How did Hillary Clinton fall so far? (Analysis)

[Hepburn]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - How did Democrat Hillary Clinton tumble from all-but-certain presidential nominee to endangered candidate fighting for her political life?

Democratic strategists and political experts say her path to the political promised land has been pitted with potholes. Her campaign suffered from overconfidence, had no answer to Barack Obama's inspirational call for change, and was unable to control former President Bill Clinton, among other problems.

When she opened her candidacy 13 months ago, she did so with a brash statement: "I'm in, and I'm in to win." By August, she was the absolute front-runner, enjoying an 18 percent lead in the polls over Obama, her closest challenger.

With her politically brilliant husband at her side, she was considered by Republicans to be the candidate to beat in the November election. She and her aides projected an aura of inevitability and she tried to stay above the fray of her chattering rivals.

More...

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN2862588120080229?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0

Interesting analysis IMO which points out the flaws in the methods and thinking of the HRC campaign. I have to agree about how and why she feel from being the inevitable winner to fighting for her political life.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. media vilifying her and crowning Obama / Media helping the Racism charge

against her in SC by the Obama campaign.

Propaganda is an awesome tool. Not democratic, but awesome non-the-less. That is how we got Bush and that is how we will get Obama.

[Hepburn]

3. Did you read the article???

From your response, it sure does not look like it. Especially your remark about SC. :shrug:

[blm]

4. She was already losing BEFORE SC. Hillary ran a crappy campaign of inevitability because

it worked for Bush. Clintons were impresssed with how Rove ran that campaign and they sought to emulate it.

Except Democratic voters aren't wired the way GOPs are. Clintons miscalculated.

[Demeter]

9. And the Clintons Never Had As Much Money or Influence as Bush, Either

The Clintons went around burning their own network to the ground. Wrong kind of scorched earth policy.

[saltpoint]

5. The Reuters folks are not really in the propaganda camp.

[cali]

10. sorry, they should have been prepared to deal with it

and they made clumsy mistakes including remarks that were, at best, stupid. Bill came on like a bull in a china shop and Hillary made the mistake of thinking going on the attack would work for her. They spent a full third of the funds thay raised on consultants, and they had no plan B if they didn't sew it up on 2/5. And your idiotic linking of bush with Obama is so far from analysis. Yes, Obama benefitted from good press, but he knew how to exploit it, and his campaign has run like a well oiled machine. He took the 50 state strategy and ran with it in the primary. He developed a ground game a year ago. In short, he out strategized her every step of the way.

You have nothing but bittter, lame excuses.

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. I am tired of the "bitter" lie. The reality is that Clinton is vilified in the press

and that people--even tho we KNOW the press is lie--continue to swallow it. Americans are mesmerized. It is a shame really, look at how vulnerable we are. We follow and swallow whatever they tell us.

Some suggest that she should have "been prepared to deal with it." How tho? Commenting on the press fiasco did nothing--in fact made it worse becasue they started to retaliate against Bill Clinton. They shut him up good, didn't they? She is attempting to deal with it, by going door to door. But, of course that is difficult when Americans would rather sit in front of the TV.

"Lame." "Bitter." Attack. Attack. Attack. Rather than discuss.

[Hepburn]

20. 99% of Dems are villified in the press...your point?

MSM is corporated media = Repuke controlled. HRC is NOT the only Dem getting BS from them.

Sheesh! :eyes:

[ORDem]

22. EE's point, of course, is the point from most HRC supporters and HRC herself

It's all someone else's fault.

:dem:

[Hepburn]

24. Yep....

...the Queen....er....Hillary NEVER makes mistakes.

:eyes:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. Come on.

The media was far - FAR - more harsh on Bill Clinton during his first run, let alone his second, than they ever have been on Hillary. The media all but crucified Gore in the 2000 primaries.

As for the racism thing in South Carolina, they did themselves no favors with their response to that particular brouhaha.

[cali]

2. They overestimated her appeal to voters

and they underestimated everything about Obama. They blew it with arrogance.

[Hepburn]

8. The most interesting remarks to me are....

...how does one argue against change? Hillary had no back up. And she did not realize that people did not want more of the same with just a new person at the helm, but wanted a broom that sweeps clean...PERIOD.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. She could have run as an agent of change from the beginning.

There's nothing that makes change and experience mutually exclusive. It's not as if a Hillary Clinton presidency wouldn't have been a massive change from where we are today.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Then she should have taken a different tack right from the beginning.

Her IWR vote, and support of the war for the first 3 years, was a political caluclation to shore up her 'national security' credentials.

If she had voted against IWR, and denounced the war from the beginning, I'd be supporting her still.

Change is more than just words.

[Hepburn]

19. Good point....

...IMO, she kind of painted herself in a corner and Obama kept her there with the overall change he calls for and not just a change in political party in the WH.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. Why can't you guys

ever attribute Obama's success to Obama? Why must it always be about Clinton failing? You know, it doesn't speak too well of your candidate to credit his success to somebody else's failure.

The fact is, we have two great candidates in a tough race. If Clinton had won big early on, I would never dream of posting about what a shitty candidate Obama was.

[Plaid Adder]

6. I've got a simpler explanation.

The big donors and the party power people thought she was a lock because she's in with them. The media believed them because that's who's in their Rolodexes. However, the actual Democrats who have to vote didn't want her even at the beginning of the campaign, and they want her even less now that Obama appears to be viable.

HRC may well be running a sub-par campaign but I don't think it would make a difference how good her staff was.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[HooptieWagon]

15. Exellent analysis

Hillary has run a top down campaign aligned around DNC/DLC insiders that has completely failed to take into account that most voters do not want her elected. Once presented with a single viable alternative, voters flocked to it in droves.

[Hepburn]

21. Bing, bing, bing....

...give Plaid Adder some :applause:

Yep...so true! :hi:

[dailykoff]

7. Answer: she campaigned.

She might have done better if she'd sat the whole thing out, though she still wouldn't win.

[Demagitator]

12. The public opinion engineers pick our presidents n/t

[Sagan]

13. I refuse to bad-mouth either candidate...

But I do believe that, despite the dismissiveness with which this notion is treated here, there are a large group of Democrats who are NOT comfortable with the dynastic implications of a Bush/Clinton Presidency hand-off game for 20+ years.

I think Hillary is a good Democrat. Very establishment, but she wants to do good things. I like Obama, too. But the fact is, I am not going to perpetuate the contested monarchy when I have another option.

[Tesha]

14. Count me in. I'm an "Anti-Dynasty Democrat". (NT)