Fascinating article, which leads me to a broader point that the article doesn't mention:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/26/america/clinton.php?page=1This got me to thinking. Let's rewind folks. On Saturday, Jan 5, Hillary Clinton hit a home run at the New Hampshire debate. On Monday, January 7th, New Hampshire voters were offended and appalled at the "iron my shirt" comment and moved strongly by HRC showing who she really was when she got emotional at that New Hampshire diner and explained why she was running.
A day later, January 8th, her double digit deficit in New Hampshire vanishes and she wins by 2 points stunning all the media! She found her "voice'. Then, the culinary workers endorse Obama for the Nevada Caucuses. OMG, the media says. That's it! No one without the support of the culinary workers can win Nevada! Again, Hillary wins and not just narrowly but BY 6 points!
So, on Monday January 21st, we have HRC with a double digit national lead coming off of a Nevada caucus victory. Sure, they were likely destined to have lost S.C. but if they have played it cool, they might have made it closer and not alienated 90% of the AA population nationwide. You get beat in South Carolina, so what. You know that you're cruising for a massive win in Florida 3 days later. Let Obama have his victory in S.C. You're still up! She also decides to get into a knock-down drag out brawl at the S.C. debate, if you recall, which again, she had no reason to do.
Instead, she has Bill Clinton out there in S.C. frankly acting like an idiot and playing the race card calling Obama "Jessie Jackson" and she infuriates the Kennedy clan by saying LBJ passed civil rights. So, the combination of Bill not "chilling out" and her LBJ comments, makes S.C. a nearly 30 point loss and leads the Liberal Lion Senator Ted Kennedy to endorse Senator Obama.
Within days, her national poll lead vanishes and she loses the delegate count in what was supposed to be her massive firewall of 2/5.
What on earth were they thinking? I will never understand why they acted so desperate in S.C. when things were going entirely her way after Nevada and New Hampshire. They could have handled a S.C. loss.
I say all of this as a strong Obama supporter who just marvels at how inept the Clinton campaign was and how things could have been so different for her without their antics the week before S.C.
Does anybody disagree with my thesis? Perhaps, the Obama wave would have caught up to her anyway. Somehow, I doubt it without the S.C. interlude.