NY Times: Clinton Approaching Appomattox?

All the cliches and platitudes apply.  It's not over 'til it's over.  The fat lady has to sing.  Remember the 1986 World Series and the 2004 Championship Series.  Remember the Alamo.  On and on...

As the trendlines, money and demographics have all been breaking for Obama, I have been wondering what rabbit will be pulled out of the hat. With Hillary Clinton going spectacularly negative today, I have been questioning whether this was the launch of a new offense.  It has seemed like the slog to nomination will be endless.  Or maybe not.

OK...maybe it ain't over till it's over, but the Grey Lady is singing and it's a song many of us are hearing.  The NY Times article I just read, reprinted on MSNBC.com, seems to signal that we are approaching the Appomattox Courthouse after some very sharp battles.  I don't mean to mislead with the title...They are not saying that she's quitting.  But the piece seems VERY elegaic.

More after the flip:

The Times article, written by Patrick Healey, drives home how close we may be to the end game.

Over take-out meals and late-night drinks, some regrets and recriminations have set in, and top aides have begun to face up to the campaign’s possible end after the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4. Engaging in hindsight, several advisers have now concluded that they were not smart to use former President Bill Clinton as much as they did, that "his presence, aura and legacy caused national fatigue with the Clintons," in the words of one senior adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity to assess the campaign candidly.

[snip]

There is a widespread feeling among donors and some advisers, though, that a comeback this time may be improbable. Her advisers said internal polls showed a very tough race to win the Texas primary — a contest that no less than Mr. Clinton has said is a "must win." And while advisers are drawing some hope from Mrs. Clinton’s indefatigable nature, some are burning out.

Morale is low. After 13 months of dawn-to-dark seven-day weeks, the staff is exhausted. Some have taken to going home early — 9 p.m. — turning off their BlackBerrys, and polishing off bottles of wine, several senior staff members said.

Some advisers have been heard yelling at close friends and colleagues. In a much-reported incident, Mr. Penn and the campaign advertising chief, Mandy Grunwald, had a screaming match over strategy recently that prompted another senior aide, Guy Cecil, to leave the room. "I have work to do — you’re acting like kids," Mr. Cecil said, according to three people in the room.

NY Times:  Clinton's Campaign/Low Morale

It sounds like they just don't know what hit them.  Even though I am an Obama supporter, this is quite poignant.  Personally, I hope this is true. I'm fatigued by primary silly season.  We have a very daunting campaign against very tough, cynical republican opponents and I'm tired of seeing our house divided.  As I've stated many times, I'm an Obama supporter but I will vote for Hillary...my enthusiasm lessens with each new attack...but I'll still vote for her.  It's time for the healing to begin.

And let's remember, Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all agreed upon reconcilation with the South.  They faced great opposition but it was wisdom pure and simple.  Let's get our house in order and let's move on.  Hopefully 3/4 will be the end.

UPDATE: Ihatebush points out this new quote from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a Clinton supporter.  I think it's a very strong corroboration of the theme of this diary:

"Townsend said she expects Sen. Barack Obama to win the Democratic presidential nomination and that Clinton is finished. She believed that the Wisconsin results demonstrated that Clinton's coalition (voters over the age of 50 and those earning less than $50,000) had fallen apart. When asked why the Clinton campaign had failed, Ms. Townsend had plenty of opinions and she placed significant blame on Bill Clinton and his racially tinged statements in South Carolina. She also felt that Clinton made a tactical error in making "experience and inevitability" her central campaign themes. Townsend argued that Clinton had little more experience than Obama and far less than candidates such as Senators Dodd and Biden. Additionally, making the inevitability claim hurt her when she lost Iowa... Townsend then lamented Clinton's decision to go negative and question Obama's readiness. She said that she called the Clinton campaign and advised that they 'go out on a high note' but her advice was politely dismissed."

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's Assessment

•  Tip Jar...

  If this has been diaried...I'm happy to tear the sucker down.  Anything for a healing.  I'm a lover not a fighter.

  by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:27:39 PM PDT

  •  Time to put this to bed

    

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:38:50 PM PDT

    •  Kill da waaabbit, kill da waaabit...

      by Zackpunk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:51:46 PM PDT

      •  LOL!!

        by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:00:51 PM PDT

        •  oh yeah priceless!

          by concerned on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:57:21 PM PDT

      •  Classic video link

        One of the best Bugs Bunny cartoons ever.

        by DesertCat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:26:30 PM PDT

        •  I'm a sucker for this stuff...

          Personally I feel that Bugs Bunny, Dr. Seuss, Mad Magazine and the Twilight Zone are responsible for the wild anarchic streak in my generation.

          by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:30:36 PM PDT

          •  I agree

            I think I might have to throw in MASH into that as well.  It gave a whole bunch of us the wild idea that being good at your job was the most important thing and bought you freedom.  The computer programmers wearing sweats and bunny slippers to work drew their inspiration from Hawkeye Pierce in my opinion.

            by DesertCat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:36:34 PM PDT

    •  who's that?

      by carlyle4 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:20:56 PM PDT

    •  Who's that?

      Candy Crowley?

      by carlyle4 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:21:58 PM PDT

  •  Any body who read the Wisconsin results

    including the demographic breakdowns saw that it was over.  Obama won all her core groups with come from behind surge on great turnout.  This is the pattern that Texas is showing already.  The arithmetic is all against her.  She has to win by something like 15% to get even in delegate count.  Dead woman walking.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:59:19 PM PDT

    •  Also - what many have missed so far

      is that Wisconsin was, I believe, the 5th or 6th largest state so far in the 38 contests decided to this point, in terms of numbers of votes when you add  up  Obama's and Clinton's.

      by RobertInWisconsin on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:57:50 PM PDT

•  Clinton should drop out before she further

  embarrasses herself. Seriously, she sucks at campaigning. Is there anyone willing to argue that she's done a good job of running her campaign so far?

  by FrostyKotex on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:29:17 PM PDT

  •  She's run a fairly "good"

    traditional campaign.  Her campaign is right out of the standard "consultants and swing states" playbook. And just as successful.

    by socratic on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:32:41 PM PDT

    •  Jonathan Alter had an interesting take

      The deathwatch has finally begun in the media.  Recently on Countdown Alter speculated that if Hillary had run a different campaign she might not have given Obama an opening.  Specifically, he offered the thought that if Clinton had run as the universal health care candidate, trying to make the election a referendum on that issue, she might have won the primary.

      I'm not sure that's true, but it does suggest that the fundamental premises of her campaign might have been at fault.  A Restoration strategy, in retrospect, seems to have underestimated the hunger for change in the electorate.

      by Dallasdoc on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:38:54 PM PDT

      •  I think she would have been better off

        had she lost NH by 3 instead of winning it by 3, which would have told her to make major changes, like sidelining Mark Penn.

        Winning NH gave her a false sense of security that everything was ok.

        by IhateBush on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:42:03 PM PDT

        •  Mark Penn

          Just doesn't strike me as someone who would work for a Democrat.  I have admiration for the candidate, but he strikes me as a wanna-be Rove.

          by PaulVA on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:59:20 PM PDT

          •  He is a union buster

            and a thug.  Spends too much time in the gutter.This is the kind of guy who should be tossed in the ocean, probably can't swim either.  

            by IhateBush on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:02:42 PM PDT

            •  I disagree

              I think he came from the ocean.  He needs to be tossed back with shamu.

              by PaulVA on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:12:41 AM PDT

      •  She made a dumb gamble

        She thought this election was going to be all about experience and she bet the farm on it. She guessed wrong, and refused to make any adjustments.

        by Zackpunk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:57:54 PM PDT

        •  Actually... her mistake was trying to make

          her campaign about why NOT to vote for Obama instead of why TO vote for her.  

          If she had just talked about what she'll do for the county and just didn't try to take down Obama, she would have done better.  

          People gravitated to a positive and uplifting message.  Obama promised a positive and clean campaign, and even though the naysayers said it couldn't be done, people were attracted to it eventually.  

          She should have just focused on how her experience will make for a better America, not run on her husband administration, pushed for a third term for Bill (two for the price of one), acted as if she is running to be the first woman president all on her own, she might have pulled it of.  

          Once she went negative on a positive candidate, people got turned of.

          by jalenth on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:29:10 PM PDT

          •  Agreed.

            Obama has IT.  She didn't.

            by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:36:43 PM PDT

            •  And...if you don't have "It"

              It's really time to quit.

              by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:43:14 PM PDT

            •  Oh Hilary could have had "it"

              She's damn good, only the decisions on who to employ and the strategy to employ in her campaign did her in.  She also had the misfortune not to recognize that she was running against a phenomenon.

              by Rolfyboy6 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:02:58 PM PDT

              •  Phenomenon = "It"

                Plus it's about ownership...She picked Penn and Wolfson and Doyle.  And she stayed with 'em.  I thought she would have displayed much more political agility.  Obama has, thus far...like him or not, that's going to be necessary to take this thing all the way.

                by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:13:52 PM PDT

                •  Clara Bow for President?

                  by Jacques on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:26:45 PM PDT

                  •  Bwahaha...

                    by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:30:28 PM PDT

                    •  Bee stung lips

                      smoldering eyes.  there ya go.

                      by Rolfyboy6 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:33:26 PM PDT

                •  Hilary had plenty of potential

                  for that kind of zeitgeist.  Who she selected for her staff and the decisions they made killed that off.  Look how good she is at debate, as good or slightly better than Obama.

                  What do you mean about "Ownership"?  If you mean that she picked those turkeys Penn et.c, yeah, she didn't have a good vision of how to market herself.  they seemed to go for all the wrong stuff and didn't play to her strengths.  They also made the classic mistake of peacetime generals, they prepared for the last war.

                  If they'd run a more modern campaign, and one with a better ground operation, and presented a more human candidate Obama would have had more trouble.

                  by Rolfyboy6 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:32:28 PM PDT

                  •  Basically agree with you...

                    but I also think that Obama may be a very rare political creature.  I felt that way when I first saw his speech in 2004 and that feeling has continued to deepen.  It's hard to stand here on 2/24 and predict the outcome of this election and, should he win, what his presidency will be like.  But I've been VERY impressed with what I've seen and I think that Hillary has been overmatched in just about every regard.  Not her fault. It just is (as Van Morrison would say.)

                    by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:16:45 PM PDT

                    •  You've put your finger on the problem

                      should he win, what his presidency will be like

                      Like a lot of people I'm not charisma driven, so I want results and policy.  I want management.  Good management.  He's won now so I guess I'm in the crapshoot.  He's completely green as an executive and he's likely to be in the toughest executive job in the world.

                      by Rolfyboy6 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:59:27 AM PDT

                      •  If you want certain results and management

                        there is always John McCain.  However, what you get may not be good results or management.

                        But do remember that Abraham Lincoln was also completely green as an executive as well.

                        by IhateBush on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:50:58 AM PDT

                        •  Ah yes, the Licoln argument

                          Which always avoids mentioning that Lincoln had been running a business for years, and had the utmost practical experience of being a circuit riding lawyer, a railroad attorney, and the senior managing partner of his firm.

                          by Rolfyboy6 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:01:58 AM PDT

                          •  Very interesting point, Rolfyboy6...

                            From where I'm sitting today, it's not as if Clinton's campaign is an embodiment of good management skills, executive decision making, or  choices in delegation and who she decided to surround herself with.  From an organization point of view, to this point, I would say that Obama has totally trumped Clinton on all these levels.

                            Realistically, however, we are starting nearthe rock bottom with Bush.  Unless one is running a RICO conspiracy, which he did quite well until 2006 when it it started to unravel, Bush has surrounded himself with people who have made his previous boondoggles look like well run businesses.  And this is with the arch high hierophant of Halliburton sitting in the middle of the spider web.  We go from a president whose thoughts had nothing to do with governance and everything to do with vacuuming up as much of the public fisc as possible for himself and his thugs and cronies.

                            I would say, that my nagging worry, is Obama's buddy Deval Patrick.  I live in Massachusetts and think that Patrick is a rough analogue in how he ran his campaign, at the least.  Honestly, I don't know what kind of governor he is at this point.  I haven't seen alot of the high flying campaign rhetoric put into action yet but it is both somewhat early in his term and I haven't been paying ALOT of attention.  He made some awful missteps at the beginning of his term...right off the bat.  Shockingly bad PR missteps for this state, which overshadowed his ascension.

                            Ultimately, though, it probably comes down to who you surround yourself with as delegatees and advisors.  Clinton, for the most part, surrounded himself with good people.  Bush, surrounded himself with folks that could have been casted from I Claudius...I think therein lies the difference.  I don't doubt that Obama will make good decisions as to the people he wants near him.

                            I note, that I was shocked at how quickly the PEOPLE forgot just how well the business of government was run under Clinton.  Relative peace, prosperity, and domestic tranquility.  It all stood for nothing when  the mighty GOP agitprop machine began pumping its sewage through the various media.  And 9/11 totally wiped the public's memory clean.

                            by mayan on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:44:15 AM PDT

                            •  Yes, that's Clinton's big negative

                              My assumption is that either Obama will get some high priced managerial talent as his Chief of Staff or be successful at the transition and learn the number one skill of a President: hiring and firing.  

                              In this his model should be Bill Clinton who was a master at it.  You never realized that Bill had fired anyone as Bill always had these great press conferences introducing the new guy and always lined up a job for the guy he was firing.  Bill went for talent and wasn't bothered by getting negative opinions or contradictions from the talent as long as they had alternate solutions. Note that I'm not talking about policy here.  Bush never fired anyone.  It's important to be dissatisfied with poor performance and to fire some to encourage the others (h/t Napoleon).

                              Hilary's campaign suffered from a bad vision of who she was, a mentality that they were fighting wars of the past, and shitty management of resources.  Essentially, she was loyal to people who weren't suited to the job. I'm no fan of her mis-management team.  She didn't have the management skills she asserted.  

                              One of the problems with electing Senators is that they are legislators and President isn't a legislative job.  We shall see.  We may have to hold his feet to the fire.  I'll be interested to see the result when Obama does something that people here don't like.  The throbbing should be entertaining.

                              by Rolfyboy6 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:04:03 AM PDT

                              •  Couldn't agree more...

                                the problem as I see it is that he is running as a coalitionist...this works well for elections but requires a great deal of facile footwork when it comes to governance.  The people on either wing of the continuum are going to get pissed off.  

                                I've been reading several bios of FDR (and LBJ) recently, so FDR tends to be the person that I default to as of late when I think of Obama.  I'm not saying that Obama is FDR or is going to approach anything that FDR but FDR had to be masterful in how he managed the coalition that he first forged in '32.  Still, he managed to piss off the left because he was anything but a socialist...to the contrary, he was a raving capitalist.  And yet, on the right, he was continually beseiged by those who thought he had betrayed his "class" and sold out to the Bolshies.  I also note that the coalition changed with each succeeding election...to suit the demands of the day.  Even more of a highwire act.

                                Reagan, as I saw it, forged a coalition of smoke and mirrors.  It was a conjury...in which he was assisted by an increasingly rightwing press and fearful sycophantic Congress whose Dems were much more like him than not, by in large.  His model, as I see it, was locking up the right and then stealing from the middle.  His job wasn't near as hard as FDR's as he didn't have to give anything to the left.  And didn't.  Bush II's first "election" was very similar in that regard and the smoke and mirrors lasted until, like, the day after he made his statement that he had earned political capitol and was now going to spend it.  It all but disappeared after Katrina.

                                by mayan on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:30:51 AM PDT

      •  I do not think she understands how truly sick

        we all are of "business as usual".

        She is so mired in the old way of doing things, that she does not appear to have any real vision.

        And her campaign looks to have been run incredibly poorly...fiscally, and in every other way.

        Attacks seems to be a last and( very poor) option.

        by la urracca on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:00:19 PM PDT

        •  That's why many of us don't trust her

          We've seen one Clinton run as a populist, only to turn on a dime once he hit the Oval Office.  Hillary was right there every step of the way, as her campaign never fails to remind us, so why shouldn't we worry that it might happen again?

          Surrounding herself with union-busting lobbyists and tools of the plutocrats does little to allay such fears.  But I guess that makes me sexist....

          by Dallasdoc on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:04:19 PM PDT

          •  Bill didn't precisely turn on a dime

            He tried in the first two years and had such a hard time that when the 1994 elections coughed up Newt Gingrich and the Republican majority, he turned to being the fiscally oriented conservative Democrat.  The continual attacks of the Republicans on Whitewater didn't help him have a progressive administration.  He was always having to work against a Republican majority in both Houses.  Let's not get carried away in our demonizing.

            by Rolfyboy6 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:07:47 PM PDT

            •  Bob Rubin and Alan Greenspan

              I can't forget that story of these two men coming to Clinton before his inauguration, to explain how the world worked.  They told him to drop his populist promises, because the country was going broke and he needed to balance the budget.  That's exactly how he governed.

              I applaud his pushing through the 1993 tax hike, but his big populist push was the botched health care reform effort his wife headed.  After that he was all NAFTA, welfare reform and more cops.

              I don't think I'm demonizing.  Just doing my best to remember the 90's accurately.

              by Dallasdoc on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:36:31 PM PDT

              •  Know anyone else that balanced the budget?

                I think your forgetting selectively.  The only president in my long lifetime that ever left office with a surplus.  You could send two kids to college instead of only one.  I sure disagreed with NAFTA  and some other stuff, but Bill could manage and he hired talent. And he sure could do diplomacy. I think it's fashionable right now around here to shit on Bill and do revisionist history.  A lot of the members aren't old enough to remember.  Some of them actually seem to think that shithead Reagan was a good President.

                by Rolfyboy6 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:51:40 PM PDT

              •  Shafta came before the health care plan

                It came in early 1993, maybe even before the tax increase and the budget.

                by IhateBush on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:52:59 PM PDT

                •  Interesting to look back

                  The tax increase was passed in August 1993, with no Republican support.  

                  NAFTA passed Congress in November 1993, with a plurality of Dems in both houses voting against. It was originally signed by the Bush administration in November 1992.

                  The Clinton Health Care plan started just after the inauguration, and was presented by Clinton to Congress in September 1993.  It eventually died in August 1994, and contributed to the defeat of Dems in the elections that year.

                  All that according to Wikipedia, anyway.

                  by Dallasdoc on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:00:24 PM PDT

                  •  That's right

                    I think he tried to pass it in May 93, but it was pulled in the House because it didn't have the votes.

                    Clinton made a big mistake in pushing Shafta, and this was on the head of Clinton alone, had he not twisted arms, labor was poised to defeat it in the House.  

                    by IhateBush on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11:01 PM PDT

              •  If I recall correctly...

                he also did a number on all sorts of public assistance programs.

                by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:56:57 PM PDT

                •  The Republicans in Congress did most of that

                  Clinton was in a weakened position to defend them, as I recall, but didn't spend a lot of his political capital on them.

                  by Dallasdoc on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:01:58 PM PDT

                  •  Nope...I was doing poverty law at the time...

                    and watched all the programs get whacked.  And yes...clearly he was severely curtailed by the class of '94 and his subsequent travails.

                    by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11:14 PM PDT

                    •  BTW...I have no idea where...

                      the above "nope" came from.  I agree with you.  It's time for bed very soon, I'm apparently channeling imps as I type.

                      by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:12:24 PM PDT

                    •  I defer to your expertise

                      I was working in a community health center through Clinton's years, and our budgets got very meager rises.  Things actually got better under Bush, believe it or not.  But Ted Kennedy was looking out for CHC's like a mother bear in those years, so we never saw cuts.

                      by Dallasdoc on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:13:39 PM PDT

                      •  I subsequently switched...

                        I might add, to environmental law in the late '90s.  Many of the environmental enforcement folk that I talked to actually preferred Bush I.  Clinton was all about the regulated community and enforcement agencies forming a partnership that limited the enforcement angle.  I think that Clinton had a point, as litigation is only one color on the palette...still it is interesting to listen to the "old timers" reminisce about the good old days under George the First.  (I note that I had this discussion a few days ago with someone who took strong exception to what I said.  I can't change what others have told me but I guess your mileage may very well vary.)

                        by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:21:48 PM PDT

            •  Not really

              why did he push for NAFTA in 1993?  It was a shitty trade deal, and he claimed to oppose it during his campaign.  All he had to do was to stay quiet about it, and the unions would have defeated it in the House.  Rather, Clinton pushed hard for it, twisted arms in the House, and barely passed it.

              If Clinton had not done anything about NAFTA and has pushed hard for striker replacement ban instead, he may have had labor support for his health care plan, and the 1994 disaster would have never happened.

              by IhateBush on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:51:55 PM PDT

    •  It may have worked back in the day

      but it is a new dawn.  

      And she could have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling kid!

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:40:32 PM PDT

      •  Thank you...

        ...Howard Dean! Thanks us!

        by MichaelPH on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:56:37 PM PDT

      •  Riding the bus with Obama

        

        by darthstar on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:01:06 PM PDT

        •  wOOt! LOL n/t

          by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:18:34 PM PDT

    •  To me that is like saying that George Bush

      has waged a "fairly good" traditional war in Iraq.

      by FrostyKotex on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:41:40 PM PDT

      •  Strictly speaking

        the "traditional" component of the war was successful by any rational measure: we defeated an entrenched military by overwhelming force with minimal casualties.

        It's the nontraditional, insurgent portion of the war and the political reality of the war following the traditional invasion that fell apart.  Generally that happens when inadequate attention has been paid to long-term consequences and flexibility to meet the unexpected.  So too the Clinton campaign so far.
        

        by socratic on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:45:16 PM PDT

        •  exactly n/t

          by FrostyKotex on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:48:51 PM PDT

          •  despite your relatively low UID

            I can say with assurance that this is the first time I have ever seen you post.

            FROSTY KOTEX?

            Sweet Christ.

            by kate mckinnon on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:59:07 PM PDT

            •  Better Than

              Flaming Kotex, no?

              by deminva on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:01:38 PM PDT

              •  Yow!

                by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:21:21 PM PDT

            •  I'm a big Frank Zappa fan n/t

              by FrostyKotex on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:04:45 PM PDT

              •  me too, but that one escapes me.

                by kate mckinnon on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:25:38 PM PDT

    •  The seeds for Obama's campaign were

      laid by Howard Dean in 2004 with the way he raised money, and in 2005 with the 50 state strategy.  There is a reason why the Clinton tried desperately to stop Dean from being the DNC chairman, and why Carville asked that he be replaced with Harold Ford.

      by IhateBush on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:46:09 PM PDT

      •  Excellent point...

        It's a fundamental difference in vision.  Clinton chose the "significant state, significant electoral group" strategy.  Obama chose a whole new paradigm, blazed by Dean, where no state, race, age, creed, etc. is jettisoned by the party.  By nature, I prefer the latter.  Apparently, many people...republicans and indies agree.  I think this is what the country has, at it's root needed to hear after 50 years of Rove/Atwater and their wedge issues.  

        Hence my support for Obama.

        by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:53:52 PM PDT

        •  You are

          inside my brain.  Comfortable?  :)

          by socratic on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:55:14 PM PDT

          •  ahhhh...

            fluffy grey stuff!!

            by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:56:33 PM PDT

        •  People Powered Howard

          "You Have The Power" to "Yes We Can".  I loved Howard Dean, but Obama is everything Dean was plus everything I wished Dean was.

          by Grassroots Mom on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:11:06 PM PDT

          •  Except on Education...

            Dean is truly the only candidate I've ever known to truly get education...
            < sigh >

            Oh well, guess I'll have to "settle" for Barack!!  (I adore him, but he's pretty clueless on K-12 education.)

            by sick of it all on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:27:03 PM PDT

            •  If Dean doesn't stay on as DNC Chair

              Maybe he'll get Eduction or Health and Human Services. He is an M.D. afterall. And I absolutely loved his idea for "Success by Six."

              by Grassroots Mom on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:35:13 PM PDT

        •  Politics is a crude business

          Always has been. Which opens it up to quick evolution, and better mousetraps. In primal simplicity, it's similar to war. The two endeavors share lingo like `campaigns', `headquarters', `battle-plans' and `war-chests'. Efficiency is everything. Get out the votes, or mow people down. It's all that matters.

          Battles used to be fought, and messages conveyed in taverns and meetings. Then printed pamphlets, then newspapers, radio, television, all new technologies have had their out-sized influence.

          Now the internet is the primary means of message. No big surprise. Everybody knew it was coming, but nobody knew exactly how it would work. I'm sure all the campaigns imagined they were on top of it, but only one of them could or would prove to be correct.

          It really is a once in a lifetime opportunity. The internet is largely populist and egalitarian, right now, but it may not stay so.

          by Asherd on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:22:15 PM PDT

          •  People used to be the snot...

            outta each other at political rallies and such.  This is tame.  Just ask Jefferson and Burr.

            by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:40:17 PM PDT

  •  I agree...

    I think it is very telling that folks are beginning to leak internal poll numbers.  The signals are coming from the inner circle.

    I don't know that she will.  But it is time, as far as I'm concerned.  I think Bill's statements earlier in the week and now this, suggest strongly that the end is near.  I don't know why this has to get more bitter and drawn out.  

    by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:33:07 PM PDT

    •  Because that's her character . . .

      I don't know why this has to get more bitter and drawn out.

      I mean, I'm not one to trot out RNC talking points trashing the Clintons but her sense of entitlement, bitterness about her past treatment, and massive underlying insecurity and neediness have been on full display for months now.

      by dbratl on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:30:38 PM PDT

      •  Perhaps...

        she's thinking that one more flaming thunderbold will pierce the Obubble and reveal him as nothingness enwrapped in rhetoric.  Ain't gonna happen but Mark Penn looks like a mean SOB.

        by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:34:58 PM PDT

  •  every time you guys say that

    It turns more Hillary supporters off to Obama.  This race is not conclusively decided, and she is not about to quit.  

    Cut this insulting, patronizing shit out.  

    by markusd on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:33:26 PM PDT

    •  So you think that she has run a good campaign?

      n/t

      by FrostyKotex on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:35:26 PM PDT

      •  I mean this:

        Clinton should drop out

        by markusd on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:43:21 PM PDT

        •  I don't understand how you can work yourself

          up to the height of outrage over the fact that some asshole on a political blog suggested that Clinton drop out.

          by FrostyKotex on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:53:23 PM PDT

        •  Well . . .

          . . . she should drop out.

          She can't win.  She has no unique policies or ideas that's she forwarding.  She is a weaker general election candidate.

          What is her rationale for staying in other than to assuage her ego and feed her martyr complex?

          by dbratl on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:33:13 PM PDT

          •  Because Obama

            doesn't have 2025 delegates.

            What is her rationale for staying in other than to assuage her ego and feed her martyr complex?

            by AJsMom on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:39:49 PM PDT

            •  If she has no chance to win . . .

              . . . which she does not. And if she is not forwarding any unique agenda, which she is not, then her use of the 2025 clause is merely a rationalization to allow her to continue her futile and destructive campaign in order to service her own ego.

              by dbratl on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:52:26 PM PDT

              •  How will

                either one of them win without the 2025 delegates needed?

                by AJsMom on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:29:32 AM PDT

        •  What would you have said if the

          opposite was true?  What would people be telling Obama if he was the one who had lost the last 10 elections, won less states, had less votes, and was running out of money?  What would you have suggested to Obama if he was in Clinton's position?

          Wouldn't everyone be telling him to drop out, it looks hopeless and he is only standing in her way of being the nominee?

          by jalenth on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:36:26 PM PDT

          •  Yes, I would say that . . .

            . . . and I said it pretty vocally about Edwards when he failed to crack second place in South Carolina.

            by dbratl on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:53:31 PM PDT

            •  edwards had things to say eom

              by boatsie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:40:55 PM PDT

  •  What She Should Do

    is run a positive campaign through March 4.  Oops!  It's apparently a little late for that strategy, which would have made her valedictory address in the close of the debate ring true.  Nevertheless, she should stay positive, giving Democrats something to vote for.  And if she loses TX and OH, she can then bow out gracefully.

    I'm with the many who believe she owes it to her supporters to remain in the running until the primaries on March 4 either confirm that decision or deliver a clear message that it's time to call it quits.  If/when she loses on the 4th, there should be no talk of pushing on to Pennsylvania, which is six weeks later and cannot offer her a decisive enough victory to make up her pledged delegate deficit.

    I'm hopeful that this Times article is a signal that she's ready to withdraw.

    by deminva on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:50:49 PM PDT

    •  Apparently not happening...

      oh well.  Damn the torpedos!

      by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:10:22 PM PDT

    •  after her 'valedictorian"

      she was out less than 12 hours later slamming Obama. How can she sit there one night appearing so disarmingly charming and reconciliatory and then snap right back into indignation, projection.  today's attacks are total projection of what she is  doing to the campaign, throwing it back on Obama to define him and deflect the truth from her. Absolutely outrageous!

      by boatsie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:30:55 PM PDT

      •  At her core, she's a coward . . .

        If she really had an issue with these fliers she could have raised it at the debate to Obama's face.  Fact is, she's afraid to use these bogus tactics to his face.

        by dbratl on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:58:29 PM PDT

        •  Nah...

          she had already cooked up the Hallmark moment to close her debate.  Flinging the mailers in Obama's face would not have been consistent with that finale.

          by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:01:16 PM PDT

          •  & has anybody pointed out how CNN

            once again ended with this total drivel q that was perfectly served to her? It was an idiiotic question perfect for her to pull out her 'im still standing' and still fighting ... and find her voice.... again

            by boatsie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:10:01 PM PDT

        •  & after reading how

          she actually wasn't on the stage watching those injured vets walk by but hadn't even arrived yet, well, today's vitriol was so obviously staged... almosts sociopathic...

          by boatsie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:08:02 PM PDT

    •  I don't think anyone would have had . . .

      . . . an issue with that.  But obviously episodes like her outburst today help no one.  I won't even say they they help the Republicans.  They are too incompetent and disorganized (like her entire campaign) to even do that.  Mostly her campaign as she is currently running it makes her look pathetic while breeding discontent among democrats, and generally disillusioning many of her supporters.

      by dbratl on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:56:44 PM PDT

  •  Thoughts on HRC's Legacy: Expect a change...

    ... out of politics completely, after her current Senate term is up. It will be beautifully orchestrated, with maybe a Barbara Walters celeb interview, making the rounds on Oprah (ooops, scratch that one).

    Someone asked over on the YouTube video page:

       

    clipwatching said:
       How pathetic she's become. Has she given no thought to her post-election reputation?

    Here's my question:

    Just out of curiosity, do you think she has the poise & humility to run for Senate again?  (I don't.)

    Or do you think she'll feel that America/ New York doesn't deserve her (hmph!) ... And instead she'll go run off and start a thintank? (or something all together different, but prestigious)

    I can't see her accepting her defeat... nor her accepting playing "just a Senator role" (which she was more suited to play from the start).

    ... Kind of like a film star who'd planned on getting the Oscar, then is beaten by a newcomer, so she refuses to do film anymore and accepts a Royal spot as centerpiece of a highly touted new HBO Original Series. More money, more control.

    I say look for her to exit the Senate after her current term. But not before securing that next big thing.

    Bill will say, once he's regained his cool, and with a twinkle in his eye:

     

     "She's her own boss. It was time for her to have her own thing. I think this is really her true calling all along. She had to find her voice".

    Thus avoiding, in his mind, her negative notoriety in history.

    She'll spin it as a payoff to her "35 years experience" thing.

    "You know... (she'll say with a bright smile) ...I've been at this for 38 years now... I've had an extraordinary career, for which I am ever so grateful. And I just think it's time to have a different kind of challenge"...

    ... then she'll add a scripted joke (to  remind people she is not bitter, but rather she is thrilled to be moving on)... like "Look at Al Gore! Who knew?"  (big smile!)

    As applause dies down, she'll tag it with a last bit of self-deprecating humor, to remind everyone she never took any of the Presidential run stuff that seriously... "No, seriously, I could only HOPE to accomplish what Al Gore or Jimmy Carter has done out of elected office. I doubt you'll see me winning a Nobel Peace Prize! .... (ha hah ha ha ha!)

    (big smile) lots of applause! Bill gleaming. She waves goodbye, the public address system kicks in with "Don't Stop Believing"....

    by rhfactor on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:42:50 PM PDT

    •  Brilliant comment, rhfactor...

      and so prescient.  I can see it.

      by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:46:09 PM PDT

      •  A friend of mine said to me tonight ---

        -- along these lines, that prob the only next role in the political realm large enough for her to feel like she's moved ahead is maybe Secretary General of the UN ...

        It would have international scale to it, and it would have enough high profile cache to be worthy of her.

        She would not accept some diplomatic job, she would not accept Senate Majority Leader (and most have said here she'd be terrible in that role. STRONG, yes, but likely to give into the corporatist agenda in America, which is in the wrong direction.

        She would need to be an international spokesperson or Head of XYZ Foundation for Global Intergalactic Something or other in order to offset this situation.

        It would probably produce a win-win ... She'd be happier as a person, and maybe having this albatross removed from her neck, she could chuck the whole image-managemement process she's lived her whole adult life by, in preparation for the battle she's now losing -- and she'd have the opportunity to use her strenghts without having to "sell" American voters that she'd be a "tough enough Commander in Chief" -- probably the biggest anchor that's undercut her strong desire to serve in the Highest Office of the Land. It's true -- that for sure would be the litmus test for many people -- and I think what we have seen is: Yes, absolutely, she has proven she could be a tough Commander in Chief. But this was at the total expense of every other asset she naturally possessed.

        Every single posting I have ever read from someone who has met her in person says the same thing: In person she is so different -- warm, friendly, likeable... And I have no reason to doubt that -- other than it simply doesn't appear that way from the TV view of her as a political creature. I think it is exactly this conundrum that has probably lead to this sense of schizophrenia or Jekyll and Hyde. Imagine living your daily life always having to balance one's natural femininity and charm with the NEED to project TOUGH and capable of being an unflinchingly tough commander of American military forces. She's prob had to suppress various parts of her, and cultivate the tough side, to even be considered capable of the role.

        And all that time she's married to another full-time strategist who's lived his whole life as a shrewd  calculator -- such that maybe one loses all sense of perspective of  "who am I, really?" ... what's the part of me that is real, and what are all the layers I have had to wear to get this far in my career?

        I don't like her as a candidate for President, but I do feel if she could be liberated from this albatross, she actually could find a LEGITIMATE voice, not a contrived one that's been focus-grouped at every turn in the road; and if she does do that, she still has time to make a huge difference in her life, in the lives of others, applying herself to a different kind of role.

        That's just a feeling I have. But as for this "script" of future events, I'd be willing to bet on it.

        by rhfactor on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:53:57 PM PDT

        •  Very interesting...

          I think she would need a very large fiefdom.  I don't see her as a lobbyist nor do I see her returning to private life, at least for very long.  She would need a role to influence large swaths of the public...maybe Senate Majority leader...I like the UN idea but I don't know how workable it is.  Supreme Court would be perfect but she doesn't have judicial experience...not that it has stopped other appointments.

          by mayan on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:49:09 AM PDT

    •  Dare to dream.

      That would be a happy day.

      by dbratl on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:01:10 PM PDT

•  At Appomattox, Grant's troops raised...

  ... their swords and saluted Lee and his troops, who surrendered with dignity.

  If Clinton loses and leaves gracefully, I hope we can see clear to salute her for her historic run. And if she works for our victory in November, I will support her reelection bid in New York.

  by pat208 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:30:39 PM PDT

  •  Don't hold your breath

    When she finally ends her campaign the rec list here will be filled with diaries dancing on her political grave.

    by quaoar on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:31:44 PM PDT

    •  Which would be shameful

      As she has a role in politics for as long as she wants, just not as President.

      by bedir than average on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:35:18 PM PDT

      •  Why?

        by dbratl on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:01:53 PM PDT

        •  Why don't I want her as President?

          Or why does she have a role?

          For the first I would basically have to pimp own first diary.

          For the second, that would be because she still would be in the Senate.