama's candidacy) I'm less seething-rage angry. I think about things more constructively. Her mantra is "35 years of experience" which sounds a lot like Nixon's "Experience Counts." It's not a smart strategy, in my opinion. She is faced with losing two very major democratic constituencies: the famed academic college-educated 'elitists' (regardless of color or gender, they seem to go with Obama) and African-Americans up and down the economic ladder. This is very curious and I don't know WHY no one has explored this dynamic in-depth. If the pundits are to be believed:

The more education you have, the less "experienced" candidate you are likely to vote for.

But then again, there are always exceptions. There was an old white janitor where I work. He recently retired and admitted to me that this past Tuesday, he voted for Obama in the primary. Quite honestly, I was floored because I knew this man opposed integration held very racists views. This guy asked me if I had seen Obama's speech Tuesday night. I told him no (not admitting that I'd heard several other speeches of Obama's). This white racist man told me "That's gonna be the next President of the United States. Isn't that somethin'?" He kind of shook his head in disbelief and grinned.

I think that's how many of us are: grinning while shaking our heads in disbelief. Obama's candidacy is probably one of the most unlikely stories of my adult life, but there's a real opportunity to do something new and fresh. This country needs a breath of fresh air and that's what Obama appears to be while Hillary comes across as the stale air (heir?) of mediocrity.

[sfam]

63. "Obama's candidacy is probably one of the most unlikely stories.."

your comment that "Obama's candidacy is probably one of the most unlikely stories" is really how I see it. I just don't buy that Hillary has run a piss-poor campaign. I really do believe that she would have dusted anyone in the range of "normal" candidates, but Obama is well outside the margins.

Hillary only looks like she's run a piss-poor campaign because Obama is still standing - winning even. Anyone else, she would have dusted. Lets face it, she really has thrown the kitchen sink at Obama, and he's still standing. That he can take those attacks and turn them into a comment on Hillary is more about his brilliance as a campaigner than Hillary's nastiness as a person. Most all of her stuff, other than the race baiting, is flat-out regular campaign tactics.

If we call her nasty for it, than we have to call all the other candidates who do this nasty as well. We don't.

[Tatiana]

73. You make some amazing points. I still think Hillary has made some mistakes.

For instance, neglecting the grassroots and netroots early in her campaign for the Warren Buffet bundlers. Obama's built a nice network of donors who haven't maxed out, while Hillary now has to begin building a reliable small donor base halfway through the primary contest. NOT SMART.

Not recognizing that her husband would only be a weapon in her favor when used in a GENERAL election. When he's using campaign tactics (I agree, it was just a campaign tactic), people do not perceive him as Hillary's husband. They perceive him as a beloved former President who is not playing fair. Remember when black folks were not trying to hear about Obama? When they were saying "it's nice that white people like him, but we're not going to vote for him just cause he's black anymore than we would vote for Colin Powell. We'll check him out." Hillary thought she had African-Americans. She neglected them until the last minute, when it looked like, maybe they might be drifting towards Obama in SC. NOT SMART.

The 35 Years of Experience Thing - Anyone can do the math. She was still in law school back in 1973. As far as her work for the Children's Defense Fund, she didn't even stick around for a full year. It's just so Nixonian to me and I think it reminds a lot of these boomers of the contrast between JFK (Camelot) and Nixon (Tricky Dick). NOT SMART.

Lets face it, she really has thrown the kitchen sink at Obama, and he's still standing. That he can take those attacks and turn them into a comment on Hillary is more about his brilliance as a campaigner than Hillary's nastiness as a person.

Completely and totally agree with this. Because even though she was running a poor campaign, I think she's got back on track now and she still cannot put a dent in him. It's like when your hands are greasy with lotion and you grab the door handle to try to turn the knob. But your hands keep slipping. That's how she is with Obama. He had some divine luck in the beginning, but now that he's sort of got a feel for this thing, in every speech, at every appearance, he just gets better as a POLITICAL CANDIDATE. I am not talking about issues, positions, etc. I'm just talking about him as a political candidate, and he truly is brilliant. I don't think ANYONE can call Hillary a brilliant candidate at this point. Even though she is back on track with her campaign, she still has not figured out how to take Obama on directly, while he has finally figured out how to get in his jabs at her without looking like he's beating up on a woman.

[sfam]

76. COMPLETELY agree on the Netroots, Web 2.0 thing...

This has been an ENORMOUS advantage for Obama. As an online community developer in real life, I truly believe that Obama's website will be the world class standard for how all websites should look and work like (look at Hillary's now, for instance...). without this, I doubt Obama would have gotten out of Iowa, let alone gotten where he is now.

I truly believe his website has been the REAL difference maker in caucaus states. All those groups and events getting automatically set up by regular people there make HUGE differences, and it doesn't cost him a dime.

So yeah, GREAT point. Hillary missed the netroots boat. This was probably far worse than the Bill SC thing in retrospect.

But regarding Bill, he really is a terrific machine gun, but is one that has the potential of firing both ways. You point it at your target, and you might get blown away. This is what happened in SC. So yeah, they mismanaged him (assuming he didn't just go off the boat), but I think in retrospect it would have been near impossible to manage him correctly.

And incidentally, the fact that Hillary is still successfully using the 35 years experience thing is a testament to how well she's worked the experience issue. Nobody is really challenging her on that still. And again, I just don't see her as running a poor campaign the way, say Kerry did in the GE last year. I just think she's looking bad because Barack is running "that good" a campaign.

[ecstatic]

60. African Americans were not a "built in" base... Clinton's comments alienated

many black supporters and the talking heads on the radio (who support Obama) jumped on the opportunity to convince many to switch their votes from Clinton to Obama. Not only that, but if Obama had not won Iowa, I think we'd be seeing much less support for Obama in the black community.

[sfam]

65. Be honest here - Obama could have very easily blown that...

Yes, the race-baiting truly was below the pale in terms of the normal set of tactics and Hillary has paid for it. But this wasn't a sure thing. Obama handled this wonderfully. Instead of being the black candidate, he ended up getting over 80% of the black vote since then AND looks like the more honest, upstanding candidate. His white votes have only been partially hurt.

Bottom line, Obama could have very easily blown up based on that attack. He didn't. In fact he totally turned it to his advantage.

But regardless, I sort of agree with Michelle Obama's comments - they were gonna win large margins there regardless. But probably nowhere near the 80% that they are getting - that is Clinton's fault.

[BeyondGeography]

62. I half agree

I think she's a bad candidate for a variety of reasons; Clinton fatigue which would kill her in the general, the war vote, the way she skews voters on gender (she trails McCain by 18 points among men in the latest CNN GE poll), her lack of appeal outside the traditional Democratic base, I could go on.

But I also think she's a very strong candidate within the Democratic nominating system. She has enormous institutional support and a battle-tested campaign machine that is great at turning out the base, the Clinton name which the vast majority of Democrats still admire(d) at least until Bill stepped in it a few times, a lock on older women voters and older voters in general, command of the issues down to the last detail, a trait which the Democrats have historically overrated in importance (we have lost seven of the last ten elections often nominating the teacher's pet who goes on to kill the other side in debates and lose anyway), and she's personally very tough/resilient. I could go on.

The difference this time is twofold: Obama is an unusually compelling alternative, plus he now has a lock on one of the two pieces of the base that Democratic establishment candidates have always used to kill insurgents and dreamers: the black vote (labor being the other piece). For this reason, I agree with you that only Obama of all the candidates in the race could have pulled this off. Edwards, for instance, could well have won Iowa without Obama in the race, but he has never fared well in New Hampshire and she would have had an easy time with him in South Carolina because most blacks would have stuck with the Clintons. Super Tuesday would have been very unkind to him as well. The black vote would have given Clinton huge margins in the big states (including IL) and the South would have stayed in her column as well. Any candidate other than Obama and she would have won most of the states by now, often in blowout fashino, and the race would be over, IMO.

[sfam]

66. Sounds like we mostly agree...

Yes, Hillary has some built-in problems, but you're echoing my point - nobody by Obama could have done what he did. She REALLY DID have a huge built-in advantage. And she really does know her stuff cold (and no, I'm not talking about her votes or judgment on one vote, but her understanding of the issues).

[BeyondGeography]

71. self-delete

[BeyondGeography]

72. We do...perhaps it's a little more than half

;)

[Vinca]

68. In a normal election cycle, Hillary would be a great candidate.

She's a smart woman, can do the job and her only real fault is how divisive she and her husband are (not a small deal). But Obama appeared and captured the imagination of the country - especially the younger among us - and pretty much stole the show. Next to Obama, Hillary seems a little stale. Yesterday's news. It's not her fault, it's just the way it turned out.

[elizm]

69. I'm not so sure. I think John Edwards may have taken her too. nt

[Quixote1818]

77. I agree. nt

[sfam]

78. I really see that as wishful thinking...

Edwards certainly had support, but nowhere near to the extent he would have needed to stay toe to toe with Hillary. And really, I don't think he responded to the normal tactical attacks that well.

Take the hair thing, for instance. That flat-out knocked him on his ass. There is NO reason he couldn't have turned that around, but instead, he got angry and belligerent in responding to it. He took what should have been a day-long story and turned it into an ongoing commentary on his candidacy - that he was the incredibly rich guy poofing himself up trying to talk for the working folk. Call it a nasty tactic if you want, but a great candidate would have knocked that one away almost instantly.