Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 9 of total 9 in this topic |
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jun 6, 2008 - 10:34am PT
|
This will probably be one of the last, if not the last, thread about HC on the Taco Stand.
From today's Irish Independent
Curtain comes down on the Bill and Hill show
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Friday June 06 2008
SO where did it all go so badly wrong for Hillary?
It already seems an eternity ago, but as recently as October, the Democratic nomination for 2008 seemed to be Hillary Clinton's for the asking. But the dream has died and the party is on a fixed course to nominate Barack Obama at its Denver convention in August.
So what was her biggest campaign blunder?
Her campaign team, much of it battlehardened in Bill Clinton's two successful White House runs, made many surprising errors. The biggest strategic mistake may have been to assume everything would be wrapped up quickly. In the past, that had indeed been the case -- in 2004, John Kerry had basically won after his victories in the first two contests while even in 1992 her husband had effectively locked up the nomination after winning Illinois, just a month into the primary season. This time, however, a third-place finish in Iowa on January 3, behind not only Obama but also John Edwards, destroyed any aura of invincibility.
But for an upset comeback victory five days later in New Hampshire, Clinton might have been forced out relatively early. As it was, "Super Tuesday", on February 5, which her advisers once assumed would be a coronation, finished in a draw.
She underestimated Obama?
Absolutely. She and her advisers could not imagine the extent to which he would capture the imagination of young voters. Only belatedly, moreover, did they realise that the Obama campaign was one of the best-run in modern times. Unlike the Clinton team, Obama's advisers quickly grasped the importance of caucuses (by which delegates are awarded in 16 states and territories). Still less did they imagine how Obama would turn the internet into the biggest money gusher in United States' political history, enlisting an unprecedented army of small donors who could be tapped for funds time and again -- $25 here, $50 or $100 there -- without reaching the permitted individual ceiling of $2,300 (€1,476). In the later stages of the campaign, Hillary was hopelessly out-fundraised.
Florida and Michigan didn't help either?
Certainly not, and this time Clinton is not to blame. The two states, both of which she would have probably won convincingly, defied party orders and held their primaries in January. After the party meeting Clinton gained a paltry 23 delegates, a third of what she might have done had the two states followed the rules.
Did the PR system of awarding delegates hurt her?
Undoubtedly. The system introduced by the Democrats back in 1982, of scrupulous proportional allocation of delegates, plus 800-odd "superdelegates" to act as tie-breakers, makes it much harder for a candidate to quickly run up the number needed for victory in a close-fought contest.
It's worth pointing out that had the Democrats operated a winner-take-all system like the Republicans, she would have wrapped up the nomination.
Remember, she won almost all the biggest primaries: New York, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, not to mention Florida and Michigan. Obama's only big state victory was on his home turf of Illinois.
Was she thwarted because she was a woman?
Many diehard supporters claim so, arguing that by comparison Obama was given a free ride by a biased media. But the argument doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. The truth is simpler, that the media love novelty. Obama was new, from a different generation; she was old hat. Yes, not much dirt was raked up on Obama -- but maybe there wasn't much there in the first place.
Studies show that the two had about the same favourable/unfavourable proportion of news stories. Nor is there real evidence to suggest that Americans are more genetically indisposed to elect a woman leader than the people of Britain, Israel and India, to name just three countries that have had female premiers. Far more important were her shortcomings as a candidate.
What was wrong with her?
Like her husband, she's an expert on policy detail. But she lacks his (and Obama's) ability to electrify an audience. She never laid to rest her biggest single problem -- her October 2002 senate vote in favour of the hugely unpopular Iraq war, which Obama opposed from the outset. Also you were never sure which Hillary was running, reinforcing the impression she would say anything to win.
She started out promising a Clinton restoration. Then she was the candidate of change, but Obama trumped her on that. Then she touted her experience, only to stretch the truth on her involvement in issues like Northern Ireland, rekindling doubts about her honesty. Finally she unconvincingly morphed into the woman of the people. But her biggest problem, maybe, was a man.
So Bill cost her the race?
At the very least, the man supposed to be the best natural politician of his era didn't help. His outburst in South Carolina, likening Obama to a "routine" black candidate like Jesse Jackson, alienated the black vote. Other periodic eruptions, and some blatantly false claims, suggested the master had lost his touch. In today's electronic universe, where a gaffe can cross the globe in a matter of minutes, the impact of such blunders is magnified.
Her husband was a reminder of the Clinton restoration that lay in wait. Many delegates reacted to Bill's mis-steps, which coupled with Obama's steady ascent, turned the tide, as the Democratic party scented the end of the Clinton era. (© Independent News Service)
 Rupert Cornwell in Washington
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
Seems spot on to me. Whineing about not getting a fair shake because she is a woman was just so weak..... she got hosed because she came across as fundamentaly dishonest. she gave the impression that she would say anything to win....
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Seems to cover most of the important points. I suspect given two candidates both of whom are good, people are likely to choose not to risk reading about Whitewater for another eight years. In a just world people who raise such worn out issues should simply be, henceforth, disregarded. But that is not the way it seems to work now and we are the poorer for it. No longer is there negative feedback for the manipulative and the self interested.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
There's a lot of good points there.
But I'll tell you my decision-making process. I was initially hesitant because I am tired of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton(?) rut we have been stuck in and headed for. Having 2 family dynasties share rule is not a good thing for democracy.
But beyond that, as the campaign unfolded earlier this year, I was turned off for good by the Co-Presidency she and Bill were re-establishing, complete with the baggage of the 90s. Why go back to that? And why support some of the ruthless tactics that I saw her employing against her fellow Democrats?
I think we needed a break from that.
Still, if it was Clinton or McCain in November I would fully back her in a heartbeat.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I do think the sexism explanation has more merit than is often acknowledged. A lot of people simply have a problem with strong women. Such women must be b----es, c--ts, have too much testosterone, etc. We've all seen such references to Hillary. It seems strength is not as admired in women as it is in men.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
It seems reasonably accurate. This will be studied for years by political scientists.
I don't believe sexism played a significant role; but if so, it was countered by the "sexism" of the obverse from women.
|
|
LuckyPink
climber
the last bivy
|
|
Hilary is feared by the right, much more so than Obama. Obama is great movie style hero but has no experience or ability to pull off a powerful presidency. Hilary, on the other hand, knows the issues, the players , and the power holders and has the balls to take them to the mat effectively. She is a much more aggresssive opponent to the republican agenda. Therefore she lost the nomination.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
It's somewhat accurate, but the analysis around the process stuff is incomplete. It seems to imply that she was hurt by the proportional representation allocation of delegates and by the FL and MI issues.
The more important point, particularly relative to the proportion allocation, is that she ran an extremely stupid campaign given a known process. She has no one but herself and her advisors to blame for this.
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
Since when does sleeping with the Pres give you relevant experience? Any way, as far as we know she didn't even do that. ha
Personally I decided against HC with her Iraq vote. Hell, every hippie in Berkeley knew the intelligence was faked. Just listen to KPFA radio. How she can claim she was fooled by admin lies is just disingenuous. It may or may not have been a politically expedient vote at the time but it back fired on her as the war went from fraud to bad to worse.
Anyway, IMHO she just isn't the caliber of Obama. Yea, she's smart but he is more like one in a million with intelligence, integrity, and grace. She just doesn't stack up and her weaseling at the end as she got desperate was just pathetic. (popular vote BS, ignoring the caucus states and the fact that SHE agreed to the Florida and Mich ban in advance)
Anyway, she never would have been a contender to start with if it wasn't for her husband.
Although I'll also say, I did like Bill, as far as sold out demos go, and she would have been OK, but Obama is just a better choice for the nation.
In any case, who ever gets elected will receive a video in their office mail the first day in power with tapes of the Kennedy assassination shot from 6 different angles, just as a reminder who really runs the world.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 9 of total 9 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!