Hillary (and DWS's mismanagement of the DNC) blew a perfect opportunity. Hillary had O'Malley and

[Vote2016]

Sanders on her left and she has Webb and Chafee on her right.

If she and her supporters and her campaign and the DNC had not been so arrogant and so hellbent on a coronation, she could have treated the debates as events that looked like the other candidates interviewing for running-mate and cabinet positions.

She could have positioned herself as the center of the pack. Instead of freezing Webb and O'Malley etc. out of the national conversation, she could have listened to Webb and Chafee and then explained to the party about why her more progressive ideas were better. She could have listened to Sanders and O'Malley advocate for their platforms, and then she could have explained why her more moderate platform was better for America.

This would have been a campaign that would have played to her strengths and she would have had Webb and Chafee agreeing with her argument that the progressive wing of the party was too liberal.

Instead, she pushed all of the other candidates away (except Sanders who was able to rewrite her script to accommodate the progressive base of the party), and now she is in a two-vision race where she's not at the center of a 5 point debate but on the rightwing of a polar debate.

Clinton is blowing (had already blown?) a sure thing, but the debate between the progressive wing of the party and the third-way wing of the party is overdue and I'm glad Clinton's poor campaign choices and strategies has brought this debate to the forefront!

[FlatBaroque]

1. Or, she is simply a fatally flawed candidate

an extremely divisive figure, and one of the lousiest campaigners I have ever witnessed. Oh! and her policy positions suck.

[99Forever]

3. ^^^This^^^

Thread win on the first reply.

[Karma13612]

11. that just about sums it up. +100

All the elaborate orchestrated moves and strategy are not going to convince voters to vote for her, if they are paying attention to her underlying message.

[TTUBatfan2008]

2. I think it's working out very well...

We have a good contrast going on between the two and ultimately she should be a stronger candidate if she ends up the nominee.

[HooptieWagon]

4. Well, yes. But that would mean....

...exercising good judgement and respecting the will of the voters, neither of which is a Clinton trait. She doesn't respect or trust the voters to put it in their hands, she had to clear the path to a unopposed coronation, little realizing how popular Sanders message would resonate.

[MisterP]

5. thing is they didn't EXPECT a primary: she had the money, she had the party structure

she'd never drop under 60%: Sanders would poll worse than Kucinich because he was to Kooch's left, O'Malley would be a brief John Edwards figure, but without a Black Chicagoan running IL and the South were in the bag

[DanTex]

6. She's the center of the pack right now. Socialist on the left. Crazies on the right.

[libdem4life]

7. The crazies on the right have nothing to do with the Democratic Primary. There, she is not

the center of anything, other than her foibles and untrustworthy ratings.

[DanTex]

8. But they do have to do with the General Election, which is what matters.

[libdem4life]

9. Just missing a minor step called a Primary. She's not got that "in the bag" by any means.

Her name recognition can go no higher. Sanders and his message is still new to millions of Americans.

So, the Iowa situation is not an outlier by any means. They just got to know him...and it also left a bad taste in many political mouths, including the Hillary-endorsed Des Moines Register. Something is fishy...so totally Clinton.

[Vote2016]

10. Agreed. She's in the center of the whole voting population but not the center among Democrats