The Fall of the House of Clinton

[Lemur]

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]

2016: Chelsea.

[Banquo's Ghost]

2016: Chelsea.

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

[Xiahou]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Spino]

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. With Obama grabbing anywhere from 85% - 95% of the black vote in every single state Hillary could have changed her name to Foxy Hill, donned an uber-afro and whistled negro spirituals at all her appearances and it wouldn't have changed a thing. It wouldn't change the fact that Obama's 'American Idol-esque' appeal and charisma won him a huge chunk of the youth vote. It also wouldn't change the fact that Hillary ticked off the Democratic party's far left constiuency with her pro-war vote on Iraq and her pandering to moderate voters on their buzz issues. Last but not least there's nothing Hillary's campaign could have done to change the fact that she's a woman... a handicap made worse by the fact that she is married to a man whose Presidential exploits not necessarily related to cigars and sticky dresses are slowly moving him into the realm of infamy.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[LittleGrizzly]

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...

[CountArach]

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

I can't help but feel I was just snubbed

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

[PanzerJaeger]

I can't help but feel I was just snubbed.

Nothing personal of course!

[Lemur]

An interesting take. Go ahead and admit it (if only to yourself)—she would have been a horrible President.

The massive leak of inside dope on the Clinton primary campaign is remarkable in the annals of presidential election history. Not sure I've ever seen anything like it. The disloyalty to the candidate is breathtaking.

What does it say about Sen. Clinton that so many aides were willing to share private matters publicly? Clearly, many are eager to shift blame to her and away from themselves. That is not particularly new for losing bids.

But giving so many campaign documents to the press? That suggests a certain hostility between candidate and underlings that should give pause to those who believed that Clinton was ready "on day one" to take command of the White House.

Beyond this mutiny, the behind-the-scenes paperwork shows how Clinton horribly mismanaged her own people. Postponing critical decisions until the roof caved in, and then forcing her staff to manage the damage control. Not a pretty picture for running the country.

[rvg]

While not being a fan of Hillary in any way, shape or form, I do feel kinda bad for her. She got betrayed by her party, because it was ultimately the superdelegates, *not* Joe Voter that handed victory to Obama.

[PanzerJaeger]

An interesting take. Go ahead and admit it (if only to yourself)—she would have been a horrible President.

Did anyone besides Louis believe that she wouldn't have been?

[CountArach]

Nothing personal of course!

Of course, I was smiling when I read it.

While not being a fan of Hillary in any way, shape or form, I do feel kinda bad for her. She got betrayed by her party, because it was ultimately the superdelegates, *not* Joe Voter that handed victory to Obama.

Could you clarify this? There is no meaningful metric that Obama didn't win by, including # of states won, % of popular vote, # of pledged delegates, etc, etc.

[rvg]

Of course, I was smiling when I read it.

Could you clarify this? There is no meaningful metric that Obama didn't win by, including # of states won, % of popular vote, # of pledged delegates, etc, etc.

He lost the popular vote

[Lemur]

Only if you do some really interesting math. By all normal counts, the man won fair and square.

[KukriKhan]

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]

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.

[CountArach]

He lost the popular vote

The only way that that would be correct if you count Michigan where Obama wasn't even on the ballot...
My proof
Popular Vote Total (No IA, NV, ME, WA or MI):
Obama - 17, 535, 458
Clinton - 17, 493, 836
Total - Obama + 41, 622

Now if you count the above states, but not Michigan, then the result becomes Obama + 151, 844.

[Louis VI the Fat]

An interesting take. Go ahead and admit it (if only to yourself)—she would have been a horrible President.

Horrible? Maybe. At least she would've been president.

Clinton and Louis are correct: Obama is unelectable. I predict Denver will be one big show of lament for what could've been: a democratic president. By 2012, a distant memory, something younger Americans will only know from the history books.


America says Obama can keep the change:

In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.

[Lemur]

I'm of the opinion that either McCain or Obama would be better, more moderate leaders than Senator Clinton. So I'm happy all around. Her and Rudy were the two candidates who gave me serious heebie-jeebies.

By comparison, I find the attempts by the left to portray McCain as a rightist idiot who will equate a third Bush term to be silly. And I find the right's attempt to paint Obama as ... lord, I lose track of all of the mutually contradictory calumnies they're throwing his way, anyway, I find that attempt equally contemptible.

[Devastatin Dave]

Did anyone besides Louis believe that she wouldn't have been?

Not that she would have been a great president, but I would have voted for her before I voted for McLame.

[Hosakawa Tito]

By comparison, I find the attempts by the left to portray McCain as a rightist idiot who will equate a third Bush term to be silly. And I find the right's attempt to paint Obama as ... lord, I lose track of all of the mutually contradictory calumnies they're throwing his way, anyway, I find that attempt equally contemptible.

I find both major parties contemptible. Party politics has devolved to new lows because both are more loyal to the party than to the country or the people. Vote out every incumbent, good or bad, Republican or Democrat, till the bums get the message. It's not personal, it's business, the people's business that matters most.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Whether McLame or McSame - he's not my candidate. Strangely, he doesn't irritate me either. For a Republican he's okay, actually. I can live with him and see his strong points.

My overriding sentiment this election is: not a Republican.

Obama irritates me much more than McCain. But I disagree less with Obama's principles than with McCain's. Then again, I would not want to exclude the possibility that this is owing to Obama not having any in the first place.

[CountArach]

America says Obama can keep the change:

Aha! A chance for my collection of obscure polling results to shine! Some of the latest national results are:
Gallup Daily - Obama winning 45-43
Rasmussen Daily - Obama winning 47-46
New York Times - Obama winning 45-42
Wall Street Journal - Obama winning 45-42
Louisiana Times - Obama winning 45-43
Zogby (The one you posted) - McCain winning 46-41
Quinnipiac University - Obama winning 47-42
Lake/Tarrence - McCain winning 47-46
Fox News - Obama winning 42-39
YouGov/Economist - Obama winning 39-38

So the race is still a statistical tie, with Obama perhaps winning by a point or two.

[Devastatin Dave]

Aha! A chance for my collection of obscure polling results to shine! Some of the latest national results are:
Gallup Daily - Obama winning 45-43
Rasmussen Daily - Obama winning 47-46
New York Times - Obama winning 45-42
Wall Street Journal - Obama winning 45-42
Louisiana Times - Obama winning 45-43
Zogby (The one you posted) - McCain winning 46-41
Quinnipiac University - Obama winning 47-42
Lake/Tarrence - McCain winning 47-46
Fox News - Obama winning 42-39
YouGov/Economist - Obama winning 39-38

So the race is still a statistical tie, with Obama perhaps winning by a point or two.

All you have to do is read the polls in 2004. Kerry was up by 15 at this point. Most people polled are in heavily demcrat areas. Obamamessiah will have to wait for a third comming I guess...

[CountArach]

All you have to do is read the polls in 2004. Kerry was up by 15 at this point. Most people polled are in heavily demcrat areas. Obamamessiah will have to wait for a third comming I guess...

No he wasn't:
Proof

In 2004, Kerry slowly built a 2 point lead by this time, and held a small lead through much of the summer. But then the race took a sharp turn, with Bush making a 6 point run, taking a four point lead with 50 days to go. Kerry gained back 3 points of that in the polling, but less than 2 points of it in the actual vote, losing by a 2.4 point margin.

[Devastatin Dave]

No he wasn't:
Proof

Hmmm, well, who won?