How could Hillary lose? Let us count the ways
posted at 8:34 am on June 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Let the post-mortems begin! MS-NBC is first out of the gate to analyze how Hillary Clinton could have lost a nomination that had looked inevitable a year ago. She had the Clinton organization, a recognizable national presence, and ties to the party establishment built over sixteen years for the singular purpose of the Clinton Restoration. Hillary thought she could claim the women’s vote, and based on her husband’s ties to the African-American community, felt she could at least compete for black voters in the primaries.
How could this all fall apart?
First, it’s no surprise that MS-NBC could put this together so quickly. They’ve been in the bag for Obama so long that they probably started this four-minute project in February, updating it for freshness along the way. That being said, they hit just about every theme in her loss, but they miss the biggest factor of all.
Hillary’s campaign strategy certainly seems questionable. It appeared at times that she didn’t have one. After coming in third in Iowa, she rebounded in New Hampshire, but after that seemed a little adrift. She had let Obama into contention with a mind-blowingly bad performance in a November debate, where she contradicted herself on drivers licenses for illegals within two minutes, and never quite recovered as a front-runner — while acting like one. After February 5th, it became clear that the Clintons had not planned to campaign through the rest of the states and had run through almost all of their money. They had assumed that the race would be over and never strategized for a long campaign. Obama did.
Did she have the wrong message? I’m not so sure that Hillary campaign on “same old, same old” as MS-NBC and other analysts conclude. She campaigned on the idea of returning to the Clinton era, which in her defense is exactly what Democrats said they wanted after 2004. Obama’s policy stands didn’t differ much at all from Hillary, and she talked about change almost as much as Obama did.
MS-NBC claims the Tuzla Dash helped do her in, but history doesn’t show that. The Tuzla Dash escapade got blown in March, not in January or February. While many of us thought it should have been a disqualifying event, the truth is that Hillary won almost every primary after her lie got exposed. It didn’t make the difference in North Carolina, Oregon, or Montana, and it didn’t keep her from winning in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Obama’s strange series of gaffes didn’t keep him from winning the nomination, either.
What really kept Hillary from winning the nomination? I’d say it was a combination of Clinton fatigue, Bill’s almost deliberately bad performance on the stump, and a media that has favored Barack Obama every step of the way. They have minimized his missteps while magnifying those Hillary made. The media, especially MS-NBC, has promoted Obama’s historic march to the nomination while at times sneering at Hillary’s. In the media sense, Hillary became the Republican and very belatedly discovered how it feels to be on the other side of the media’s fawning attention.
Had she run a smarter campaign, could she have beaten Obama? I’m not sure she could have ever overcome those liabilities, but we will never really know. The question becomes whether John McCain can overcome those same liabilities.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Unfortunately for Clinton, either her op research team or strategy team served her poorly. Either she was ill served by not uncovering the questionable relationships or if they did have the goods, they made a terrible mistake for not playing them. Had Wright, Father Phlegmon, Ayers, Dohrn and Rezko been used effectively, Obama would have never gotten off the flight deck.
moxie_neanderthal on June 4, 2008 at 8:47 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with the three reasons cited as to how the Shill One blew what may have been her one and only opportunity for greatness. But besides Clinton Fatigue, the Bubba Billy Traveling All-Stars Gran Mal Hissy Fit Show and that the MSM is totally in the tank for B.O., you failed to mention that Shill lost favor a long time ago with the one and only person who could have given her the needed boost to win the Presidency in November.
Darth Soros.
pilamaye on June 4, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Ed– according to your comment, the only liability McCain and HIllary share is media bias — McCain doesn’t have an aggravating spouse, and there is no “McCain fatigue” (except maybe in the Republican party).
I would suggest that McCain has a few liabilities of his own, whether he realizes it or not.
1. His age
2. His 26 years in Washington versus Obama’s “change” message
3. His lack of charm and his oratorical weakness versus Obama
4. He lacks the support of significant portions of his own party
5. The Democrat voters he is counting on to win — the white, working class (I hate terms like that) are not supportive of his positions on issues such as amnesty for illegals and global warming. I also would guess that white liberal women — the feminist gang — will get over their anger by November.
Obama may be a novice, but his campaign staff are not. McCain has alot of work to do.
BigD on June 4, 2008 at 8:53 AM
This is an easy one.
The Clintons fundamentally misread the Democratic base after the 2006 election. The base was fired up for something radically different after believing their own press that they swept the 2006 House and Senate elections. They believed that was a change election and they wanted their standardbearer in 2008 to be someone new. Republicans felt the same way after 1994 but the party gave us Bob Dole anyway. Hillary was, in effect, the Democrats’ Bob Dole - the person whose turn it was. But Democrats rarely give their nomination to the person whose turn it is.
Hillary was also done in by her policial handling of the war in Iraq. She voted for the war resoloution becausde in 2002 it appeared to be the only politically right thing to do to position her properly in 2008. But by 2006, it was clear that grassroots Democrats had turned against the war and did not want their standardbearer to be someone who had supported it, regardless of how shallow and political that support had been. She was caught in a changing win and could do nothing about that.
Given these huge mistakes she made, it is somewhat miraculous that Hillary still almost got the nomination. The only reason she came so close was because Barack Obama proved to be so shallow, especially to the old-line Democrats viting later in the spring. This is what Obama’s people haven’t figured out yet.
rockmom on June 4, 2008 at 8:53 AM
I think Hillary’s failure is explained by these factors, in declining order of importance:
1. Media bias in favor of Obama. The media completely failed to challenge Obama and, in fact, acted to conceal or minimize his failures.
2. Clinton’s failure to anticipate and prepare for a strong primary challenger. She believed, until it was too late, that she was going to be coronated and not nominated. That led to these failures:
(a) Failure to do appropriate oppo research on Obama. It’s inexcusable that Rev. Wright was a known firebrand and that his videos were for sale on his website, yet they were undiscovered until March. Instead, Hillary’s oppo team treated us to cheap shots at Obama’s middle name and comments about kindergarten essays.
(b) Failure to develop a coherent campaign message. “Experience!!!” Please.
3. The Democrats’ f’ed up nominating rules. Hillary never should have agreed to write off MI and FL. I firmly believe that if MI and FL had “counted” from the outset, like how they counted in the Republican primaries, Hillary might have won because she would have recaptured “momentum” from Obama going into Super Tuesday.
4. Clinton fatigue.
Outlander on June 4, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Well,lets say Bill Clinton was her
biggest boat anchor,how big,like
the ones used on Aircraft Carriers!
And the “Fairy Tale” comment from Slick
Willy was the start of her doomed campaign,
much like the armour piercing bomb that hit
the Yamato in a critical area,its fate was
sealed!
canopfor on June 4, 2008 at 8:56 AM
His liabilities are not the same:
John McCain doesn’t make up outrageous lies about his past (HIllary has more in common with Obama here).
John McCain’s wife is more of an asset than either Bill to Hillary or Michelle to Obama.
John McCain doesn’t make empty promises about change - where he has committed himself to change, such as reducing federal spending and cutting pork, he has the record to prove it.
The one liability that remains is an outrageously biased pro-Democratic, pro-Obama media, but there’s absolutely nothing one can do about that one.
Pax americana on June 4, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Hillary couldn’t make too big a deal of Obama’s associations with questionable people. She and Bill have too many of the same in their background, and currently as well. That would be the pot calling the kettle black. (Can I say that?)
Sloan Morganstern on June 4, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Not sure, I’m more inclined to believe that Obama had a better delegate strategy and appealed to a larger, broader base that was effective in caucus elections. It’s easy to over-estimate the influence of the media. Hillary has held only one office in her life and defeated a couple marginal opponents. She simply isn’t a great politician- being married to a former President doesn’t cut it. Among young, collage-age voters especially, Hillary was perceived as the conniving old guard candidate. Obama carried a more effective message and came across as far more likeable and sincere. Hillary’s smart and snappy schoolmarm demeanor didn’t win her many votes.
bayam on June 4, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Ed, do you mean liabilities like what Steve Doocy on Fox & Friends this morning described NBC——”National Barack Channel”
It will be interesting to see how Russert adjust to “his station’s” new phenom, Obermaniac.
Rovin on June 4, 2008 at 9:02 AM
The problem was that Hillary had similar negative skeletons in her closet. She couldn’t go after Obama without shedding more light on herself. Also, I think she fully planned on a Hillary/Obama ticket, so she couldn’t take him down in a way that would permanently damage him. The ammo was there. She just couldn’t avail herself of it.
Connie on June 4, 2008 at 9:03 AM
On a side note, one year ago Dick Morris completely blew off ALL criticism of Hillary stating that she would get 20 million unregistered female voters to come out for her no matter what.
Then, he said only Rudy could beat her.
Let me ask a serious question: why does Morris still have a job with Fox News?
GogglesPisano on June 4, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Neither does Obama. “My great uncle liberated Auschwitz” was a gaffe. “I landed in Tuzla under cover of darkness and dodged sniper fire” was a bald-faced lie. Obama is a phony — and McCain has to be careful not to be branded as such by trying to suddenly move to the right on issues where he’s been centrist in the past.
Agreed. How soon people forget that McCain called for Rummy’s resignation before it was popular (2004), rejected “enhanced interrogation techniques” (2004-05), did McCain-Feingold (2003?), has never taken earmarks, and has taken on special interests (Boeing deal in 2001, Bridge to Nowhere). But it’s up to McCain to brand himself and to sell his 71 year old grumpy self as a change agent.
Outlander on June 4, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Hillary’s defeat has nothing to do with Obama !!! Anyone running against her would have shook her tree !!! It is “Clintons” that people are fed up with. They are power hungry, liars, ” how do I fool them today”, whatever it takes, screw anyone who gets in my path and in general just lousy people. Other than that … they are fine. Good to get rid of them.
aniladesai on June 4, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Why did they favor him? Her potential nomination was historical too.
To write a piece on why she lost and not mention that her opponent in the liberal party is black is weird.
JiangxiDad on June 4, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Good analysis, Ed. The fact that much of the nation was fed up with the Clintons in 2000 helped elect George W. Bush; Al Gore was seen as Clinton’s third term. Clinton fatigue certainly was one factor in Mrs. Clinton’s loss of the nomination, because many voters do not want a restoration, especially after eight years of George W. Bush.
You are right on the money though - the Clinton’s planned badly, and the comments of some of the angry Clinton supporters underscore your point: Hillary and they believed that it was their turn, and that somehow the rest of the nation would agree that it was a woman’s turn - Hillary’s turn - to have the nomination and the white house. Never mind the flawed reasoning, it was her turn, and that was as far as the reasoning went. There was an overall sense of hubris - the nomination was Mrs. Clinton’s by right, which seemed to underly some of the poor decisions in the campaign. Failure to campaign for the long haul, and failure to respond effectively to fumbles like the drivers licenses for illegal residents; the non-sniper incident and so on were certainly going to be damaging in the general election, but you nailed it - the Clinton faithful, like many of the party faithful, have become so wedded to identity politics they apparently cannot see how this is divisive to much of the electorate.
The media have been in the business of anointing so called progressive politicians for years. There should be no surprise that given two progressive aims, the media were going to coalesce around one, at the expense of the other to help sell papers. You described it nicely - Mrs. Clinton became the de facto Republican, and was treated the way the media usually treats GOP candidates. No wonder so many of the Hillary supporters cried foul. I doubt that we will see any efforts by the MSM to try to provide more reporting and less editorializing in their election coverage, but it is nice to see some of the Democratic partisans experience unequal media treatment for a change, and give them a taste of what their friends at the New York Times have been giving the GOP for decades.
What does this portend for the general election? I’d guess McCain has his work cut out for him. Mrs. Clinton is polarizing, and that worked against her, because she is so well known, and because she is a restoration candidate. That might make her easier to beat. Obama may receive a degree of support from conservative Democrats and independents simply because he is perceived as neither a Clinton nor a Bush-like Republican. McCain needs the support of a wide coalition of the conservative right, centrists, independents, and conservative Democrats to succeed. This is going to be a very difficult proposition, especially since it is likely the MSM will play upon the perception that people failing to vote for Obama are racist. I wish McCain luck, and will cheerfully vote for him. Not because he is a white male, but because his policies are closest to the ones I believe in and support. (Note to any MSM types actually reading this - policies, not race and gender are what elections are supposed to be about.)
Orson Buggeigh on June 4, 2008 at 9:08 AM
The media promoted Obama against Hillary. Now watch as they promote Obama against McCain. Prepare for levels of perversion that will choke you.
McCain is toast, and so is America.
pabarge on June 4, 2008 at 9:08 AM
This election cycle has confounded ALL the experts. Just because Morris got that piece wrong doesn’t mean he sucks.
I think Dick Morris has great political instincts. But I also think his deep-seated hatred of the Clintons clouds his judgment, and for that reason, I think the Fox News people need to sit him down and tell him to chill.
Outlander on June 4, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Let me break down your supposed liabilities for McCain and how he can overcome them, pretty easily if his people know what they are doing:
1. His age - his superior experience, his hatred of war because he lived through one and fought in it, unlike Obama who never served and hasn’t even been to Iraq in over a year
2. His 26 years in Washington versus Obama’s “change” message - America faces huge challenges at home and abroad and this is not the time to choose a novice with no accomplishments; Obama is Jimmy Carter redux, his message is not new and it did not work last time we tried it
3. His lack of charm and his oratorical weakness versus Obama America doesn’t need a great speaker, it needs a steady and principled leader; we have had enough of “slick” (remind people of what they did not like about Bill Clinton), it’s time for “straight talk”
4. He lacks the support of significant portions of his own party - he won’t once conservatives get a load of what Obama is selling and his radical leftist background and agenda
5. The Democrat voters he is counting on to win — the white, working class (I hate terms like that) are not supportive of his positions on issues such as amnesty for illegals and global warming. I also would guess that white liberal women — the feminist gang — will get over their anger by November. - This may be a very bad guess. McCain may be the only Republican that is perceived as moderate and independent enough to get those Democrats’ vote. Working-class voters are very pro-military and patriotic and they will at least take a long look at McCain. They don’t care about global warming or immigration. Women are PISSED and the Democratic Party has little time to get them back. If McCain picks a woman running mate and Obama does not pick Hillary, this election may be over before it starts.
Obama may be a novice, but his campaign staff are not. Yes they are. They did not have a clue about how incendiary Revs. Wright and Pfleger would be, they allowed their campaign to alienate millions of women and working class voters, and in a “change” election they very nearly blew the nomination to Hillary Clinton. They are NOT that good.
McCain has a lot of work to do. Of course he does; so did George Bush in 1988 (17 points behind Dukakis in June), and George W. Bush in 2000.
rockmom on June 4, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Are you serious? Is he an employee of Fox? I thought he was an unpaid guest.
JiangxiDad on June 4, 2008 at 9:09 AM
I believe Hillary worked behind-the-scenes to make FL & MI move their primaries up, and have the DNC declare that the delegates would not be seated.
She did that to help ensure Democrats would vote in the Republican primaries and help John McCain become the “presumptive nominee” of the Republican Party by Super Tuesday.
She fully expected to be the “presumptive nominee” of the Democratic Socialist Party by Super Tuesday.
What she did in those two states came back to bite her.
Schadenfreude
But it ain’t over yet. She will try using “the politics of personal destruction” against Obama between now and the convention, in order to get the super delegates to vote for her then. If that doesn’t work, her plan B has something to do with Bobby Kennedy.
Red Pill on June 4, 2008 at 9:10 AM
John McCain can do something that Hillary was not able to do: He actually has different policy ideas from Obama. Hillary would quarrel about slight difference in their universal health care plans. When people are offered a product and one is in a new package and the other in an old package, they will choose the new package. However, John McCain and Barack Obama are not the same product.
terryannonline on June 4, 2008 at 9:11 AM
McCain is going to have one other, huge liability - many pundits will simply accuse any criticism of the Obamassiah as being racist in nature. Remember the whole charge that calling him “elitist” was like calling him “uppity”? Or the flap over the letters on the pajamas in the “3 am” ad?
Nugai on June 4, 2008 at 9:13 AM
The only REAL, non-bullshit answer is: because Al-Burack got over 90% of black vote.
The moonbat draft were much less significant, nutroots mean squat on global scene - just look where Ru Paul got with similar nutroot support. The media and the mainstreamers jumped on the vagon long after the train left the station, and i don’t think their contribution was THAT significant.
Aristotle on June 4, 2008 at 9:15 AM
were = was*
Aristotle on June 4, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Oh yeah, let me add that McCain had better start working right now to get as many debates with Obama as possible. Obama was terrible in the Democrat debates and the Philly debate in particular nearly sank him. If he had not refused a final debate after that he might have lost Indiana badly and North Carolina might have been close. McCain should challenge Obama today to at least 10 debates around the country, and be willing to debate him in front of the NAACP and in Detroit as well as in Arizona and Georgia. That is REAL “new politics” - if Obama declines, McCain can start hammering him as “same old, same old”. If he accepts, he has walked into a trap.
There are a lot of tactical things McCain can do quickly to get Obama on the defensive.
rockmom on June 4, 2008 at 9:17 AM
The media won’t challenge him the same way in a debate against McCain.
JiangxiDad on June 4, 2008 at 9:18 AM
One thing, and one thing only, caused her to lose:
She allowed Obama to run up the score in the 11 primaries/cauci immediately following Super Tuesday. She was never able to make up the deficit, despite the fact that she has won more (and more important) contests contests since then.
The fact that she kept on winning belies the argument that Dem voters rejected her. She wasn’t done in by voters. She was done in by the calendar. If her campaign had prepared for any two of the February contests, she wouldn’t have been in such a deep hole and, I think, she would have pulled it out. In fact, I think she would have trounced him.
But she let that huge margin open up in February. It was immediately apparent that, under the Dems’ arcane rules, she would be unable to make up the difference…no matter how many subsequent contests she won.
jeanneb on June 4, 2008 at 9:18 AM
McCain and his crowd sounded horrible compared to Obama and his fans. The content of both speeches sucked. I don’t want to hear about all these plans with no specifics. I don’t want to hear about bipartisanship on GW. GW will make the energy crisis worse. You want to ease the cost of energy - drill for oil, build nuclear reactors, don’t regulate and tax us to death for the phony GW scare. My God, look how the environmentalists have screwed up the food supply with their biofuels.
Blake on June 4, 2008 at 9:18 AM
I don’t know. I’ve said it before here on HotAir but McCain isn’t a good debater either so I’m not sure how much that will help him.
terryannonline on June 4, 2008 at 9:22 AM
I was only pointing out what I thought McCain’s liabilities were, not evaluating their merit. Although I will be the first one to say that I don’t like him.
I would add two points:
As Nugai pointed out, any criticism of Obama will be portrayed as racist in nature, especially coming from white men.
And this may or may not be important, but at least Obama has a faith message. McCain does not, other than to say he is for anything that promotes unity. He also has dissed a few TV pastors that wanted to endorse him, as well as James Dobson. Again, I am not sure of the importance of this but it’s worth noting as faith comes up further down the road in the campaign.
BigD on June 4, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Okay, now you’re smoking something. McCain against the NAACP and Obama in Detroit, and you think Obama is going to be the one on the defensive??
And debates are really not tactical, other than in the sense they are a required part of the campaign.
BigD on June 4, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Go Hillary!
Go Fight Win!
My daughter is watching!
Saltysam on June 4, 2008 at 9:32 AM
It sounds to me everybody is touching a beast through a hole in the fence hoping to the describe what killed the monster.
Hillary was the anointed one since Nov 04 because no one, least of all me, could imagine that someone else would appear out of the blue to challenge the internal Dem machine run by the Clinton’s. All the while the dirty little secret inside the party was they couldn’t stand the Clinton’s for having dragged them through countless scandals topped off by Monica and finished off with Pardon-gate. They forced every supporter into the Faustian bargain of situational ethics–who do you hate more the repubs or the Clinton’s and at what price.
Newsrooms, 90% Democratic, were forced to write editorials, rationalizing columns etc supporting the Clinton’s. They hated themselves, forced to support an accused rapist all to hang on to power. They threw all their ethics under the fabled bus.
So, is it any surprise that in 2008 when offered a candidate who might win they jumped ugly at the Clinton’s. It’s payback for having been forced to grovel in the mud. Look at how many millions, once supporters, are renouncing these grifters.
Here’s the real ugly part however. If by the strangest circumstances Hillary were still to be the nominee these same legions would grovel again. Such is their lust for the White House. They would succor the devil himself for that bully pulpit. It gives them reason to exist.
patrick neid on June 4, 2008 at 9:34 AM
You’re kidding me, right? Have you not heard McCain speak about how his faith got him through 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton? He has a faith that has been through a real crucible, not a fake on like Obama’s. McCain may be the most authentic candidate of faith we have ever seen. He can also speak more coherently about his faith because his policy positions are consistent with it, i.e. pro-life vs. Obama being the most pro-abortion candidate for president in history.
Obama’s people really thought they could win some evangelical votes in this election because he at least talks about faith more than the Democrats’ prtevious three nominess. But Revs. Wright and Pfleger sort of killed that advantage for him. And McCain doesn’t even have to talk about it and take the blowback. It’s already out there.
rockmom on June 4, 2008 at 9:35 AM
The the radical leftists and communists in the dem party and the msm have chosen this time to overthrow the American government and convert it into a socialist state.
This is actually a kind of coup. Preying on the weakness and disgust with the gop, the fifth column has chosen now as their moment to ascend.
I sure hope there really is such a thing as a thinking Centrist Democrat that rejects this lurch so far leftward. For the sake of the Republic, I pray there are many of them.
techno_barbarian on June 4, 2008 at 9:36 AM
No matter how it’s sliced, Obama is still “backing into the playoffs”. I’m not expecting the media to make a big deal of Obama losing 7 of the last 10 primaries, but he still has big problems, and they will continue to get worse.
forest on June 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM
New York Times op-ed babe, Maureen Dowd says Hillary has already been a Vice President
“Clintonologists know that Hillary is up to something, but they aren’t sure what. Theory No. 1 is that it’s the Cassandra “I told you so” gambit: She believes intensely that he’s too black, too weak and too elitist — with all his salmon and organic tea and steamed broccoli — to beat her pal John McCain. But she has to pretend she’ll do “whatever it takes,” even accept the vice presidency, a job she’s already had and doesn’t want again, so that nobody will blame her when he loses on Nov. 4. Then she can power on to 2012.”
LINK
Earth to Mzzz Dowd, First Lady does not egual VP—-Report immeadiatly to MSNBC for your new assignment.
Rovin on June 4, 2008 at 9:41 AM
The fight will be against Obama and the enormous gaggle of left wing “C” average journalist majors that occupy the so-called mainstream media. As for the voters . . . they are simply subjects in very large Skinner box waiting to respond to whatever reinforcement schedule the media decides to administer. Good lord this is depressing . . . it’s time for another cup of coffee.
rplat on June 4, 2008 at 9:43 AM
The only REAL, non-bullshit answer is: because Al-Burack got over 90% of black vote.
Aristotle on June 4, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Obama’s pledged delegate margin of victory is 127, according to RealClearPolitics.com this morning. Obama’s wins in the caucus states (mostly white voters) and his performance in states like Wisconsin (also largely lacking in black people) helped him more than his racially-polarized victories in the Carolinas.
Outlander on June 4, 2008 at 9:44 AM
You’d expect Mrs. Clinton and her flying monkeys to view her historic but failed candidacy as a treasure of great worth, filled with many valuable life lessons, but you’d be wrong.
These sore losers, who gambled and lost, want their money back! They want the winner to pay them for what they pissed away, i.e., they want Senator Obama to pay Mrs. Clinton’s campaign debt!
Yet they spent that money voluntarily, and presumably with full knowledge of the risks involved. So what’s this crap about payback?
See, like all hard leftists, feminists don’t accept the ups and downs of life. They think success itself is owed to them, and that to lose is to have been cheated.
Of course, real women, and real Americans, find this really repulsive.
jeff_from_mpls on June 4, 2008 at 9:46 AM
That says it all Ed.
And there is no better evidence than NBC’s video, very professionally done and aimed at their punching bag for the last five months. The media, as always, is driving the political train, and this time more than ever they have a cult following so naieve, so spellbound, so blinded, I’m afraid we have reached the pinnacle of the dumbing down of America. These braindead puppetheads yelling “Yes We Can” have no idea of the dangers Obama presents for America, yet chant a slogan that is beyond meaningless.
All this, thanks to a biased media in the tank for the empty suit.
Lest we forget, this is the same media who systematically destroyed several viable Republican candidates, and gave us John McCain.
Freedom of the Press was meant to protect the citizens and expose corruption, but rest assured, in it’s current mutated form, it will be our undoing.
Don’t believe it? Look at our two presidential candidates, selected and coronated by the MSM.
fogw on June 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Earth to Mzzz Dowd, First Lady does not
egualequal VP—-Report immeadiatly to MSNBC for your new assignment.Rovin on June 4, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Rovin on June 4, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Orson,
“McCain needs the support of a wide coalition of the conservative right, centrists, independents, and conservative Democrats to succeed”
Unfortunately, too many on the right are still pouting about McCain being the nominee.
exhelodrvr on June 4, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Thank you rockmom.
4shoes on June 4, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Don’t forget that Bush Derangement Syndrome turned the core left in the Democratic Party and many in the media into something resembling an online/electronic version of the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror, with Markos Moulitsas in the role of Robespierre. They not only wanted Bush and Cheney impeached and Rove and Rumsfeld arrested, they wanted anybody who ever voted with Bush on Iraq ousted and were wary of even those who supported the administration on Afghanistan.
Add that into Clinton fatigue, and you get a desire to get rid of the Clintons with a passion to do it. That’s why Obama’s initial entry into the race in early 2007 sparked so much excitement (combined with the feel-good aspects for the white leftists). But it died down during the spring and summer because of Obama’s lack of any plan for his presidency other than to be not George Bush. It wasn’t until the Philadelphia debate, when Hillary screwed up Russert’s question on driver’s licenses for illgal aliens, that Barack was given a second change and the core left in the Democratic party was re-energized.
jon1979 on June 4, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Too much analysis…Black trumps female in the liberal’s card game.
Females had their chance, we heard them roar, and it was a meow…blacks carry more anger, create more guilt, and can not be criticized because the race card trumps all (race plus female is first among equals).
right2bright on June 4, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Hillary lost for two reasons.
1) Obama provided the better prospect of a holiday from reality than did Hillary. Hillary could say all the right things but everyone knew that she’d probably act like a responsible adult once in office. The left is weak and afraid and they want someone who will tell them not to worry - there is no real enemy, we just need to talk to our enemies, blah, blah.
2) Liberals are simply in love with the idea that they are pure, magnanimous, charitable and enlightened enough to vote for a black man. They voted for him out of vanity. Voting for a successful white female senator whose husband was the President just doesn’t cut it from a vanity perspective when an attractive black candidate is available. Thus, for true liberals, the revelations about Obama’s unsavoury associates actually added to his cachet. Liberals could tell themseves that that was how good, charitable and forgiving they really were - they could not only vote for someone who was black but someone whose associates hated whites, America and the West - they could vote against their interests - they were that pure!
pussum207 on June 4, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Unfortunately, it’s an old story. Back in 1970, Leonard Bernstein, Brooke Astor (of “the” Astors), and other society swells hosted a “dinner party” in NYC for the Black Panthers.
Well thugs and terrorists have to eat too I guess.
JiangxiDad on June 4, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Ed, I think you might have missed the best write up on the reasons for Obama securing so many delegates, and so the nomination:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/03/AR2008060304268.html?hpid=topnews
They targeted small states and areas which would yield more delegates… Texas is a good example of a place with weighted delegate allocation where she would win the popular vote and he would win more delegates. It was a very shrewd and efficient campaign.
lexhamfox on June 4, 2008 at 11:20 AM
The results were so freakin’ close–of course she could have won if she had ran a smarter campaign. She didn’t even have to win any more states, she just had to lose by less in the smaller red states, and she would have picked up more delegates.
daryl_herbert on June 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM
“How could Hillary lose? Let us count the ways”
BORING, we’ve heard it all and said it all and read it all how many times already…
How can Hillary win? Now THAT’s good reading material for speculation–list the further ins & outs yet available to counter the BO.
maverick muse on June 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Morris has great political instincts?
The man who wrote a column saying that amnesty for illegals was a good idea because many illegals are evangelicals and will vote GOP? Then, he said for the GOP base to “get with it” and support amnesty.
Morris’ analysis is usually awful.
GogglesPisano on June 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM
JiangxiDad on June 4, 2008 at 11:13 AM
That’s one way a liberal could buy fire insurance;
bribe the boss man pimping cultural understanding to the masses,
or at least to the biggest threat. The show must go on.
Bernstein, “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.”
maverick muse on June 4, 2008 at 11:25 AM
And Hillary just comes off as PHONY. I certainly DO NOT believe she CARES about people. They care about themselves only.
Bill did NOT want another President in the family. Can you imagine his legacy? It would always have, “and he got his wife elected as the first woman President” overshadowing any of his accomplishments (getting Europe to like us, no attacks on US by terrorists, brokering peace in the Middle east) … what? he didn’t? never mind.
originalpechanga on June 4, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Not that I like Shillary, but if ALL the primaries had the info we have today, B. Hussein would NOT be the candidate.
Period.
shooter on June 4, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Ed, I think you are giving MS-NBC too much credit, especially since their viewer numbers are so small.
And you left out one major factor-to many people, she’s just not all that likeable. Some of that isn’t her fault-after all, she was born with that irritating voice and cackle-but some of it is her fault. Her attitude primarily.
Del Dolemonte on June 4, 2008 at 12:08 PM
That last 3 seconds of that report left a big gap in my consciousness. Hilly rocking out gave me a stroke.
Pilamaye reminded me that without Soros, her money dried up.
Funny how King George has been funding John McCain’s staff as well. they like tto hedge their bets, those filthy rich, big brothers who want to bring America to her knees.
Speaking of John…Rockmom does an excellent job on her post about what McCain should do–”…if his people know what they’re doing”. That’s THE problem, they don’t. Just listen again to his speech last night.
Christine on June 4, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Don’t forget to lay a big part of the blame for Clinton’s failure at the feet of her incompetent campaign manager, Patty Solis Doyle. Her ineptitude and poor planning cost Clinton big, especially early in the campaign. Of course, Clinton herself bears much of the blame for Solis Doyle’s failures, since it was clear after Clinton’s last Senate campaign that Solis Doyle was in over her head. If Clinton had been choosing her people based on merit rather than on their membership in a particular group or groups (Hispanics, women), she would have been a lot better off. But, ironically, Clinton insisted on playing the identity politics game, and it may have cost her the win.
AZCoyote on June 4, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I wanted to try to read everyone’s comments before posting, and Del Dolemonte beat me to it by a little bit.
Hillary is just an unlikeable candidate/person. That’s what primarily did her in.
If she wants to try again in four or eight years, she’s going to have to get a massive media makeover.
asc85 on June 4, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Exactly.
She had a very detailed plan for how to ensure McCain was the Republican nominee, and how to beat McCain in November, but her ego never allowed her to consider that the man she helped make into a US Senator, and who was groomed to be her VP, would challenge her for the Democrat nomination. She never saw it coming until she got blindsided when he won Iowa.
Hillary’s 2008 Presidential Game Plan.
She also got bitten by her own plan to use FL & MI to help McCain secure the Republican nomination. If she had left those states alone, and won them at full strength, she may have won the nomination outright. Now she’s relegated to having to try to win the nomination by either character assassination, or the real deal.
It ain’t over until Hillary says it’s over.
Red Pill on June 4, 2008 at 4:16 PM