Comments on: Why Did Hillary Clinton Lose?

By: test » Blog Archive » Why Did Hillary Clinton Lose?

test » Blog Archive » Why Did Hillary Clinton Lose? — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:33:43 +0000

[...] Mark Silva wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptHillary Clinton entered the race for the Democratic presidential nomination sixteen months ago with higher negative ratings and lower approval ratings than any major candidate in history. While hardcore Democrats liked the former First … Read the rest of this great post here [...]

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:49:04 +0000

SD-She did well with Hispanics who don't trust black candidates. I actually think the media treated her the worst of the top three. Any slight gaffe that she made was magnified and repeated over many news cycles. When she didn't make gaffes she was accused of being unlikeable. By contrast, both McCain and Obama were given coverage that verged on worshipful.

By: racist comments to obama

racist comments to obama — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:22:19 +0000

[...] [...]

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:55:11 +0000

kritt,

If Clinton would have received 50% of the black vote (or higher in Senator Obama would have been white) she would have easily won. Clinton could offset the young vote with the geezer vote. Senator Clinton just never found a group that would vote for her at the 95% level like blacks were going to vote for Senator Obama.

By: crat3

crat3 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:59:59 +0000

"Did you also vote for Bush?" Actually, I volunteered for Kerry/Edwards and that was time and effort wasted with two innate losers.

"Voting for McCain for any reason is reckless disregard of the futureof this country." Unfortunately, that was the choice of the DNC and Obama's superdelegates. Fair and square, the Democratic nominee should be Sen. Clinton, the best qualifid and the strongest candidate to defeat McCain and win the general election in a landslide victory.

Obama with his egghead and black supporters will lose the general election. Sen. Clinton should not play the role of winning the election for Obama, and I won't go along with that role as one of her supporters.

Hillary Clinton supporters have a cause in working for the resounding defeat of Obama and voting for McCain.

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:38:51 +0000

SD that doesn't explain the loss of the youth vote or the white college educated vote to Obama. Hillary needed to appeal to those sectors of the party as well.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:30:39 +0000

Senator Clinton's advisors were hurt by their own political correctness. As soon as Senator obama looked like a possible winner, 95% of the black vote went to him. Senator Clinton's ivy league educated, prep school graduates never believed that blacks would abandon the Clintons like they did. When black make up about 25% of the Democratic Primary voters, that was just a number that could not be overcome.

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:47:27 +0000

I think many democrats were simply unable to forgive Hillary for voting for Iraq and wanted someone who did not represent the past but gave them hope for the future. Many had enough of hearing about Bill's personal failings in the 90's and wanted a candidate who didn't have that kind of baggage. The reason the race was so close, was that both Obama and Clinton were formidable candidates who ran well-organized campaigns, Most years we have to pick the best of the worst— remember Dukakis? This year either of the top two would have made a great nominee.

By: MJDaniels53

MJDaniels53 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:40:21 +0000

runasim:
I didn't take your comments as criticism. I just wanted to clarify. Thanks!

Mark Daniels

By: mikelane

mikelane — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:13:38 +0000

Did you also vote for Bush? Voting for McCain for any reason is reckless disregard of the future of this country.

By: obama biography

obama biography — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:03:09 +0000

[...] of Richard Nixon. No campaign puff job, it sought to comprehend and convey the real Nixon. …http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/20141/why-did-hillary-clinton-lose/Analysis: McCain, Obama polar opposites Lexington Herald-LeaderHeartily sick of the status quo, [...]

By: runasim

runasim — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:54:56 +0000

mark,
I have absolutely no argument with you, either,
I just though that Ixks's role in establishing the rules by which Obama won was an ironic twist of fate.

BTW, as heated as the blogosphere gets, not every comment is a criticism.
Sometimes it's merely a tangental reflection.

By: world on fire the one campaign

world on fire the one campaign — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:48:36 +0000

[...] photographer had arrived on the scene. He snapped a candid picture of the former Vice President. …http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/20141/why-did-hillary-clinton-lose/I am the nominee ?? Obama Herald SunHILLARY Clinton was unwilling to concede it, but Barack Obama [...]

By: MJDaniels53

MJDaniels53 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:48:01 +0000

runasim:
I have no argument with you about why Obama won. I was writing about why Clinton lost.

Mark Daniels

By: runasim

runasim — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:42:21 +0000

I heard someone explain Obama's win another way: he had a smarter strattegy.
He used the rules as to caucus states vs primary states to plot his ocurse, always concentrating on delegates first.

Ironically, Ickes, the Clinton man, was instrumental in establishing these rules in the civil rights era. Clinton has always been suportive of the rules, so it seems odd she forgot them when it counted most.
Because she was considered so invincible in the beginning, it's possible she simply neglected to have a Plan B .

By: runasim

runasim — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:30:22 +0000

“it’s dangerous to put too much stock in public displays of emotion,”

i agree, but I think it's equally dangerous to put too much stock in someone's refusal or inability to display emotion in public. In general, I think too much mind reading and pseudo psychological analyses of public figures is infused in describing people in the limelight.

By: Patrick E

Patrick E — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:06:42 +0000

I would argue that Clinton lost for the simple reason that she forgot the adage about counting chickens.

Her entire campaign was premised on her sweeping to the nomination early and she had no plan at all for the caucuses during that cruicial period where Obama swept races

By: crat3

crat3 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:33:02 +0000

Obama clinched a stolen nomination with the MI delegates he hijacked. His endorsements from superdelegates have no integrity and are irresponsible.

No doubt Obama will be defeated in November when he will crash and burn and the Democratic Party will be a train wreck.

Hillary Clinton supporters should work for his resounding defeat and vote for McCain. I will vote for McCain in a swing state. Obama, his supporters, and the DNC must be "punished" for not playing fair and square.

Superdelegates have a responsibility to endorse Sen. Clinton as the best qualified and the strongest presidential candidate to defeat McCain and win the general election in a landslide victory hands down.