Let's play armchair quarterback

[Beet]

- Should have punted Iowa to Edwards.

- How about her oppo research not finding the Jeremiah Wright tape? It took some guy on YouTube to find it? Imagine if this had come out late 2007 or even the last week of January.

- Message, message, message. I know some people here will deny it, but there are things she could have done to be more likable among the online grassroots set, and by extension, some in the media/political elite. Instead of contrasting herself to Obama's message of hope and change, she could have agreed with it, but then come back with her own inspiring message about fighting for children and the sick for decades, about how her Methodist upbringing taught her to see society as a community where we should take care first of our young and sick and old and poor; those who need it the most. She could framed it as a personal struggle too, contrasted her responsible, brainy style with the cowboy adventurism of George Bush, and been more articulate about her problems with Bill and raising Chelsea in order to express how family shaped her beliefs. In short, run a more inspiring campaign and harness her personal life more; not just assuming that people 'knew her already'. That would have allowed her to run as a woman and be more believable (one of the reasons that stories like the Bosnia exaggeration have particular potency, is that it seems like she's trying too hard to be manly) and also give her an inspiring cause to run for President that was more believable.

Of course, the advantages of the message she did employ are clear: it allows her to create a strong contrast with your opponent, and that's often the most important thing you want to do in any debate. So I'm in no way saying Mark Penn's message was completely wrong. But as a Clinton supporter, it would have felt a lot better if she had run the other message, and instinctively, I feel she would have done better.

[Beet]

1-Actually tried to compete in the caucus states instead of just ignoring all of them and then afterwards arguing that they don't matter anyway (a very insulting talking point that backfired on her totally. Probably one of the reasons for her brutal February losing streak.)

I don't think it was meant to be insulting. I think the argument was that caucuses aren't necessarily accurate predictors of electability in the general election, also that caucuses aren't necessarily accurate predictors of the popular will either. Penn statement about "significant states" might have been insulting, but it was also part of a strategy. He wouldn't have said that if the situations were reversed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) I doubt they were looking forward to a long and divisive primary. Who can blame them? It's not good for the party. It would have been better for everything to have been resolved on Super Tuesday-- one way or the other.

2) The post-super Tuesday states were not favorable. She might have had a chance in Maine, but even with stronger organizing, Nebraska and Washington were likely out of reach. Still, it's true that she could have cut down the margins.

[Beet]

1-Actually tried to compete in the caucus states instead of just ignoring all of them and then afterwards arguing that they don't matter anyway (a very insulting talking point that backfired on her totally. Probably one of the reasons for her brutal February losing streak.)

I don't think it was meant to be insulting. I think the argument was that caucuses aren't necessarily accurate predictors of electability in the general election, also that caucuses aren't necessarily accurate predictors of the popular will either. Penn statement about "significant states" might have been insulting, but it was also part of a strategy. He wouldn't have said that if the situations were reversed.

Hillary Clinton was in a campaign to get the most delegates. Whether or not the caucuses are an accurate indicator of the popular will is irrelevent. That talking point was just an excuse made after the fact. It was stupid to completely ignore them.

Sure, I was just responding to the "argument afterward" about caucuses. They should have organized the caucuses more effectively preemptively to be sure. How does one organize a caucus anyway? They made quite an effort in Iowa but all the money must have done down the hole there because they apparently didn't have enough to do what Obama did in the others. It's hard to tell without a detailed spending analysis-- but I suspect that Obama ran with the kind of message that was slightly more appealing to those activist types anyways.

[Beet]

That state doesn't count because it's too black. That state doesn't count because there's too many latte liberals. That state doesn't count because it's a red state (Oh and then she went and staked her entire campaign on Texas and Ohio.) It basically boiled down to "The only states that count are the ones that vote for me" and it became a joke. People began to talk about how they were proud residents of a state that didn't count. Remember Joe's old sig?

True, and that was basically Obama's coalition: caucus states + large black populations + latte liberals. If you want to break it down that way. Of course, it's possible to lose a Dem primary campaign with that coalition. There are a bunch of other intangibles to consider. But in terms of mentality from team Clinton it set the bar too low for them to not compete in any of his coalition and that was a mistake.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She was probably hoping for a solid 5-10 point (instead of 0.5) or more lead in the popular vote and a 100+ delegate vote lead. However, the last week before Super Tuesday was utterly brutal for Clinton and no one could have anticipated-- Obama delivered his best speech in a campaign of good speeches after South Carolina and basically every news outlet was overwhelmingly positive for Obama; they completely shut out the results in Florida and they made him peak at just the right moment.

But you can't play Rudy Giuliani in politics and just ignore everywhere that doesn't favor you.

That's depends on the circumstances. She took a huge gamble on Iowa even though the conventional wisdom was that the politics didn't favor her, and it was a massively blown investment.