Why she lost

Why she lost (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

slvemike4u -> Why she lost (6/9/2008 5:55:02 PM)
This Sunday's New York Times devoted the back page of its Week in Review section to the question of what went wrong in Hillary's campaign.How did she go from 6 mos ago being the odds on favorite to hoping for the V.P. slot...your thoughts please and if its all the same lets keep it focused on the strategys of her campaign and not so much her relative worth has a candidate

celticlord2112 -> RE: Why she lost (6/9/2008 5:59:22 PM)
quote: please if we could avoid the cheap shots and look at the mistakes you think she might have made stategicaly in her campaign...the exception being all shots at Mark Penn are fair game Aw, hell, man....no shots at Bill Clinton? Just take ALL the fun away! [8D] The mistake she made was a simple strategic miscalculation--she bet the farm on winning Super Tuesday. When she didn't, she didn't have the organizational depth needed to pull out victories in the states immediately following. That being said...that she was able to maintain a credible campaign after that blunder right up until the very end says quite a bit about her skill as a politician (as well as quite a bit about Obama's fundamental lack thereof).

farglebargle -> RE: Why she lost (6/9/2008 6:03:44 PM)
She didn't lose shit. She played her role very well, judging by all the people who appear to have been suckered in by her act. She'll continue to pull down the graft as Senator for another shitload of years... Hoo-fucking-ray.

Alumbrado -> RE: Why she lost (6/9/2008 6:56:45 PM)
Egomania and groupthink..same as the Bay of Pigs or any numberof classic studies in failure. From Time... http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. I was also struck by the fact that instead of learning from the Nixon v. Kennedy TV lesson, and going in for vocal coaching and image enhancement to look like a President from a major party, she kept showing up on the web with odd gestures, a manic glare, and an edgy tone of voice remniscent of Ross Perot. When the 'I was under fire in Bosnia' stories came out, it was deja vu.

cluelessslave -> RE: Why she lost (6/9/2008 7:32:07 PM)
She lost because Obama won. She lost because she was dragging Clinton baggage. She won with bigot crackers who would vote for a mad dog to avoid electing a black. She won with women who wanted a woman to win. If Obama had run on race he would have lost. Clinton could have run on something else but she chose to run on sex, to be the first woman president. Sorry, but being the first woman or black isn't enough. You have to also have something to offer. Otherwise you could draft anyone female or black and call it done. When you listen to Obama you hear about "let's make this all better". When you listen to Clinton you hear "we'll show those good old boys that a woman can win". OK, so elect her and then what, sit around gloating? She had nothing to sell except the "first woman" thing. Obama ran a good campaign because when he was done talking you were looking ahead thinking things would look better. When Clinton was done talking you just felt bad that the fucking Clintons were still on TV, and bad because here is another angry woman nagging the world to let her have a turn.

slvemike4u -> RE: Why she lost (6/9/2008 8:42:10 PM)
Yeah the i am woman thing was a little empty .But Mark Penn shouldn't be allowed to run a campaign for dog catcher

SummerWind -> RE: Why she lost (6/10/2008 2:14:52 AM)
Most of the women I know couldn't stand her......

LotusSong -> RE: Why she lost (6/10/2008 7:55:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cluelessslave She lost because Obama won. She lost because she was dragging Clinton baggage. She won with bigot crackers who would vote for a mad dog to avoid electing a black. She won with women who wanted a woman to win. If Obama had run on race he would have lost. Clinton could have run on something else but she chose to run on sex, to be the first woman president. Sorry, but being the first woman or black isn't enough. You have to also have something to offer. Otherwise you could draft anyone female or black and call it done. When you listen to Obama you hear about "let's make this all better". When you listen to Clinton you hear "we'll show those good old boys that a woman can win". OK, so elect her and then what, sit around gloating? She had nothing to sell except the "first woman" thing. Obama ran a good campaign because when he was done talking you were looking ahead thinking things would look better. When Clinton was done talking you just felt bad that the fucking Clintons were still on TV, and bad because here is another angry woman nagging the world to let her have a turn. Gee.. you mean he didn't??? I am still waiting for how he specifically is going to change things.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Why she lost (6/10/2008 8:04:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong quote: ORIGINAL: cluelessslave She lost because Obama won. She lost because she was dragging Clinton baggage. She won with bigot crackers who would vote for a mad dog to avoid electing a black. She won with women who wanted a woman to win. If Obama had run on race he would have lost. Clinton could have run on something else but she chose to run on sex, to be the first woman president. Sorry, but being the first woman or black isn't enough. You have to also have something to offer. Otherwise you could draft anyone female or black and call it done. When you listen to Obama you hear about "let's make this all better". When you listen to Clinton you hear "we'll show those good old boys that a woman can win". OK, so elect her and then what, sit around gloating? She had nothing to sell except the "first woman" thing. Obama ran a good campaign because when he was done talking you were looking ahead thinking things would look better. When Clinton was done talking you just felt bad that the fucking Clintons were still on TV, and bad because here is another angry woman nagging the world to let her have a turn. Gee.. you mean he didn't??? I am still waiting for how he specifically is going to change things. Lotus, If you read his proposals, his change plan is to tax everyone so that your discretionary spending becomes government discretionary spending. Since more and more people believe that the 'nanny' knows better than they do about how to raise their children, how to eat, drive; there shouldn't be any problem getting that to happen. He's also concerned that the US should first get international approval before initiating domestic programs. What was it he said? Something to the effect that we can't expect the world to accept or allow the US to continue our current standard of living. I didn't put that in quotes because I don't have time to look up the exact words, but it was the general thought conveyed. Maybe another change will be adding a world vote of confidence to anything he proposes?

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375