The Fall of the House of Clinton

**Lemur** · 08-12-2008, 16:05

Great, must-read article in the Atlantic today about where and how Hillary Clinton's campaign went off the tracks. Lots of inside dirt and leaked memos, emails, etc., and for anyone who lived through those months, it's a revealing look.

Sample passage:

Wow, it was even worse than I’d imagined! The anger and toxic obsessions overwhelmed even the most reserved Beltway wise men. Surprisingly, Clinton herself, when pressed, was her own shrewdest strategist, a role that had never been her strong suit in the White House. But her advisers couldn’t execute strategy; they routinely attacked and undermined each other, and Clinton never forced a resolution. Major decisions would be put off for weeks until suddenly she would erupt, driving her staff to panic and misfire.

Above all, this irony emerges: Clinton ran on the basis of managerial competence—on her capacity, as she liked to put it, to “do the job from Day One.” In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel. What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency. What follows is the inside account of how the campaign for the seemingly unstoppable Democratic nominee came into being, and then came apart.

Or as the kids on the internets with the Google would say:

**Louis VI the Fat** · 08-12-2008, 17:59

2016: Chelsea.

**Banquo's Ghost** · 08-12-2008, 18:16

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

2016: Chelsea.

Nah, my money's on Manchester United for that year too...

**Xiahou** · 08-12-2008, 18:36

So does that mean that Hillary actually ran an incompetent campaign and it wasn't all just Obama's greatness? Because I remember someone pointing to beating the vaunted Clinton machine in the primary as a qualification for the presidency. I didn't buy it.

**Lemur** · 08-12-2008, 18:44

Xiahou, darling, there's nothing about Obama that you like. And I seem to remember you being rather in favor of Hillary Clinton during the dem primaries, so let's not get bitter now, shall we? As for defending Obama, I've decided that defending is a sucker's game in this crowd, and attack is the only way to go. You absorbed that lesson long before I did.

**Xiahou** · 08-12-2008, 18:52

Originally Posted by Lemur

Xiahou, darling

And I seem to remember you being rather in favor of Hillary Clinton during the dem primaries, so let's not get bitter now, shall we?

I thought and still do think that she'd be a better president than Obama- but that's hardly a seal of approval. I think it was apparent that her campaign was run poorly though.

As for defending Obama, I've decided that defending is a sucker's game in this crowd, and attack is the only way to go. You absorbed that lesson long before I did.

What I learned, early in the primary season, was that none of them were worth defending.

I'm still hoping that McCain will nominate a decent VP, but I'm not too hopeful.

**Adrian II** · 08-12-2008, 20:02

Originally Posted by Lemur

As for defending Obama, I've decided that defending is a sucker's game in this crowd, and attack is the only way to go. You absorbed that lesson long before I did.

Count me among the suckers, but I thought you did a fine job separating real issues from fake with regard to the gentleman. And I despise Obama, so that tells you how well you did.

**PanzerJaeger** · 08-13-2008, 04:44

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So does that mean that Hillary actually ran an incompetent campaign and it wasn't all just Obama's greatness?

Obviously. She wasn't even smart enough to embrace People Powered Politics. Idiot.

**CountArach** · 08-13-2008, 13:25

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Obviously. She wasn't even smart enough to embrace People Powered Politics. Idiot.

I can't help but feel I was just snubbed

Originally Posted by Banquo

Nah, my money's on Manchester United for that year too...

**LittleGrizzly** · 08-13-2008, 04:56

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Nah, my money's on Manchester United for that year too...

I think that article is making mountains out of molehills. Could Clinton's campaign have been run more effectively? Sure. But it still wouldn't change the fact that she lost the overwhelming majority of the Black vote.

Ive heard/read (probably somewhere on here) that various black leaders and the like were rooting for Clinton up until she lost in Iowa, then blacks realised obama could win and mainly piled behind him, so if she had won Iowa maybe she could have held more of the black vote...

As for defending Obama, I've decided that defending is a sucker's game in this crowd, and attack is the only way to go.

It is alot easier to make random accusations and spam article links than actually try and sort through that crap and find out what actually happened and why...

She wasn't even smart enough to embrace People Powered Politics. Idiot.

Fusion (or is it Fission) powered politics is the way of the future... people can only take you so far...

**KukriKhan** · 08-14-2008, 04:05

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

2016: Chelsea.

There's more to this than meets the eye, say I. In my uninformed, ignorant opinion, bubba Bill lost Hil the job. And: on purpose, I think (even if only subliminally).

In the beginning (way back in '07, when folks were announcing), she had it money-wise, vote-wise, media-saturation coverage-wise. Everytime she 'spiked' Bill made a faux pas, and that spike turned into a crevasse.

In my heart, I think her candidacy was intended to be a payback for his bad treatment of her during his POTUS time; "hush money" if you will. "You 'stand by your man' now, and I'll support you getting the job next."

So they played the game the way it was played in the early 90's, which worked for Billie Boy then (much to their surprise, I think), but didn't resonate with today's voters or king-makers. So they got sucker-punched, thinking they were running against Reagan/Bush I, when thay were actually running against a different tide in american public opinion.

Assuming I live to see it, I won't be surprised to see a Chelsea-as-Marianne campaign in '16: saviouress of 'the american ideal', inspirational-leader-of-the-common-man, fearless defender of 'the american way'.

Would Hil have been a better POTUS than Barry or Johnny? In my opinion: no. She'd be the same. The office changes the candidate, once they are confronted with the realities of the job. You see it after about 9 months to a year in office. They all come 'round to realpolitik, and actually try to steer a course that, if not advancing the nation, at least doesn't make it deadhead.

Except for our incumbant.

**Lemur** · 08-14-2008, 04:55

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

So they got sucker-punched, thinking they were running against Reagan/Bush I, when thay were actually running against a different tide in american public opinion.

I don't think either Hillary or Bill understood just how sick of President Bush the majority of the country (not to mention primary voters) had become. They weren't running against Reagan/Bush, they were running against the Carter to end all Carters, as one blogger eloquently put it:

Imagine that Bush is a Democrat (not that hard when you consider his fiscal record). Now imagine that a Democratic president had presided over the worst attack on American soil in history, a far stronger Iran on the brink of nukes, and a resurgent, aggressive Russia, willing and able to invade and terrorize a neighboring country in part because the president long believed that its president was a good man, and had looked into his soul.

I think they would have impeached him a few years ago, no? He would be viewed as the Carter to end all Carters.