1. Clinton supporters cannot blame the DNC for her defeat, as she had most of the staffers on the Rules committee. It was Harold Ickes himself who voted with the rest of the group to strip MI and FL of their delegates.

2. Instead of making the case for her war vote, Clinton and her team continually belittled Obama's stance against the war. Not a smart thing to do when the country was now against the war too. And really not a smart thing to do now that even former Bush staffers are saying the war run-up was propaganda.

3. It was Bill Clinton who pushed African-American voters away from his wife - first by claiming that Obama's anti-war position was a fairy tale (not a good message to send to the most anti-war voters) and then by claiming that we were only supporting Obama because he was black (remember: "Jesse won here too"?).

Most of all, the Clinton campaign lost because they were beaten. The Obama campaign knew this was a 50-state contest and they put together a plan to win the majority of the delegates across those 50-states. Excuses like, "we closed with a winning streak" or "we won states with more electoral college votes" or "we have the key constituencies" are just that: excuses.

It's a contest.

Clinton lost.

To say that is not sexist.

Calling the truth sexist does nothing but ensure bitter feelings. If the Clinton campaign did not want a contest for the Democratic nomination, why did they not institute a monarchy and just transfer power from one sovereign to the next in some sort of succession ceremony?

In reading the above posts, one thing so many mentioned as a reason for disliking Hillary is the fact she voted for the war resolution and refused to apologize for it. I don't believe that is the real reason but just a cop-out because they don't want to admit the real reason is sexism. Remember, Senators Biden and Dodd both voted for the war resolution and apologies were not demanded of them.
Obama wasn't even in the Senate to vote on the Resolution but has voted twice to continue funding the war. How about an apology for that, Senator Obama?
Hillary Clinton's campaign program can be dissected for years to come and I agree with those who place some blame on the ridiculous primary/caucus proportional delegate rule. A winner take all rule would certainly give the contestants a fairer shot at the nomination.
In the end, Hillary won 20 primaries and 1 caucus with a total Electoral Vote count of 277. In a general election that is a winner!
Obama won 16 primaries and 15 caucuses for a total Electoral Vote count of 227. That leaves him 43 electoral votes short. In a general election that is a loser!
It's very interesting how no one mentions those numbers. Not counted in the above totals is 34 electoral votes from Texas where she won the primary and he won the caucus, tying the state.
Of the final ten primaries: Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virgina, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana - Hillary won 6 60 electoral votes), Obama won 3 (25 electoral votes) and they tied 1, Texas with 34 electoral votes. Puerto Rico has no electoral votes.
The figures speak for themselves as to who is the strongest candidate.
Of those 15 caucuses he won, only 4 are blue states and how much chance does a Democrat have in winning Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, to name a few? Senator Obama has his work cut out for him to carry the big states Hillary did and without them, he will lose.
One last comment: I will never lose my anger towards the many left wing Democrats and Obama followers who savaged Hillary and her supporters on blogs,web sites and in the media. Their attacks and prejudice against her is unforgivable.
I have no intention of signing any "unity" pact with such people and as a non-elite I certainly won't be missed. The media, of course, have knee jerk vilification reactions to the name "Clinton" and automatically go into slime mode. There is nothing to say for this sorry lot except the industry is disgusting in it's bias and they need to be split into tiny, tiny pieces.
I pray that Hillary will not become the VP on the Obama ticket. She deserves much better than to end her career as a scapegoat for Obama. I wish her all the best.

cont'd afed27, 6/5, 6:01pm...The 3 Stooges of the Democratic Party sabotaged her with their action on the Michigan & Florida delegates. I believe, also, that Obama, in giving the superdelegates almost $1 million
in donations, seduced many of them to give him their votes.
Obama makes so many blunders in speaking, he has so many cock-eyed ideas on what he will do when elected, his lies, his never admitting to a mistake, his policy that nothing requires him to issue an apology...all show him to be a duplicate of Bush. Where is this man's character? Where will be the touted "change"?

A major cause for Clinton's loss was the love affair between the media & obama. they oh-ed & ah-ed him & slammed her. Never was there a candidate who received so much criticism for his actions & this info was not picked up by the media, or criticism of his words for which he always claimed we, the listeners, misunderstood of misinterpreted his words.
There was so much info on the Internet about Obama's poor associations [ with Wright, Ayers, Rezko] which, sorrowfully, much of has recently been deleted. This info reported on his arrogance, his deeds which screamed 'bad character', his 23 years of respectfully following Wright's political teachings, his lies in building his history & his image, his taking millions of $s from companies,
"bundlers", to whom he now owes over 360 favors, [ who needed lobbyists? ], & so many more negatives. Why didn't the media pick up these traits of Obama & report them as journalists should?
The 3 Stogges of the Democratic Party

What went wrong was that obama knew his opponent and his opponent underestimated him. He simply out smarted her. He had the advantage because he knew she would ignor caucas states and he took advantage of that.

I am still a Hillary supporter, but will vote for Barack in the fall if he remains the nominee.

A fundamental and, I think, overlooked problem was the motivation driving Hillary's pursuit of the presidency. It was from, 2000 (or 1999) on, a reclamation/restoration project, the goal of which was to fulfill the promise of Bill's presidency. Because of events he controlled and events he did not control, much of the promise of Bill's presidency was not fulfilled. Hillary ran for and gained a Senate seat to position herself for a presidential run; she voted to authorize force in Iraq to position herself for such a run; and she tried to run as a semi-incumbent to shut the door on any other contenders before they could even enter. Her ambition stems from many sources, no doubt, but key among those is her desire to leave a very different Clinton legacy than was left by her husband.

Blaming Bill is pure sexism.

Mostly it was racism. If he wasn't black she would have won easily. She carried a lot of baggage and we didn't know anything about him. He appealed to the caucus states-only a few people there. She won where a lot of people voted. What we have since learned about him makes me wonder if he would have won if the primaries started now as they should have.Perhaps she should run as an independant.But I am old and don't understand this country anymore. It's been going downhill since the 60's. Overpopulation is the biggest problem.Incompetent union workers who cant be fired-automotive,teachers.etc-all democrats.

Hillary allowed Bill to engage in race baiting tactics. The proportional delegate system was rigged to favor minority areas, so she got beat with her own liberal racial preference system. Hillary's staff even wrote the Dem rules. Sweet irony!

Mostly it was racism. If he wasn't black she would have won easily. She carried a lot of baggage and we didn't know anything about him.He appealed to the caucus states-only a few people there. She won where a lot of people voted. What we have since learned about him makes me wonder if he would have won if the primaries started now as they should have.

A factor I have not seen discussed is that at the beginning of the campaign Hillary expected the support and loyalty of the super delegates. The Clintons are a power in the party. I think two factors made that expectation unrealistic. Those factors are the loss of so many Dem. congressional seats during the Bill Clinton presidency and gender bias.

I remember the expressions of outrage that a woman was telling congress what it shoud do during her effort to get a health care passed. Gender bias is alive and well in congress and in our sociaty.

One of the memorable remarks I have read during this campaign was to the effect "at a caucus you get to stand up in front of your friends and neigbors and be either a racest or a sexist"

For the record I am a 77 year old male.

Hillary lost because she wasn't ready for that 3:00 AM phone call. The person on the other end saying that the primaries wouldn't be over on Super Duper Tuesday. She had no Post SD Tuesday Plan (other than await the coronation).

Obama, had a Plan! For someone without "experience", he had a Plan and executed it.

A man (or a woman) with a Plan is better than a woman (or a man) with only a sense of entitlement.

I was supporting Hillary Clinton until South Carolina. The racism of that campaign disturbed me very much. Bill Clinton's behavior sent off alarm signals - what would happen when he got close to the Oval Office again? And although I certainly acknowledge the sexism against Clinton, it was nothing like the more lethal insults directed against Sen. Obama. It was more like the heckling the wonk would get in high school.

After South Carolina, this white woman over fifty (if anyone cares about that) voted in her primary for Senator Obama. First, I had read over some speeches, sent them round, listened to him again, read some more, and found a depth and gravity about him I didn't hear in anyone else. How I wanted to vote for Sen. Clinton. I did not. I hope she will find her soul. She has transformed herself into someone else many times if only to gain our approval, and in the end, I don't think she could get herself back. I have heard Sen. Clinton on evening talk shows when she wasn't running for anything, and that is the Hillary Clinton I admire. But I wonder if she can find that person inside her again. I hope so.

Character is the whole deal. People perceived a lack of it in HRC and her spouse and an apparent strong character in BO. People got sick of the lies and the truth shading because of what it said about her and what it said about her opinion of them and their values.

Hillary lost because of Bill her egotistical husband.

An appeal to all Democratic supports and voters.

Date: 05th June, 2008.

My dearest American brothers and sisters,

What do you want to choose as your destiny? End of the world? Heralding 666 into this world? Second coming of Christ?

Here is reproduced an e-mail letter received from Barack Obama's camp:

"Ivo Oscar --

I'm about to take the stage in St. Paul and announce that we have won the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

It's been a long journey, and we should all pause to thank Hillary Clinton, who made history in this campaign. Our party and our country are better off because of her.

I want to make sure you understand what's ahead of us. Earlier tonight, John McCain outlined a vision of America that's very different from ours -- a vision that continues the disastrous policies of George W. Bush.

But this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past and bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

It's going to take hard work, but thanks to you and millions of other donors and volunteers, no one has ever been more prepared for such a challenge.

Thank you for everything you've done to get us here. Let's keep making history.

Barack"

Now kindly analyze this letter. Firstly, a Muslim claiming that he has taken stage in St. Paul! Why didn't he say "Allah?" Secondly, add two horns and a tail to the real Barack Obama or his photo. What do you see? Please read The Prophecies of Nostradamus and also read the Bible. Can you foresee/read the time and the political situation in today's world?

Therefore, I feverishly today appeal to all Americans not to support the Democratic Party if their candidate is Barack Obama. Instead go out in numbers and vote for Republican Party, no matter whomsoever their candidate maybe.

God Save America and the world.

Yours truly,
---Sd---
Ivo Oscar Faleiro.
Goa - INDIA.

To me it was pretty obvious what happened. Her so called backers (for years) and the media turned on her.It started with Oprah and one by one they sold her out. Period!

SHE FORGOT THE LOONEY LIBERAL GUILT ABOUT THE PLIGHT OF THE POOR DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES, AND THE DEBT OWED THEM BY ALL AMERICANS. SO THEY MADE A MONGREL THE CHOICE. HE ISN'T EVEN A BLACK MAN. HE'S A MONGREL PURE AND SIMPLE. IN THEIR USUAL RUSH TO TO SOMETHING THEY COULDN'T EVEN PICK A REAL AFRICAN. THIS CHOICE IS TYPICAL OF THE STUPIDITY THE PERVADES THE DUMOCRAPS.

I think many voters overlooked a very telling characteristic about Hillary -- one she shares with husband Bill: recklessness. How does one take seriously a presidential candidate who makes up childish stories about braving enemy fire in Bosnia and helping bring peace to Northern Ireland? You thought that maybe no one would notice you had nothing to do with peace - other than your peaceful landing in Bosnia? Lady, you are a stubborn, unrepentant, unimaginative liar -- married to a convicted liar (who is himself a stranger to enemy fire). You were questioned about your pandering gas relief tax plan, and you replied that you "don't throw (your) lot in with economists"? Because, math whiz that you are, you certainly wouldn't need any egghead economists to solve the worst financial crisis the U.S. has faced in decades, right? Well, Hillary, now the voters have done the math for you.

What went wrong. The Clinton's know how to win in November. If we were playing the Democratic Primary like the Presidential Election, Clinton is president--having WON the electoral votes from states that put her in that position in a winner-take-all contest.

The Democratic Primaries are NOTHING like a general election. Throw out all the caucuses--we don't have to go to gymnasiums and look at our neighbors and walk to one side of the gym or the other to SHOW our support for a candidate. And the winner-doesn't-take-all ELECTORAL VOTE in favor of a by congressional district and encouraging delegate representation with down to 15% of the vote to garner delegates to the convention and you have a primary system which may get a candidate a nomination which won't win with the ELECTORAL COLLEGE system.

What will go wrong? The Democrats, in crafting their inane deledgate process handicap the person with a strategy that wins in November and nominate the wrong candidate.

States with over 320 Electoral Votes (when only 270 are needed to win the nomination) expressed a preference for Clinton over Obama during the primary campaign. Yet, Obama has more delegates and will receive the nomination. When you asked OH PA MI FL CA AZ NM TX NY NJ TN MA AR IN KY WV RI NH NV who they preferred they said Clinton. When Obama loses any of these states in the fall its not Clinton's fault but the democratic nominating processes.

If it goes wrong in November for the third straight time for the Democrats, maybe they should consider a winner take all electoral vote orientation for awarding delegates to the convention. It seems to be a way to make the survivor of the primaries look more like what will win in November.

If it had this year, we'd be watching Clinton accept the democratic party nomination.

What did Clinton do wrong. Think running to win in November would get her the Democratic Nomation. It doesn't and my explain why the democrats have been performing so poorly against the republicans since the 1968 restructuring of the democratic delegate awarding process.

Chris,
It was not as complex as you made it out to be. Clinton's faults were:
1. Arrogance in assuming it would be over by Feb.5 & the hubris of not having a post Super Tuesday strategy
2. Ignoring the caucus states
3. No consistent theme
4. Underestimating Obama (which by the way EVERYONE did!) which cost her several contests due to the erosion of support in the black community
5. Not fighting back early enough against the press coverage that described the Clinton/Obama campaigns.

Maureen Dowd wrote an article in February, 2007 on David Geffen's reservations about the Clintons. (They were "the Clintons" then, not the defined political individual Hilary eventually became.)

I see that article as the beginning of Hilary's decent. For someone who had pretty much forgotten Clinton fatigue, Dowd's article was like a re-visit of malaria.

"She is overproduced and overscripted," Geffen said. "It's not a very big thing to say, 'I made a mistake' on the war,' and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can't....She's so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base...."

The candidate was captured in that statement, and it made me think again about supporting Hilary. What Geffen missed was the lake of imagination in her organization itself. We eventually saw how smart the "smart advisors" turned out to be. The way Mark Penn burned money was totally ineffectual to everyone but his company and himself. Millions of dollars were going to Burson-Marsteller while people were being flown from Washington to small town caucus gatherings in an ad hoc manner that became a symbol of the campaign's disorganization. Hilary's Arlington office was more reminiscent of a boiler room running a 1971 anti-war march than a national campaign. It was a lot of adolescent drama and egos and court positioning signifying nothing.

It turned out that they weren't winners. They were awash in a sea of chaos. And the old lesson, "if you can't run a campaign, how can you run a country," began to hit home. In contrast Obama's operation was lean, even when the money rolled in. David Geffen was never high on my political advice list, but Linda Ronstadt's former manager saw something coming

to tell you the truth in the beginning i was for hillary at the start of the primaries. i remember seeing ms. clinton when she came to buffalo as the first lady and spoke on the message of education to teachers. she was warm, affable and command of the issues. As time went by at the iowa caucus. i thought she and sen. obama were interesting candidates. as i listened to the south carolina primary play out i was disappointed with with comments from bob johnson and bill clinton. Clinton is too smart to make strange statements like that. Then as the campaign went on i could see the separation of obama and hillary's campaign message and strategy. Clinton and some of her handlers made it seem she was owed the presidency.she made the comment she had been to more countries than senator obama. Though as former secretary mr brzezinski said his travel agent had been to more countries than him; that didn't make her more qualified than him. in this life we aren't owed anything we must work for it. It is always ironic that early in the primary senator clinton or her handlers made the pitch that obama was too inexperienced to be president but just right to be vice president. this was made during his winning streak. in the end obama ran a better campaign and beat the clinton machine at their own game. i was turned off by the fact that in the beginning she was all for punishing florida and michigan for giving the party the proverbial finger. then when things went south now she feels the voters are being left out of the process. clinton took too long to warm up and let people truly know who she was. both candidates are flawed in their own ways and their handlers so i am not blind in that respect. Hillary was tired when she made the rfk statements and will give her that. Though the thought of some random person killing obama during the process was always there and for her to say it was just bad. Just as bad as senator huckabee at the nra convention joking about a noise and senator obama reacting. Just as bad as comments made by rev wright about the evil in america and rev haggee doing the same. just as obama making the bitter comment about some voters. Just as hillary singling out in the usa today article that white hard working uneducated people were deserting obama. the last time i checked many ethnic groups in the u.s. are hard working. america has made mistakes against its own; tuskegee experiment for blacks.
senator clinton is a fine woman who under normal circumstances wold have been a fine candidate. She just ran into a person who was up to the challenge of playing the game on their own terms who was underestimated by her and the party. Like other leaders she can learn from her mistakes and reshape herself to be ready the next time. to make the argument that sexism was more up front than racism is interesting on why she failed. to say that sexism doesn't exist in this country would be a lie. Just as to say race doesn't play a role would be a lie as well by the exit polls of people in west virginia and kentucky. HIllary had the sympathy of people and news media for putting up with bill's drama. She had a cross section of support of various ethnic, economic, media, financial groups, labor, religious groups. It wasn't until obama started winning and seen as viable that the clinton camp took him seriously. by that time momentum had set in.

I am glad that many here are pointing out to 800 pound gorilla in the room that the press (due to their own complicity?) refuse to discuss. Her AUMF vote, and consequent refusal to apologize for it! No vote, no opening for Obama. Period.

One just needs to hear Obama and Clinton speak to figure out why Obama is so acceptable and Clinton is not. Above all politics, race and everthing else there is the feeling of comfort and being convinced about the person you want to be associated with. Obama gives you the space to stand and share with him, while Clinton seems to be passing decrees and orders from somewhere high up all the time. And the most annoying thing in all Clinton communications is "I" and "me". It is a very fundamental rule of group communication and every business/ leadership book tells you that keep 'I' and 'me' out and include your audience into your conversation as 'we' and 'our'. I wonder how Clinton's powerful campaign 'machine' overlooked this and let Hillary repeat this apalling mistake again and again. Moreover Clinton has a very high-handed attitude that make her appear so unapproachable, while Obama's 'vulnerable' and 'naive' approach makes people feel like he is one of them and endears him to the masses. And frankly, in a democracy, masses do matter.

Robert says: "Unlike in the Democrat primaries the left wing anti-war vote won't dominate and if the only reason Obama won is because of their vote then he'll lose in the general due to more sound minded voters."

You mean sound minded voters who thought invading Iraq was a good idea?

Most Americans now think invading was a big mistake, all polls have shown this for years.

Anyone who's dim enough to think invading Iraq was the right call is going to be voting for McCain whoever the Democrat is.

I was very undecided between Clinton and Obama after Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and Edwards all dropped out of the Democratic primary race. Two factors that significantly influenced my decision to endorse Obama were: (1) Caroline Kennedy's Op-Ed in the New York Times in which she described how Barack Obama shared the same visions for America as her father, JFK, and (2) Bill Clinton's injection of "race" as an issue before and after the South Carolina primary. However, two additional factors before 2008 had already influenced my decision were: (1) Hillary Clinton's inability to admit that her vote to give President Bush authority to invade Iraq was a mistake (something John Edwards and Joe Biden had no problem admitting); and (2) her inability to define an increase in the salary cap for the social security tax as the most expedient way to ensure the solvency of social security. Obama readily acknowledged that an increase in the salary cap on the SS tax was the best way to make social security solvent. Overall, Hillary Clinton was very evasive regarding her position on the major issues during the first half to three-fourths of her primary campaign; in contrast, Barack Obama clearly defined his positions and judgements throughout the campaign. The choice was easy after I started paying close attention to Obama's campaign.

Her defeat just shows her best true values obscured from all of us who see her alone on the face value.

She appears to be the ebst candidate until she's placed neck and neck with her opponent, then, that her overall class and qualities including an ability to forge a winning campaign come to light. Hers are much less than Sen. Barack Obama.

Finally CC won't be able to promote Hillary anymore.

There are a few other problems as well:

1. Hillary portrayed arrogance and a lack of class, particular when she consistently refused to acknowledge and congratulate Obama on his victories.

2. She based her claim on experience, but doesn't really have any to back it up.

3. Bill, her messy campaign, and condescending attitude, contrasted to Obama, reminded everyone of what they didn't like about the Clinton 1990s rather than about the good times.

4. Hillary too often fit the Republican caricature of her rather than the mature politician she seemed to be in NY. In addition to being unattractive in and of itself, this may have given voters real pause as to her electability, particularly when she was already one of the least popular and polarizing figures in recent political history.

"Hillary R. Clinton. Please announce your candidacy for the President of the USA as an Independent Candidate. You do not need the DNC Insiders, Howard Dean, Carl Levin, John Edwards, ... You have the American People. Now put your faith and confidence in THEM (US the American PEOPLE), like we have you!!"":

Respond to post: Yes. Yes. Yes.

While I believe Senator Clinton's vote for the war was very damaging, few people discuss the damage pundits from MSNBC crew, beginning with Chris Matthews who never lost a chance to slur, and smear, by alluding to the most negative and mean spirited speculation when ever Hillary opened her mouth while always giving Obama and Michelle the free pass. Followed by Herr Olbermann, Mica B with her silly and often mean little giggle, and all the MSNBC heartless Hillary haters and hate mongrels who were all to willing to smear and twist at every opportunity.

Initially, I counted Hillary out because of her vote on the war and began to listen to what Obama had to say, discovering quickly that he was a bit of an empty suit, whose lack of experience was evident during debates and other interviews. When Obama had his big talk on race I was equally unimpressed because he did not answer the hard questions about the Rev. Wright. His speech masterfully evaded the pressing issue regarding his association with Wright for 20 years. Senator Clinton begin to look very good to me then and still does. I will never vote for Obama. I do not trust him. Period. Even if Hillary were to demean herself for the sake of the party and consider the role of Vice president. What party? The democratic party was reduced to a room full of good old boys and girls, led by Pelosi who has never been able to or willing to do anything about the war. The democratic party is gone, Caput! At least it's gone for me. I plan to vote Independent and write in Hillary's name if need be.

We need to get rid of mongrel pundits and return the Fourth Estate to objectivity of the issues rather the side show of hateful rumors and destructive discourse which some so proudly represent.

CC, I think your argument about passion is well made. With the number of people who voted for Clinton, she would have normally won a campaign. It's not profound to acknowledge that Obama won this contest by obtaining the votes of those who have never voted before. The new politically charged generation questions a system that would see a Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton succession in Washington.

As patriotic but disaffected citizens, they are ashamed that two families have successively and regularly failed to deliver their promise. There has been a disappointing duopoly on the holders of the keys at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

What went wrong for Clinton and her campaign is that they were soundly beaten by the Obama team's better on-the-ground tactics and overall campaign strategy. The election was hers to lose and she did. Here at the end of the primary campaign trail, we can see that she was effectively outwitted, outplayed and outlasted. And now she's been voted off the Island. Bye bye! Stay tuned for the coming tide of books by campaign insiders, some more revealing than others, that will (probably) offer good insights into the anatomy of her loss.

Obama had the opportunity months ago to protest and denounce the rampant media Hillary-bashing the demeaned his women supporters, too. He sat silently through the most despicable woman-bashing in front of his screen. Did he protest? No. He enjoyed it. Obama himself was covertly dishing out sexist abuse:

"Her claws are coming out" "She's likeable enough" "Periodically she feels down, gets moody and launches attacks on me".Then this arrogantly narcissist candidate goes on stage in N.C. (L.A.Times/YuTube--Obama Gives Hillary the F!nger) and 'flip-offs' his fellow senator and opponent as a way of DIMINISHING her. He's the master of the SEXIST CAMOUFLAGE!

He's also immature and he's shown it by equally practicing SILENCE attending a church with his two children where rampant Hatred and twisted logic was the Sunday Sermon's liturgical indoctrination. And so generations of children attending did not have the benefit of Obama's breaking his complicit silence and speaking up. Did he offer to give a Speech of Healing and Unity and Love in those 20 years? No. Did he speak up against the vitriolic misogyny of the media fratboy bullies? No. How could he? Obama was the direct BENEFICIARY OF SEXISM. On May 25th, CNN presented a phenomenal segment "Media and Misogyny" moderated by Howard Kurtz. If Obama spends a couple of minutes watching it he'll understand why he will not win the election.

Obama wrote a letter to NBC to protest the despicably racist comments of Imus, who was justly fired. There are laws to prevent racist rants by media pundits. But no laws to contain woman-hatred. Obama could have broken his silence and condemn this. He chose not to.

Obamyopia, however, is a curable affliction. Come November Sen. Obama will be cured permanently--with the bitter antidote of Humility.

Obama had the opportunity months ago to protest and denounce the rampant media Hillary-bashing the demeaned his women supporters, too. He sat silently through the most despicable woman-bashing in front of his screen. Did he protest? No. He enjoyed it. Obama himself was covertly dishing out sexist abuse:

"Her claws are coming out" "She's likeable enough" "Periodically she feels down, gets moody and launches attacks on me".Then this arrogantly narcissist candidate goes on stage in N.C. (L.A.Times/YuTube--Obama Gives Hillary the F!nger) and 'flip-offs' his fellow senator and opponent as a way of DIMINISHING her. He's the master of the SEXIST CAMOUFLAGE!

He's also immature and he's shown it by equally practicing SILENCE attending a church with his two children where rampant Hatred and twisted logic was the Sunday Sermon's liturgical indoctrination. And so generations of children attending did not have the benefit of Obama's breaking his complicit silence and speaking up. Did he offer to give a Speech of Healing and Unity and Love in those 20 years? No. Did he speak up against the vitriolic misogyny of the media fratboy bullies? No. How could he? Obama was the direct BENEFICIARY OF SEXISM. On May 25th, CNN presented a phenomenal segment "Media and Misogyny" moderated by Howard Kurtz. If Obama spends a couple of minutes watching it he'll understand why he will not win the election.

Obama wrote a letter to NBC to protest the despicably racist comments of Imus, who was justly fired. There are laws to prevent racist rants by media pundits. But no laws to contain woman-hatred. Obama could have broken his silence and condemn this. He chose not to.

Obamyopia, however, is a curable affliction. Come November Sen. Obama will be cured permanently--with the bitter antidote of Humility.

Sorry Charles: I don't agree with a lot of McCains positions but don't view him as a fool. He has stood up against his own party and actually ticked them off over campaign reform and immigration reform. Healthcare and Supreme Court Justices are the only reason I have not offered to volunteer for him. As a lifelong D it is really difficult for me to brag that I simply don't trust our nominee. He has bragged he is the nonpolitician but don't the most political stunts in history to generate a race based hatred for the Clintons, which I find to be dispicable and totally unforgiveable. I have even heard folks in his campaign brag about how clever that was. Refusing a revote in Fla and Michigan and then demanding 50% of the Michigan vote even when he had effectively already won the nomination and didn't need those delegates from voters who didn't vote for him but voted uncomitted was totally classless. We will see. Right now I see a flawed but honorable McCain as the better alternative to a dishonorable Obama candidiacy, but at least your comments are civil, which has been totally rare here.

All the folk here who say Hillary lost because she voted for the Iraq war better hope that's not true. Unlike in the Democrat primaries the left wing anti-war vote won't dominate and if the only reason Obama won is because of their vote then he'll lose in the general due to more sound minded voters.

"...it was Clinton's responsibility to recognize problems within her inner circle and work to change them."

Many things went wrong with this campaign, but what you wrote here is so key. Hillary NEVER took proper control of her campaign, if at all. She sat back and became nothing more than a performing monkey. Now who else does that sound like? Exactly. Does she honestly believe this shoddy and poorly run campaign was a flattering representation of her leadership abilities?

You know, I've always hated people who hated the Clintons, and yet here I am; I've now joined the club. Disgusted, embarrassed, agog and aghast...I can't look at them without wincing at what might have been had we not been privy to these numerous public meltdowns. Thank God, the masks were pulled away and we saw the truth. This country was saved and I am grateful for that.

Inciddentally Charles I have never missed even a local election in 35 years and have traveled as a lawyer for the Kerry campaign, worked high up in the Strickland in Ohio campaign and been involved in D politics since 1972 including the Gov Richards campaign. I have seen our party destroy itself over and over again and I am sick to death of how we take opportunities to turn this country around and piss it away with candidates who don't deserve to be on the ballot. We have just done that again and the fact that team Obama and his supporters have dissed 18 million voters and played games with perhaps one of our most qualified Presidential candidates, has proven to me once again how out of touch the DNC truly is and how much they seems determined to lose elections even when served up to them.

Leichtman..

I understand your point of view my friend, I don't agree, but I understand where YOU are coming from. But rather then vote for a progressive with little experience, I do not see the value of a vote for an experienced fool. My opinion. You are more reasonable than most anti-Obama posters here, and seem quite intelligent. All I can hope is that you will skip that top of the ballot, and not vote against you're own interests. God Bless.

The shame is Hillary had the establishment, that being Dean, McAuliffe, Madeline Albright, Carville...and a FORMER PRESIDENT AND STILL COULDN'T CLOSE THE DEAL. Her campaign was the worst, from her message to her appearing to wear the same pantsuits everyday. She looked like the novice and her message was not forward looking or creative, nor did she have a vision for the country that we can all get behind. It appears to me her sole reason for running was strickly personal (for her own sense of power, and the hedge funds that her husband and daughter are involved in could really prosper.) I really wished women had had a better female candidate, we didn't and I refuse to vote for a woman at all cost.

Charles currently I am supporting McCain. Why because he is qualified Sen Obama is not. By Nov. I may decide to vote straight D and skip the top of the ticket but I won't be guilted into voting for a Democratic nominee just because he is a Demcrat. I have done that for 35 years and all we have to show for it are weak candidates like Dukakas, McGovern and now Obama. This election is not about me and voting for the candidate who fills my check list. Its also about character and personally the way that Sen Obama has run his campaign he has none. The one succesful 2 term D that I agree with has been totally trashed by the Obama campaign and his supporters.Perhaps just like after '72 they deserve to be in the wilderness a few more years until they figure out that campaigns are won from the middle from moderates who are not thrilled with doubling cap gains and believe in fair and reasonable tax policies and not pandering to GenY and GenX voters who expect my generation to carry their healthcare load while they opt out. I won't be badgered like I have here over the last 3 months.

Leichtman...

So I take it you will vote McCain? Please explain to me what in the world that will accomplish? Really, I cannot fathom what that will accomplish for you, as an American, who cares enough about your country to actually vote, and pay attention to the process.

bsimon wrote yesterday:Chris writes that she will do the latter - be the high class candidate & support the party's nominee. Why do you find it so difficult to do the same?

Posted by: bsimon | June 3, 2008 4:52 PM

Simple. I don't vote for totally unqualified 2 1/2 year Senators who has run a totally devisive and abusive campaign to be leader of the free world. He was unqualified during our march primary he is no more qualified 3 months later. He was totally afraid to run in a revote in Michigan and Fla and his Gary thugs managed to manipulate the nomination for him. I am not impressed that the DNC was willing to reward him with the nomination and with Michigan delegates he did not earn and Michigan voters did not even acknowledge.

Bsimon is one of the most reasonable Obama bloggers here over the months which I respect but that does nothing to convince me or any of the HC voters in my precinct to believe that he is in any way qualified. Heck JFK was call a lightweight after 13 years in Congress. What would that make Sen Obama? I say this with a heavy heart but I am absolutely certain of my perception of Sen Obama, and the ugliness of many of his supporters reinforces that. I urge bloggers to read the June 1 Froma Harrop Editorial "Lots of Women up to here with Obama team insults." HC male supporters are not far behind.

It did not help Clinton that she has an irritating voice. Another issue is her husband who has already been president. Yes, he had a good turn as president, we all loved him and forgave his indiscretions, but that couple cannot go back into the White House. It's over.

TODAY'S REZKO CONVICTION AND PURPORTED MICHELLE OBAMA VIDEOTAPE: THE REAL REASONS HILLARY (AND AL GORE) HAVE NOT ENDORSED BARACK OBAMA?

It's pretty obvious, except to the mainstream media. Hillary still holds out hope that the Rezko conviction and a purported video allegedly showing Michelle Obama making racially insensitive remarks will torpedo Obama's candidacy.

Problem is, conservative operatives promised to produce the tape Monday morning, and it never surfaced. The reports emanated from a right-leaning web site, leading some to theorize that reports of the tape are part of a disinformation smear campaign against Obama. If that proves to be the case, then the Hillary forces appear to have taken it seriously... and now it's all come back at her.

And that could have been the intent all along: Smear Hillary and Obama at the same time, with the same brush.

Some operatives are saying that the GOP is withholding the tape until the general election, when they will use it as a nuclear option against Obama. But as of today, no one has produced hard evidence that such a tape exists.

Of course, the media could simply ask Michelle Obama if she ever made such remarks. To my knowledge, no one has broached the question.

Although I do not discount the many errors made by the Clinton campaign, too many are ignoring the largest contributor to her defeat: our culture's unconscious prejudice against women. We simply don't want to talk about it, deal with it or even admit it exists. Well, it's here and it's permeated every aspect of our lives. I believe we as Americans lost the best chance we had to truly break barriers of the largest magnitude in this primary process. Women have been oppressed, victims of violence and discounted long before any other tribe, culture, race or religious group. We are 51% of the population! What an opportunity we have missed. What an American tragedy for this country and the world.

Wow. I'm amazed, impressed and heartened that so many other people here see the same fundamental problem with Hillary's campaign as I always did: her vote for the war, and her refusal to apologize.

Iraq is cited here more than any other reason for Hillary's failure, by a long mile.

It seems that while the pundits prognosticated about this or that horse-race issue or soundbite or candidate's acquaintance, there was ALWAYS a strong nucleus of Democrats who just weren't going to back someone who voted to invade Iraq. Period.

Hillary wasn't defeated by sexism, or by Obamamania, but on the field of principle and policy.

I'm absolutely delighted to learn that so many people always saw it the way I do.

Michigan and Florida turned out to be the difference in the race. Clinton made a big mistake by not taking or keeping her name off the ballot in Michigan. If she had, it would have been much easier to get Michigan to vote again. Depending on when it happened, her winning the re-vote might have changed the momentum. Similarly, she shouldn't have claimed victory in Florida, but been part of a re-vote effort. These mistakes cost her dearly in credibility, not just votes.

The Fix appears on the mark on all these items as to why Clinton lost and Obama won, with one huge omission. That point which was omitted was perhaps the most important and central key to the entire outcome and a significant factor in the "Passion Gap." That event was Clinton's ill-advised vote in favor of the disastrous Iraq War, which has resulted in more than 4000 deaths of U.S. troops, a huge loss in American prestige worldwide, and in the loss of billions of dollars from the U.S. treasury while failing to improve the safety of the U.S.

It is that vote which fueled many Democrats to search for a candidate other than Clinton, a candidate who could be trusted to behave as a Democrat, not as a Bush-supporter, or as an aper of Republicans. Obama was that candidate.

He alone, throughout the campaign, spoke to and inspired within Democrats and many independent-thinking Americans a yearning to move beyond the "cultural wedge" issues which have come to dominate our politics and Presidential campaigns of recent years. These issues have too often distracted Americans from holding politicians accountable for their success in accomplishing the "people's work."

Those of us motivated to support Obama in part by his sensible opposition to the senseless War discovered that he embodied in his multi-racial origins, illuminated through his eloquence, and achieved in victory, a path for the U.S. to put many of its internal divisions behind; to finally relegate to history this nation's sad yet contentious past with regard to race; and to embrace a future which will represent a furtherance of the ideals embedded in the documents conceived by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

He won Montana. But of course, that doesn't count, right?
Posted by: | June 4, 2008 1:55 PM

-------------------------

Apparently not according to Hillary. She's the one who said that S. Dakota was the last primary.

Hillary's vote for the war in Iraq was key to my decision to vote for Obama, though I was torn by my fondness for some of the major accomplishements of the Clinton presidency (The Insurance portability act, family leave act, successful intervention in the Yugoslavia mess, good foreign policy, attention paid to the economics of good government, etc.). But another memory haunted me--her leadership in the push to get universal health care early in the Bill Clinton presidency. She made a complete hash of it. If she'd done it right then, we wouldn't be still facing the issue now--the votes were there in the legislature then to pass a good act.

When her presidential campaign started to fall apart over personnel and planning issues, it seemed to me like an echo of that earlier failure. And it made me question her ability to govern.

Obama, on the other hand, put together an incredible organization at the street level--efficient, focussed, and open to regional input. The contrast between Obama local offices and Clinton local offices was painful to see. As an observer, I was really impressed by Obama's ground teams. If he's half as good at running the country as he has been at running his campaign, he's going to be a great president.

Hillary Clinton had a health plan, an economic recovery plan, an education plan, a military plan--but, then, so did Barack Obama, John McCain, and millions of Americans, my own mother-in-law included. Great plans of all sorts can be had on the Internet at a click of the mouse.

What in the end swayed the intelligent voter against Hillary Clinton was her lack of political and social skills to get her plans enacted.

According to the U.S. Constitution (Article II) the President of the United States is not empowered to unilaterally pass into law any of those great plans that the three presidential candidates are offering the Nation. First he or she must convince Congress to enact and fund the plans. (Article I).

The most important qualification for a Chief Executive, therefore, is not the ability come up with plans, but to be able to reach across party lines and work with members of Congress and political leaders of all persuasions.

A good example is Abraham Lincoln. Compared with his opponents in the 1860 presidential race, Lincoln had no preconceived plans to deal with the turmoil then facing the Nation and scarcely any political experience. Four terms in the Illinois House of Representatives and one term in the U.S. House was all. (Less than Obama) What Lincoln had that his highly-experience opponents lacked was the ability to work with Congress and win the support of the best and brightest politicians of the day, Republicans, Democrat and Whigs alike. Half his cabinet was comprised of former political enemies.

By Lincoln standards the highly divisive, confrontational Hillary Clinton "Rockly" would not make a good President. That former officials in her husband's administration did not endorse her--Bill Richardson, Dick Morris, Federico Peña, Robert Reich; that so many influential Democrats in Congress enthusiastically backed Barack Obama--Ted Kenney, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, John Lewis--did not speak well for Hillary's political and social skills.
.
Note that of the 20 bills she managed to get enacted during her eight years in the Senate, 16 were for ceremonial fluff, like naming court houses and post offices, honoring individuals, and congratulating lacrosse teams.

Then factor in the inevitable meddling of her scandal-tainted husband, her de facto running mate, and a Hillary Clinton administration would invariably have come to grief (maybe another impeachment) within its first year.

Nor, by the same token, would Hillary make a good Vice President. Choosing Hillary as Obama's running mate would mean choosing Bill as well. And given the Clintons' unquenchable thirst for power, they would not be inclined to play-second fiddle, especially to someone who wrested from them the political prize they had taken for granted. From day one the Clinton duo would be scheming to
to usurp control of the White House. .

C. Navarro

What went wrong?

Hillary Clinton's last name is "Clinton." That name proved a double-edged sword for her. The Clinton brand is what allowed her to run in the first place, but it also drew a lot of opposition, and not just from Republicans. Who really wanted 24 or even 28 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? The deck was stacked against Clinton from the start.

Add to this, as many others have commented, that she ran what was simply a terrible campaign, and she gave Obama far too many opportunities to capitalize. Even when she seemed to push Obama back a little, Clinton came out with a new gaffe or misstep that gave Obama ground. Starting with her underestimation of Obama and her strategy of inevitability and continuing with the flawed strategy of ignoring caucuses in favor of overwhelming in big contests and then stretching into the various bumbled campaign slogans and gimmicks (what happened again to that campaign theme song that was announced in the Sopranos spoof?), Clinton simply hasn't run an even, consistent, solid campaign.

To start as the agent of experience and then try to morph into the agent of change and then try to be change through experience seemed reactionary rather than visionary. Clinton didn't start the campaign with a defining vision of herself, and all the subsequent attempts to make up for that only made her appear contradictory to the point of schizophrenia. Who is Hillary Clinton? What does she represent and stand for? I defy her supporters to answer these questions, and any two supporters are likely to give two radically different answers. It is one thing to be all things to all people, but when all of those messages seem to be coming out of campaign central on an alternating basis, most people are going to end up merely confused and uninspired.

Obama ran a tight campaign; Clinton didn't. Those things that Obama could not control, like Rev. Wright, hurt him to an extent, but the campaign remained focused nonetheless. In this sense, Obama's campaign so far has looked a lot more like Bill Clinton's '92 campaign that Hillary's campaign has, which is not without irony given that she has run on that very "experience." Hillary Clinton instead seemed to be running half in '92 mode against Bush and half in '96 mode as an incumbent, not realizing how incoherent the campaign message became when it mixed upstart with incumbent. Obama's more consistent message won the day.

Um, Chris, you, um, forgot, um something:

Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq.Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq.Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq.Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq.Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq.Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq.Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq.Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq.

and

Iraq.

It was the war... We objected to her vote.

I would agree it is not always just about the Horse Race... Iraq, I agree was a problem, especially the way she talked around it all last fall, that also reminded us all about the constant spin of the Clinton's.

In addition, again it's not so much Bill Clinton on the stump, as much as Bill Clinton as "First Lady", that always seemed an issue to me, not only what will Hillary do with him, what will the rest of us do with him- "Radioactive", as alluded to in the Vanity Fair Article is right! Similarly this is why I personally am not interested in the "Unity Ticket" but I'll vote for it...

And lastly, for me personally, I was turned off by the Health Care argument. I believe in my soul that Hillary wants to improve our Health Care System but I just do not believe a mandate system is either a good idea or EVER GOING TO PASS IN CONGRESS! And I kept thinking to myself, here we go again with the 15 point plan and it's Hillary's Way or the Highway- you would think after the 90's she would be more interested in negotiating to come up with something better rather than forcing everyone to see eye to eye with her. I feel Obama is interested not only in bi-partisan advice but advice from all sorts of people who disagree with him. Hillary seems unable to keep that same kind of company and thusly, I hate to say it, but she reminded me of Bush and Cheney! I don't want another person in the White House who's first response is "SO" when told that the vast amount of American's disagree with them...

All that being said I fall into the camp of folks who just had a BLAST during this primary. I'm glad I found THE FIX!!! :)

Well, The Fix spent the entire campaign shilling for Hillary, so why stop now? It ignores the most important factors of her loss: the vote for the Iraq War; the narcissistic campaign organization; the lack of fundamental knowledge; the continuing hypocrisy; and the narrowness of her appeal.

Chris, you have just listed all the reasons why Hillary Clinton shouldn't be VP: layer-upon-layer of bad judgments, out-of-touch with political reality, and BILL.

What you left out in your autopsy, however, is the FACT that half of the nation doesn't trust her (Bosnia, ever-changing rules and goalposts not to mention, "Hillary Math") and that, due to her performance in the last few months, that number just keeps on growing. (I can hardly wait to see the next set of unfavorables after her despicable speech last night.)

PLUS the "passion gap" wasn't just among the two camp's supporters but between the two candidates, themselves.

Watching them from the peanut gallery made it feel as though we in the audience were having to choose between "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and an over-long documentary on accounting procedures.

And finally, there is always that...icky feeling...when healthy people are having to deal with any amount of contact with the Clintons. For, like any other allergic reaction, it just increases with exposure.

Penn's belief that California was winner-take-all has been widely reported.

I guess I would be correct in assuming that last night Michelle Obama was, for only the second time in her adult life, proud of her country.

Obama is going to win, and he's going to win big. And we are all going to be sorry.

scrivener....

Ummm...What are you talking about man? That was one of the oddest posts I've seen yet. Look, Al Gore is the ONLY guy on Earth who could get me to switch from Obama, but...

A) He's not interested
B) If he we're it would not have anything to do with the Clintons as Al HATES them.
C) If something did go REALLY wrong with Barrack, the DNC would just give the ball back to Hillary.

So I am left to ask....where did this outlandish fantasy come from? Seriously, if you know something....doooo tell :-)

Its not so much what her campaign did wrong as, IMHO, the lofty expectations placed upon her my pundits, press, etc. Similar to a publicly traded company whose stock price takes a beating because, despite a strong earnings report, it came in below SOMEONE ELSE'S expectations.

Too many democrats wanted a viable alternative to HRC, be it because of her support for the war, Clinton-fatigue, Clinton -backlash-fatigue, or whatever reason you can think of.

Her negatives were just too high from the beginning to get the nomination, God bless her. I hope she continues to be a productive contributor to the welfare of our country and each one of us.

"Mark Penn thought the Democratic primaries were winner-take-all."

REALLY??? Where did you read this? That would be colossal.

Pundits can dig through the wreckage all they like, but they miss the simple truth.

If there's one lesson Hillary should take from this, it's not about ignoring caucus states or hiring bad consultants or tweaking her message or any of that crap.

None of this would have happened if Hillary hadn't supported the Iraq war.

If she had voted against the war, she would be the next president today.

I hope she remembers that central fact. All the rest is just noise.

"What? I get HRC=267 Obama=227 even without Michigan and Florida. She simply won more large states. I am talking about electoral votes not the popular vote."

Another reason she lost: she thought they award Electoral Votes for primary victories. Just as Mark Penn thought the Democratic primaries were winner-take-all. Those guys couldn't pass an elemtary school civics class, let alone win the Presidency.

"But then Germany followed a similar man with little experience and a similar lust for power."

Jürgen Klinsmann??? Yeah, he was pretty inexperienced, but I can't say he was lusting for power. He hasn't coached for two years and he can have pretty much any job he wants.

Weird...

Everything The Fix has mentioned is valid, however, the Clinton failure to capture the nomination can be summed up in two words: Glory Days.

As The Fix points out, initially it was all about Day 1. Why? Because the overarching strategy was the 1988 Bush strategy of don't change horses in midstream. The Clinton campaign was about continuing the Clinton Presidency. The eight years of Bush II was simply red meat for the crowd, an abberation of history, nothing to take seriously. It was all about going back to the good ole days. Why else the "Like Bill, Vote Hill" slogan in Iowa? You notice that the old Clinton team's last appearance was behind her during her speech after the Iowa caucuses. From then on it was only Bill, Chelsea and her mom. The old Clinton cabinet was sent home. But by then it was too late. The pure momentum of the Clinton operation, supplemented by her fervent supporters continuing to send more and more money, is what kept her in past February when a mere mortal would have been forced to drop out or go the Ron Paul route.

The tactical and mid-level strategic mistakes will fill journals, thesis papers, articles, posts and books for a long time to come, but the core issue was going into the campaign with the wrong message. She is a baby boomer and baby boomers love nothing more than to navel gaze. The campaign was all about the glory days, whether the nineties or the sixties, it was a backwards looking campaign. You can be about the future or staying the course, but the past is for invoking in speeches, not returning too, if you want to be President. That lesson was learned too late and besides it was Obama's message by then.

Any number of people we have chatted with over the last few weeks about what happened to Clinton made the argument that the campaign had ill-served the candidate.
________________________________________

This has always been my main argument for Obama over Clinton: a president is only as good as the people they pick to support them. Carter was a perfect example of this, as is Dubya Bush. Neither of them could really get their plans to work right because they picked inferior people who fought each other and refused to take the blame when things went bad. (Just because someone is the smartest person in the room does not mean they are the best person for the job.)

They were all ill-served by their staffs, and have no one to blame but themselves.

Any number of people we have chatted with over the last few weeks about what happened to Clinton made the argument that the campaign had ill-served the candidate.
________________________________________

This has always been my main argument for Obama over Clinton: a president is only as good as the people they pick to support them. Carter was a perfect example of this, as is Dubya Bush. Neither of them could really get their plans to work right because they picked inferior people who fought each other and refused to take the blame when things went bad. (Just because someone is the smartest person in the room does not mean they are the best person for the job.)

They were all ill-served by their staffs, and have no one to blame but themselves.

Hillary Clinton lost me forever the day she voted to invade Iraq.

To mz:

I don't think The Fix and other columns can deal with the fact that people substantively disagreed with her pro-war stance.

Pundits desparately need the result to be about the horse race and the strategy. It COULDN'T be as simple as, "people didn't like her politics".

Don't mention the war!

We are stuck with an idiot pundit class.

Reason #1:

Voting for the Iraq War.

At least, that's why I didn't vote for her...

AS THE MEDIA REVELS IN "THE DREAM," THE OTHER SHOE IS SOON TO DROP ON OBAMA. HILLARY ALREADY MAY KNOW ABOUT THE COMING JUNE SURPRISE. THAT'S WHY SHE'S SO OBSTINANT.

THAT EXPLAINS WHY AL GORE HAS NOT ENDORSED THE PRESUMPTIVE (PRESUMPTUOUS?) NOMINEE

Hillary knows that the power elite will not accept the notion of an inexperienced, untested liberal elitist as potus.

More than that, she knows Obama will be unable to weather the coming storm, because it reinforces the narrative: The candidate's past associations and his failure to distance himself from controversial figures disqualifies him from the top job.

Talk of whether Hillary wants the VP slot is nothing more than an irrelevant distraction. Her refusal to acknowledge Obama's mathematical clinch shows that she has no genuine interest in becoming Obama's stepmaid. She asked for "respect" from Obama while simultaneously disrespecting him. Obama has demonstrated a penchant for responding to a personal slight with pathetic attempts at accomodation. But even he will not kowtow to someone incapable of giving him his propers on such a historic occasion.

So how can Hillary be so tone deaf? Yes, she is arrogant and self-consumed. But she also knows something is coming, something that will finally cement the notion that Obama is unelectable. She already may know what that something is. Hillary also knows that her self-centered obstinance has alienated key Dem constituencies. So she cannot replace Obama as the party standard-bearer.

But others within the party share Hillary's disquieting unease. She and Bill know other party elders are silently applauding their refusal to cede the party to the Obamanauts. So she and Bill will play the role of party power brokers. As I have stated repeatedly, Billary, when the timing is right, will throw their delegate support behind an alternate candidate, most likely, Al Gore.

This won't happen until the other big shoe drops on Obama. That could happen within a matter of days.

And that is why Al Gore has not joined the steady but somewhat weak stream of supers who have moved to endorse Obama. Gore is the gentleman in waiting. And it won't be long now.

proudtobeGOP wrote:
"...Obama lost South Dakota to a politically dead corpse by 15 points! He limps across the finish line a wounded and seriously flawed candidate."

He won Montana. But of course, that doesn't count, right?

My favorite image from last night was Lanny Davis with Larry King. Davis was drowned out by the noise of the workmen dismantling Sen. Clinton's stage behind him.

Not only was not having to hear Davis a treat, but the symbolism was priceless.

Another 'fire 'em up' story repeatedly used by the Senator was used again last night. That of 90-year women not having the right to vote. My 92-year old mother never complains about not being able to vote. The reason is because she was five when the 19th Amendment was passed. She's never honestly known a time when she couldn't vote.

A woman in the U.S. would have to be 109 or older to have not had the right to vote. So, none of those 90 year old ladies the Senator met, God Bless 'em, were ever turned away from the polls simply because they were a woman.

There's an incredibly interesting article in the Washington Post about Obama's strategy. Essentially, it was to look for ineffeciencies in the system and exploit them. To spend less per delegate.

Essentially, Obama didn't fight to win the big battle ground states. Just to limit the losses. And while doing that, he would pick up delegates on the cheap from caucus states and states that Democrats typically ignore. In Kansas, Idaho, Utah, and Alaska, Obama was ignored by Clinton. In California, Obama was getting closer and closer to Clinton in the polls, but made the decision not to aggressively try and win the state.

Obama won more delegates in Kansas and Idaho than Clinton won in NJ. In fact, Obama spent a total of $5 million on Super Tuesday.

It was close after Super Tuesday with the two essentially tied.

Then Obama won eleven victories in a row with many of them by large margins. It was during that stretch that Obama put the contest away. Clinton was spent after Super Tuesday. Clinton was able to win PA, TX, and OH primaries, but they were small victories that didn't net her much in terms of delegates. In Texas, Obama won the caucus by a much larger percentage than she won the primary and netted more delegates than she did.

Follow that up with an essential tie in Indiana and a huge victory in NC and the contest was over.

I recommend it (sorry if this has already been posted) Have any of you read Moneyball? (book about the Oakland A's winning by targeting unconventional players instead of going after the superstars) This is kind of like that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/03/AR2008060304268.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008060203207

What went wrong for her was that Obama ran a better campaign.

Chris,

Iraq.

Duh!

1) Don't know if you pointed this out, but not reckoning on John Edwards dropping out so soon. If Edwards stays through Super Tuesday, then he and Obama split much of the same vote and Clinton gains an insurmountable delegate lead. When it became a two person race, Obama received enough votes that it did not look inevitable after Feb. 5th. He was able to use the Post Super Tuesday states to build his delegate lead while Clinton was still trying to organize for a post Super Tuesday run.

2) I believe after Iowa she knew it would go past Super Tuesday, but her strategy and gameplan was for a run was against Edwards after Super Tuesday where she could lean on her husband for African American support. (I think she still didn't believe that an African American could gain enough white support to be competitive long term.) When Edwards dropped instead of Obama, she lost the coalition she planned to close the deal with and could not build one until 11 straight loses to Obama.

EDWARDS LEAVING BEFORE SUPER TUESDAY WAS THE GAME CHANGER AND CLINTON RETOOLED TOO LATE.

I'm a registered democrat who has yet to find a candidate moderate enough to vote for. I'm a baby boomer, female, federal employee. I'm voting for McCain as he is the only qualified candidate; however, since the media's unprecedented love fest with Obama, it's clear why Hillary could not clinch the nomination. I for one believe in the vote of the people (not the friends, relatives, and other friends of politics). Who do you think Nancy Pelosi's daughter backed? This was such a travesty. You could be on CNN watching Obama "misspeak" (lie if Clinton said anything out of order). Then turn to MSNBC and watch how they just act like it was never said while they blast John McCain and Hillary Clinton on some of the most bogus things I've ever heard. I used to think that these men and women actually read books and did research. Obviously not. It's Obama's turn now. If I can find what I've found on Obama, his ties, his committees, his beliefs (most of which I've yet to see or hear even from FOX) then I know that either you're hired for your voice and looks or your paid to be a talking head. Personally, you could get rid of all news. I'd rather see and hear the real deal. Hillary got a RAW deal, sweetie, and that's all I have to say for now.

I'm a registered democrat who has yet to find a candidate moderate enough to vote for. I'm a baby boomer, female, federal employee. I'm voting for McCain as he is the only qualified candidate; however, since the media's unprecedented love fest with Obama, it's clear why Hillary could not clinch the nomination. I for one believe in the vote of the people (not the friends, relatives, and other friends of politics). Who do you think Nancy Pelosi's daughter backed? This was such a travesty. You could be on CNN watching Obama "misspeak" (lie if Clinton said anything out of order). Then turn to MSNBC and watch how they just act like it was never said while they blast John McCain and Hillary Clinton on some of the most bogus things I've ever heard. I used to think that these men and women actually read books and did research. Obviously not. It's Obama's turn now. If I can find what I've found on Obama, his ties, his committees, his beliefs (most of which I've yet to see or hear even from FOX) then I know that either you're hired for your voice and looks or your paid to be a talking head. Personally, you could get rid of all news. I'd rather see and hear the real deal. Hillary got a RAW deal, sweetie, and that's all I have to say for now.

The whole world outside of the USA has seen Obama for what he is. But like in Germany, some people can mesmerize the crowds and they will follow him. Hopefully the American people wake up before they cast their votes in November. If not, the Bush Presidency will be nothing, Disneyland compared to what they will face.

Hillary or McCain, there is no other alternative. But then Germany followed a similar man with little experience and a similar lust for power.

So many things went wrong for Clinton; now that I "know" the Clintons, I'm not surprised they're trying to blame sexism rather than looking at themselves.

IMO, the first thing that went wrong was coming in third in Iowa; the Clintons' loss got national attention, while catapulting Obama to the national stage.

The second thing that went wrong was Bill. He seemed to throw a devoted voting bloc-African Americans--under the bus before South Carolina.

The third thing that went wrong was being unprepared for a race that continued after February 5th.

Hillary can now salvage something of her candidacy by being gracious and undoing some of the damage she's done by creating a moment that's about her, not the party.

Hillary lost just like hundreds of other candidates have in the past; It makes her equal. She is not entitled to special rules, re-rules, re-justifications, or the VP, just because she is a: Clinton, first viable female candidate, Democrat, woman, white, etc. She trashes the democratic process, the Democratic Party, and feminism by her behavior. With all of her denial, stubbornness (a la GW Bush), and refusal to reality check herself on display, I say we are lucky she is out of the running, because we can't afford more of Clinton and GWB's brand of politics; And in her time she has absorbed the most negative aspects of both.

Also, who is this anti-Obama flamer, with the constant "baby wipe" comments. Isn't there a way to bar that sort of abusiveness from this type of discussion.

We get it, he/she/nameless-it dislikes Obama. What h/s/it says over and over again does not make a ground swell of opposition to Obama. It is time for a change.

Kingofzouk wrote:
I won five bucks last night from my wife. she said there was nothing else clinton could do but concede. I bet that being a clinton, she would try to spoil it for anyone else.
I won.
Posted by: kingofzouk | June 4, 2008 12:58 PM

If Hillary announces her candidacy for President, she will spoil it for both Obama and McCain when they both will have to debate her in front of the whole world. The whole world wants to see Hillary duke it out with both Obama and McCain all the way up to the election in November. If Obama thought the going has been tough, he and his supporters have not seen or experienced nothing yet. When Hillary announces her candidacy for President, then both Obama and McCain will not be able to run and hide. They will have to face the American People and deal with the issues the Ameican people care about. The issues which Hillary has solutions for and the reason why Hillary got more votes than both Obama and McCain.

Hillary R. Clinton, the next President of the USA (again if she has the courage and faith in herself and in the American People). Hillary faces the biggest challenge and decision of her life. Does she have enough courage, faith and respect for the American People, the USA Constitution and Democracy, to make a clean break from the DNC Insiders and run as an Independent. Is she a Natural Born Leader like Susan B. Anthony? Many of us have faith in her. Hopefully her husband Bill will not stand by her and back her, like Hillary did her when Bill had his hard decisions to make.

Hillary R. Clinton. Please announce your candidacy for the President of the USA as an Independent Candidate. You do not need the DNC Insiders, Howard Dean, Carl Levin, John Edwards, ... You have the American People. Now put your faith and confidence in THEM (US the American PEOPLE), like we have you!!

America needs to feel good about itself again and Obama is the cure.
And if America feels good the rest of the world will too.

When her kid (Chelsea) told off the grade schooler - She (Chelsea ) did'nt talk to reporters and that included her (the little girl). I decided I would not vote or support Mrs. Clinton as this was one more example of the arrogance and entitlement. If you don't want to talk to reporters then get off the campaign trail.

"Disasters don't just happen - they're the result of a sequence of events and actions"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_From_Disaster

Senator Clinton's campaign will be studied for years, analogous to the crash of the Concorde, the Texas refinery explosion, the collapse of the Hyatt Regency skywalk...maybe they'll do a show about it!

Seriously, the only way for Senator Clinton to lose the nomination was to have done scores of things wrong - in the perfect sequence. Back Bush on Iraq, never acknowledge mistakes, use strongarm tactics on other politicians, declare yourself inevitable, the "insult 40 states" strategy, Bill's mouth-off in South Carolina, misspend money on big shot consultants who have other business interests anyway (Mark Penn), look phony downing a shot and a beer, "Obama's not a Muslim, as far as I know", and on and on and on...

What went wrong? Howard Dean, Carl Levin, John Edwards, Obama and the DNC Insiders colluding to defraud and disenfranchise the will of the people in Michigan. To give all of the UNCOMMITTED voters and some of Hillary's votes to Obama, who was not even on the ballot is the biggest Crime against Democracy in any Western Democracy. The DNC has shown themselves to be the corruptest political party in the history of all Western Democracies. Howard Dean, Carl Levin, John Edwards and Obama will go down in history as the corruptest political insiders in the history of American politics. They are Criminals against Democracy. But everyone from Illinois and expecially those from Chicago know that Illinoinans are experts in political corruption. Sad that the DNC has been taken over by this group of criminals.

Hillary's only course of action is to break from the Democratic party, like Ross Perot and Pat Buchanen did from the Republican party. Hillary now faces the biggest challenge in her career and her character. Does she follow the criminals within the Democratic Party, or does she make a clean break from the Democratic party like Ross Perot did. Is she American first or Democrat first? We will probably find out shortly. Did the 18,000,000 millions voters who vote for Hillary over estimate her? Or will she show the DNC Insiders, Carl Levin, Howard Dean, John Edwards and Obama that they not only underestimated her, but also the American People.

In a three person race:
Hillary, McCain and Obama, Hillary would come out on top. But does she have the faith and courage to take on the DNC Insiders, Howard Dean, Carl Levin, John Edwards, Obama and the Super Delegates.

Many of us think that she does have the courage and faith to be the Next President of the USA. Will she go out on a limb for the American People, her 18,000,000 million supporters and for Democracy, or will she take the easy way out and step aside. Let see what Hillary is made of? Many thought she was made of steel, but we shall see.

Hillary, show us and the WORLD what you are made of. Are you like Angela Merkel in Germany, Tara Halonen in Finland and Margarett Thather in the UK, or are you a willing participant of the FRAUD of the DNC Insiders: Howard Dean, Carl Levin, John Edwards, Obama, ...

Hillary, stay the course and announce your candidacy for the Presidency of the USA in November. Be America's Angela Merkel, Tara Halonen and Margarett Thatcher. The time is here and now for the USA to have its FIRST Woman President, Hillary R. Clinton.
For Susan B. Anthony, for you daughter Chelsea, for all our daughters, sisters and Mums, stay the course and announce your candidacy for the Presidency. You, and NO woman need any longer take a back seat to Obama, McCain or any other man!!

Hillary R. Clinton, the next President of the USA (if she has the courage and faith to run, announce her candidacy!!). You got put your hand up and participate to play the game!!

I agree with Chris but must say that the biggest reason for her failed campaign is her support of the war. Yesterday, voters here in Montana listed the war in Iraq as the most important issue in this election. Her pandering to voters with her "gas tax holiday" - an idea that only she and McCain were willing to support - is just another example of her inabi