<p>The past as prologue:</p>
<p>If Clinton is a stronger candidate, why has run such a poor campaign that she was bested by a neophyte? Why has failed to raise more money from more donors than Obama? Why has she failed to win more delegates?<br>
She might or might not be a better president: but that’s counting chickens before you even have the eggs.</p>
<p>Re: HRC’s 2012 plans</p>
<p>If she successfully torpedos Obama this year and then thinks she can come back and be the 2012 nominee. she’s nuts. She’ll enjoy the same affection Ralph Nader does. I’m not in the “hate Hillary” camp, but if she continues to drag this out beyond the week, there’s no way I would support her to win the Democratic nomination in 2012. None. Zero.</p>
<p>The Clintons don’t have too many options left. It will be hard for Hillary in 2012, but not impossible, as it is in 2008.</p>
<p>And can I just add that I’m tired of her and her surrogates blaming this on sexism. YOU, Hillary, ran a poor campaign. YOU blew off the caucuses. YOU blew a huge lead in the polls. YOU didn’t raise enough money. Sure, there was some misogyny at play, but be willing to shoulder some of the responsibility and not play the victim. I believed your tears in NH, but I am not attending this pity party.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry but I have to agree with xiggi. The Democrats are experts at the circular firing squad, and relish eating their own. They’ve shown this time and again, and if yesterday’s proceedings didn’t clearly demonstrate the fervor with with the Dems practice these tendencies, I don’t know what does. There’s so much hate and discontent within the party right now, I don’t see how they can get it together in time to defeat the Repubs in Nov.</p>
<p>1sokkermom: Yeah, yeah, we get it. Clinton’s supporters are uncouth and horrible, CNN is obviously in the bag for her merely because it’s not pro-Obama, Hillary is a horrible witch, etc. etc. We know you think all these things because you’ve posted them a few hundred times. New material, maybe?</p>
<p>For everyone else: Obviously Hillary ran a bad campaign. But unless you are all suggesting that she will do the same in the general (unlikely since caucuses and grassroots organization for them were a big weakness for her and obviously there’s no caucuses in the general), how is that relevant? The nomination is not an end, it is a means. It’s not about “winning”, it’s about being the better candidate - a criterion that generally is reflected by delegate counts, but when a nomination is this close must also be informed by other factors.</p>
<p>^^^ An election that’s not about winning? Hmmmm …</p>
<p>The nomination isn’t an election, it’s a nomination. Using an electoral process is basically the best and fairest way to run a nomination, but at the end of the day it’s not about winning the nomination, it’s about winning the general, and that is why the superdelegates exist and in races as close as this one they can and should play a role more active and thoughtful than rubber stamping the pledged delegate count.</p>
<p>^^The GE is also about delegated and not about the popular vote. Candidates need to pay attention to the important metrics. I don’t like it, any more than I like the Dem nominating process, but there it is. Candidates need to avoid being profligate and husband their resources instead of blowing a huge amount at the beginning.</p>
<p>That said, I have to agree with Xiggi and Poetsheart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hillary started with very high negatives right from the beginning. I think she had a good head start compared to other candidates because she is well known but always thought she was vulnerable. Obama had an advantage over Hillary and every other candidate because he was relatively inexperienced not just compared to Hillary but to other candidates so there is a shorter track record to examine. Of course he is charismatic and gracious, very good qualities in a leader. The question in my mind is, is he going to be a good Chief Executive ? </p>
<p>I remember in 2000 how Bush the compassionate conservative was going to change Washington unlike Gore the “Washington insider”. Seems like every 8 years I hear the same theme.</p>
<p>When I looked at Obama’s platform it was a traditional liberal Democrat platform, his brand of change is more style and tone. And he is already changing or “qualifying” his stance about meeting with the likes of Ahmadinejad & Kim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope, she lost, there will be GE for HRC, she doesn’t get a 2nd chance at screwing up another campaign.</p>
<p>1sokkermom- FWIW, I like your material, maybe if you say it enough people will hear you. 
Your input is invaluable.</p>
<p>Munchkin:</p>
<p>The negatives she had going in will still be there–and multiplied–at a GE; so I cannot see how she can be a stronger candidate. As well, if one knows one has such high negatives, a more prudent campaign ought to have been waged instead of baning on a Super Tuesday blowout.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well every poll says she is, so, hmmmm…</p>
<p>“As well, if one knows one has such high negatives, a more prudent campaign ought to have been waged instead of baning on a Super Tuesday blowout.”
I was surprised that she has been such a poor presidential candidate. She did a much better job in her first Senate race. That was characterized by hard work, patience, and good humor. Bill was nowere to be seen.</p>
<p>Zoosermom:</p>
<p>How strong was her opponent then? My feeling is at that time, despite the carpetbagger aura, she had the enormous advantage of being Bill’s spouse. Lots of democrats were so angry at Republican overreaching in impeaching Bill that they were willing to overlook the fact that a lot of it had been brought by Bill on his own head, and that Hillary had been his enabler. Now, however, Bill’s luster has faded somewhat and his magic has not been put to the touch since 1996. In the era of Youtube and instant messaging, that is an eternity.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>that’s all true. Se ad no real opponent to speak of, but that just seemed to hone her people skills and her ability to connect. It seemed initially as if that had happened and that she understood that she had to put the work in one step at a time. I think a lot of what went wrong in her presidential campaign was that she didn’t have a plan after Super Tuesday. Actually, tat she didn’t think she had to put the work in.</p>
<p>Thanks, Zoosermom:</p>
<p>I have never been in doubt of her enormous capacity for hard work; but she did not have enough experience in actually running a tough campaign and relied on the outdated model that had served Bill well more in 1992, sixteen years ago, in a totally different landscape. Maybe she has learned something from this campaign. . . But Obama looks like the quicker learner.</p>
<p>As to the relevance of polls in May, five months ago Clinton led Obama by 17 points in the California polls. Now he leads her by 13. [Clinton</a> falls behind Obama in state, poll says](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/29/PLQE1100CC.DTL&type=politics]Clinton”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/29/PLQE1100CC.DTL&type=politics)
November’s a long way off.</p>
<p>That’s very true Kluge, and 2012 is a loooong way away. Heaven only knows what set of circumstances may arise and whether she could run again.</p>
<p>Something as game changing as, say, getting a divorce would make her a totally different candidate. now, I’m not suggesting that she get a divorce, just agreeing with Kluge that things can change a lot over time, in ways that often can’t be anticipated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think Hillary strengthened Obama. If he became the next president of US he’ll have her to thank for exposing his weaknesses early on. I can see him improving noticeably in his debates and articulating his positions better. Hillary hit him as hard as she could and he learned and remain standing. </p>
<p>If the setbacks happened during the general election he would have less time to bounce back. And Republicans are not stupid, they would come up with whatever weaknesses Obama has on their own, whether Hillary ever brought it up or not. </p>
<p>My feeling is that Hillary will support Obama eventually, once she got over her defeat and work hard for his election. She had a reputation of working with both sides of the isle in the senate, a team player who pay her dues. She worked with Orin Hatch, among others, people who called her names and lead in the impeachment of her husband. I think she will do the same for Obama. I read somewhere she even won over Richard Mellon Scaife.</p>