Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: How much lower can Tom Corbett go? (56 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If she runs, she is the nominee (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadGeorgiaDem, mconvente, itskevin

    She clearly is the "next in line" candidate.

    I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

    by OGGoldy on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 05:32:27 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not so fast (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, askew

      Clinton, like her husband before her, is a DLCer who runs campaigns like a Republican, i.e. she chooses staff based on personal history and loyalty rather than skill or competence and counts on money to the win the day for her.

      Like in 2008, when she was the "inevitable" candidate, all it will take to take Clinton down is at least one of the potential also-rans having a good ground game and a team smart enough to collude with the other campaigns to take her down. This is how a guy whose main claim to fame prior to the 2008 cycle was performing the duties of a DNCC keynote speaker excellently beat her.

      There is nothing to suggest she learned her lessons from 2008.

      Every human being must be viewed according to what it is good for; for none of us, no, not one, is perfect; and were we to love none who had imperfections, this world would be a desert for our love.

      by Daniel Roche on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 06:10:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is her track record (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, Aquarius40

        If she recognizes that and assembles a team and a strategy that is a marked departure from that, would it matter to most of us?

        I'm indifferent to her running at this point, but I've never questioned her capacity for adapting.

        If she assembles a staff and strategy that seems hell bent on "Inevitable 2.0", then I'm out. Full Stop.

        I am expecting "different", and I'm counting on this community to help me sort through whether "different" is just clever, superficial repackaging or something I could invest effort, energy and time on.

        When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

        by Egalitare on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 06:34:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  She is much more personally popular now (12+ / 0-)

        Her tenure at State really did transform her image from ambitious senator trying to ride her husbands coattails to a well regarded senior stateswoman. Having gone through the presidential primary system once, I am certain she has learned much from that as well.

        Also, who would challenge her? And where would this candidate get support? Clinton had a lot of detractors in 07, and I don't hear nearly the same rumblings as I did then. Also, there is not a once in a generation orator waiting in the wings to make a home for her/himself.

        I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

        by OGGoldy on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 06:39:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  More to the point ... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, Loge, stevenaxelrod, jncca

          ... there's no Iraq War-like issue on which to run against her, is there?

        •  "once in a generation orator" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brian A

          THAT is the main lesson I think she "learned" from the primary. That Obama was just this unstoppable, once-in-a-generation candidate. It's a great narrative for all the bad hires in her campaign to glom onto and shield themselves from the truth. But the truth is Obama was only able to get ahead like he did because of how horribly run her campaign was.

          In the first post-GWB presidential cycle, Clinton let Obama claim the message of "Change." That was just stupid.

          Clinton and her husband made passive-aggressive and condescending remarks about the Obama narrative rather than actually going after the man himself. Giving that they sort of wrote the book on how to assassinate character in a Democratic primary, this was unbelievably stupid.

          Clinton counted on Democratic Party infrastructure that failed to outperform the Bush "re-election" effort, money, and party insiders to win. This shows a disdain for actual field work that is unfortunately widespread in the upper echelon of the Democratic Party.

          Clinton had tons of organized labor leaders familiar with Obama's voting record and personal style lined up to denounce him at rallies whenever she wanted. She failed to ever effectively challenge the "I'm the sole electable liberal in this primary" narrative he was pushing.

          As you go through the list of things she just straight-up fucked up--and the fact she never owned up to this--you get the idea that her campaign problems go way beyond the particular members of her team.

          Also, like Rahm Emanuel, even her lower level staffers were insufferable, entitled people who were horrible at their jobs. I've dealt with a lot of former Clinton staffers over the last five years. I can count the number of them who do not neatly fit into that description on one hand.

          She is a horrible candidate, period, if you care about either a person being able to run a competent campaign OR Democratic Party values. I do not get why there seems to be this view that she's the obvious next nominee--outside of the suspicion that the Obama years have just completely demoralized whatever is left of the liberal wing of the party.

          Every human being must be viewed according to what it is good for; for none of us, no, not one, is perfect; and were we to love none who had imperfections, this world would be a desert for our love.

          by Daniel Roche on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  She was less evitable then. (5+ / 0-)

        She was just starting her second term as Senator; now she's a former Secretary of State as well as someone universally admired in the party for the way in which she ended her presidential campaign and fully committed to supporting Obama in his campaign (as did her husband).

      •  You need one of the "also rans" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mconvente, stevenaxelrod

        to be a credible President.  If Hillary doesn't run, one of them will get the nomination because someone has to; Obama had the stature to be on the stage with Clinton and have people think of him as a President.  Much as I appreciate Martin O'Malley, Joe Biden, and Brian Schweitzer, color me skeptical.  What's more, I think the biggest knock on Clinton during the primaries last time was her vote to authorize the Iraq war.  Her successful tenure as SoS dissipated a lot of that anger.  Moreover, I think the power of nominating a woman will be compelling this time, as it would have been in 2008 had there not been a credible African-American candidate.  There was serious groundswell behind Obama before he ran; the only person that's true of today is Hillary.  The campaign is nothing without the candidate.  Let's not forget that Hillary, despite her disorganization and financial problems, beat Obama handily in a few key primary states after she had already effectively lost the nomination.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 07:23:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site