View Story | 485 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
There's one fact, and one thing to debunk.
First, the fact is that Clinton's campaign was getting glowing coverage for nearly a year - she was inevitable, flawless, etc. There was no way Obama could catch up - he was supposed to "hit her hard" because otherwise he was dead in the water. Remember that? I do.
Second, to debunk this "fair and balanced" Fox News notion that because one candidate is getting bad coverage, it's because of bias. To take an extreme example - does Bush deserve bad coverage because of his actions? Yes. Should we also give some democrats bad coverage just to be "fair and balanced" about it? Not unless they've done bad things on the same level.
Same goes for the primary - Clinton's campaign really has distorted the facts more than Obama's campaign, in part because she can get away with it with the media more than he can, since he doesn't have the clout she does. (Also, it's not his style, but that's a separate matter.) So if she gets called on it, is the media being unfair? No, she just deserved to be called on it.
Help 10 great candidates *you've never heard of before* - donate $5 today.
by barath on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:45:17 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
I am talking about since Iowa.
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:46:07 AM PDT
The first half was pre-Iowa. Basically as soon as the inevitability strategy failed, they didn't have a backup plan and started trying to wing it, which meant trying all sorts of junk, and eventually the kitchen sink strategy. I think we'll be seeing "kitchen sink 2: judgment day" in about a week.
by barath on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:49:01 AM PDT
I never brought into the "inevitability" strategy because I always thought that there were numerous good choices out there that would step forward.
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:54:48 AM PDT
Clinton was in the 50% range in the national polls toward the end of last year, and the media was basically saying that nobody else had a chance. Until the Des-Moines Register poll came out, the conventional wisdom was that Edwards was going to win Iowa, then he'd fade away, and Clinton would win the rest, with Edwards and Obama fighting for 2nd until they both dropped out one at a time.
by barath on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:56:50 AM PDT
Edwards would have won Iowa!
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:57:45 AM PDT
Edwards, although a much better candidate than Clinton, never had the money or the organization to compete with her in the rest of the states. Clinton would have overwhelmed him on Super Tuesday.
In any other year an Iowa win might have propelled Edwards forward because he would have had time to raise the bucks, but there just wasn't time this year--it was set up to get an early nominee, specifically Clinton. Had Edwards won Iowa, he would then have lost NH and NV, maybe won SC (maybe not, because Clinton would have had at least half the AA vote there even with Obama still in the race--Obama had to win Iowa to convince the AA community that he could get white votes), and Edwards would have limped in to Super Tuesday without enough cash or organization to compete nationwide. (Don't forget: Obama was organizing in the Super Tuesday states for months before those primaries while Edwards was confined to Iowa due to lack of funds.)
I never understood why Edwards was unable to raise the megadollars he needed, but he just didn't. Because of that, sadly, he never had a chance this year. I'm glad he was in the race, though. He added a great deal to the discussion.
If Obama had lost Iowa, he would have been sunk. Obama's whole strategy hinged on winning Iowa. As Michelle said at the time, without Iowa, it was just a dream.
May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.
by Fonsia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:29:15 AM PDT
He needed to start on November 3, 2004 and keep his organization around. But I suspect that his populist turn lost him a good chunk of his staff and his financial backers.
John McCain will end Roe v. Wade if he's president.
by Phoenix Woman on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:43:03 AM PDT
unfortunately it wasn't enough.
I liked Edwards and his message. It's not his fault he ran into the "let's make history" buzzsaw.
Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. 89 days until the '08 elections. Let's paint the country BLUE!
by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:04:48 AM PDT
the "Toilet Bowl Strategy"
HOPE: It's the new black. And it's WINNING!!
by Samwoman on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:59:17 AM PDT
the 'mad ape' strategy.
Just throw shit at everybody you see.
by mmacdDE on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:17:30 AM PDT
Damn, that made me laugh, mmacdDE.
JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.
by chumley on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:51:09 AM PDT
by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:01:18 AM PDT
And most likely wants to avoid its surrogates getting too down and dirty.
But I really wouldn't put it past certain, uh, fine, upstanding, hard-working organizations that support Obama to produce some sort of kitchen counter campaign.
WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Senator McCain's).
by Anarchofascist on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:04:35 AM PDT
What positive things have there been to report about the Hillary campaign since Iowa?
Look, I'm a Portland Trail Blazers fan, right? Earlier this season we won 16 straight games. Everyone loved us. We were getting press everywhere and we were the feel-good story for the first half of the season.
Then the team started struggling. Lost a bunch of games. Fell out of playoff contention. The "good" news coverage fell off.
Doesn't mean there's a media bias. If you're the winning team, you get good coverage. If you're the presumptive nominee and you lose big contests and start falling behind, you don't.
Not "media bias" at all.
Respect. Empower. Include. Yes We Can!
by The Great Gatsby on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:55:04 AM PDT
I don't know if that analogy works in this case. Nobody was screaming at them in racist or sexist terms, right?
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:58:57 AM PDT
Not only THAT, but WHO has EVER come into a primary season with as much GOING for them as SHE did? She has/had: NAME recognition More money than anyone else Her HUSBAND was a VERY popular president not that long ago The Democratic "machine" that SHE and BILL OILED themselves! I mean--what MORE do you want going INTO the primary? a CROWN?
Not only THAT, but WHO has EVER come into a primary season with as much GOING for them as SHE did?
She has/had:
I mean--what MORE do you want going INTO the primary?
a CROWN?
And, to be "balanced," who has had more working AGAINST them, coming into a primary season than Obama?
So Hillary--SPARE ME your WHINING--you were just too damned arrogant to work at it--you thought you had it in the bag.
by Samwoman on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:56:23 AM PDT
She has not been as successful at running her campaign.
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:00:33 AM PDT
She's a bad manager. Not what we need at this time.
-8.38, -8.00 Obama '08! Math beats myth.
by hyperstation on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:24:26 AM PDT
Spot on.
But to be fair, one thing Hillary had working against her:
And there's still plenty of misogyny in this country.
Please don't flame! I'm an Obama supporter and I think your rundown is otherwise correct across the board. I just want to point one the one (and only one!) disadvantage Hillary had that was not self-inflicted.
Her lying, her nasty campaigning etc. -- all her own fault.
And don't get me started on what a complete buffoon Bill Clinton made of himself. Way to shred what tattered bits of legacy you still had, Bill!
by chumley on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:56:02 AM PDT
...but there's also a lot of women who wanted a woman to vote for.
I wonder if she'd been male, would she even still be remotely in the race at this point.
Remember: if it's close, they'll steal it.
by ChurchofBruce on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:45:31 AM PDT
by chumley on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:24:01 AM PDT
quite an equal comparison.
Women are over 50% of the voting public whereas black people are maybe 10-15%? (don't know the numbers but much less than 50%)
So he had the biggest 'bigot hurdle' to overcome which so far he has done extremely well.
-7.50, -7.74 Republicans = Borrow and Squander
by GMFORD on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:48:02 AM PDT
But while this is impossible to quantify, you have to also take into account woman like my mother, in her 70s and quite Republican, who don't think of woman in terms of leadership roles.
Certainly there are plenty of amazing, enlightened women in their 70. And my mom's a product of her generation, class, and cultural background, as well as her own temperament. But her prejudice against other woman getting "too uppity" is real.
by chumley on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:27:57 AM PDT
I'm wanting to see a little more of this right now, as I profoundly dislike the Clinton campaign and what it says about the Clinton idea of democracy and Democratic politics, but get kind of pissed by the offhand dismissals of misogyny out there. It's not coming up so much in this thread, and that's great, but when our anger at her leads to certain kinds of personal attacks, and leads otherwise smart progressives to diminish the importance of sexism in our society, I get queasy. I want Obama to win. But I also have noted the adoption of some of the same anti-Hillary talking points the rabid right used to use when she was first lady.
Some of us remember with horror the way this smart, capable woman was forced to trot out the baked cookies back in the day, and it sucks to hear some of the garbage that's been thrown her way.
So, as a good recycler, I'd like to recommend very careful sifting of Republican garbage from our garbage. There's plenty of good stuff to talk about, like the stuff in this diary, without being stupid about it. No matter how pissed we are.
Plus. Make nice, cause it's over.
Fired Up
by Bindle on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:35:13 AM PDT
still plenty of misogyny in this country.
In fact, I would argue that sexism has a stronger hold on American than racism.
Witness the daily belittling of women in public, while overt racist remarks are NOT tolerated in public. Privately, of course, it's all ugly, all the time.
But I will say this--just as Obama has overcome the "black" stereotype, Clinton has/had an opportunity to rise above the gender bias, and she blew it, BIG TIME!
by Samwoman on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:10:43 PM PDT
that everytime I see another person post something that can be possible construed as not being in favor of Obaman, every one seems to preface that they are an "Obama supporter" as if you all are afraid of being whipped or something? What's up with that? Is it just to prevent a gang up?
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:10:44 PM PDT
this. When no one on a website will stand up to something as obvious as that, I question what is going on here? Sexism is wrong, and I don't care if it being directed at your friend or your enemy? You could also substitute the word racism for sexism. When something is wrong, it is wrong. For people to ignore it because it is being done against what I assume is your enemy, then that is just wrong and you are not as progressive as you think you are.
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:13:40 PM PDT
great post, Samwoman.
by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:00:01 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 485 comments