Skip to main content

View Diary: Over Before It Began: Terry McAuliffe's Folly (46 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Your point is the McAuliffe destroyed Clinton? (0+ / 0-)

    It really comes across that Clinton(s) was/were innocent and unwitting victims in all of his malfeasance.

    I find that to be a most dubious proposition.

    •  Perhaps, that was being too kind (6+ / 0-)

      But, if TM did have a role in helping the Clintons do themselves in, he had a lot of company.

    •  I must ask (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pozzo, Red Sox

      It really comes across that Clinton(s) was/were innocent and unwitting victims in all of his malfeasance.

      What malfeasance?  

      T-Mac didn't run Hillary's campaign at all.  In fact he had little to do with the management of the campaign at all.  His job was to raise money and that's what he did as the Chairman of the campaign.  And occassionally, he'd go on tv for her though he didn't exactly do a great job with that.  If there was malfeasance on the Clinton campaign (and I'm not sure there was), it had little to do with him.  

      And frankly, I don't think HRC and WJC had much to do with T-Mac's loss yesterday.  I think you could sum up his loss based on the following factors:

      1.  He is too abrasive as a candidate.
      1.  He had never run for office before and seemed kinda novice.
      1.  He had never held elected office before and most Virginians favored someone with more experience.
      1.  The attacks between him and Brian Moran turned off a lot of voters who went for Deeds as the third smiling option.
      1.  A lot of politically oriented NOVA voters saw Deeds as the candidate who could win statewide.
      1.  Let's face it, Deeds was a good candidate.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site