Why Hillary Will Lose

[SoFlaJet]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/why_hillary_will_lose.html

on note; he actually makes a good point here.

By Dick Morris

Hillary Clinton has blown an almost sure shot at the Democratic presidential nomination. Having surrendered the lead to Obama, she is not likely ever to regain it. It is a fantasy that the Ohio and Texas primaries will be a "firewall" to contain the flames of enthusiasm for Obama and reverse her defeats of February. Just as with Giuliani's supposed Florida firewall, Hillary's will crumble as Obama's momentum carries him forward to the nomination.

Before Hillary lost her first primary or caucus, she lost the dialogue with the Obama campaign vis-à-vis the totally misguided decision to focus her message on experience, surrendering the ground of change to her opponent.

The more she tried to emphasize Obama's inexperience, the more she seemed to fence herself into the status quo. That it was the status quo ante of the Clinton years, not the status quo of the Bush administration, made less and less difference as the campaign progressed.

She ran on a message perfect for a Republican primary -- experience -- and abandoned the key to winning a Democratic primary -- the message of change -- to Obama.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Dick Morris has raised irrational Clinton-hating to a high art. WHY do we listen to this @&#!

[SoFlaJet]

2. the question I've been asking for years now

is how could the Clintons have ever hired a guy like this?

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Bill Clinton must have seen something since he hired him. I fail to see how an

analysis of the "experience" message contrasted by the the "change" message is a good example of "Clinton Hate."

Is it because Morris has concluded that Clinton has lost? That doesn't seem all that unreasonable. And I'm not claiming their is any love lost between Morris and his old employers, there isn't. Yet his analysis seems to be pretty good and his reasoning that momentum are going to carry Obama to the finish line first isn't new, shocking, or unbelievable.

My candidate was Kucinich. I can't tell you how many times people posted OPs or articles about how he can't possible win, let alone make a dent in winning some delegates.

I never attributed that to "Dennis Hating." In fact, I've never seen anyone complain about the "Dennis Haters." We attributed Dennis' difficulty in getting his message out to no campaign funding, minuscule face time in debates, low starting name recognition, etc. Sure there were lots of people who made fun of his appearance, his physical stature. But we never called those people "Dennis Hatters."

Hill had the most face time in debates, historically high campaign resources, and A+ name recognition. I think the whole "Hillary Hater " meme is an exercise in paranoiac conspiracy theory.

"Just think," goes the train of thought. "If there weren't a national conspiracy of Hillary Haters out there, everyone would love Hill, and she could take her god given place as the next President. Those Hillary Haters are everywhere, working night and day to deny the chosen one her crown. They are indefatigable and vastly over funded."

At the same time, most of these conspiracy buffs refuse to acknowledge a basic fact of American politics. That fact is there are a whole lot of everyday people from a whole lot of different world views from all over the country who just don't like Hillary very much, for a whole lot of different reasons. Some are burned out on Clinton fatigue, some remember Hill selling out the grass roots and unions on health care in '93, some identify Hill as the poster child of scorched earth down and dirty power politics. And there are millions of other reasons as well, from the mundane, "i don't think i can take listening to her voice for the next 4 years," to whatever. Millions of reasons.

And then their are those who see themselves as her ideological enemy in a two party system, the Republican base. They don't like her either.

In a normal year, Hill would have won. Heck, all conventional wisdom says she should have won. But this isn't a normal year.

The country moved and wanted the war stopped, and the occupation ended. Many saw the need for real ethics reform, and the need to hold an out of control executive branch accountable. Not much really happened. In fact, they seem to be further enabling the executive.

Hill cast herself as the natural normal transition between which the voting public has increasingly come to view as the Cheech and Chong duality of the two party system. And something cracked. People said to heck with conventional wisdom. Where has it gotten us?

So they decided to work for and vote for the the non-conventional wisdom guy who at least spent a good part of his career doing community organizing, teaching constitutional law, doing civil rights law and other socially helpful pursuits. Why not? Why not try something new, since the old is kinda corrupt and ineffectual? We see a similar dynamic in a way in the Repo races as well. The only thing that saved McCain from similar challenges to the status quo is the winner take all aspect of the Repo top down races.

Another dynamic in play is that during the Clinton years, Democrats across the country suffered. Call this "Hillary Hating" if you wish, but the decline of the party occurred during the Clinton years. They ignored democrats out in ceded Republican territory, and it just contributed to a downward cycle. I think there are a lot of party insiders who see the energy and new voters Obama is bringing into the process, and they want to be part of that.

Blaming Hill's precarious situation on "Hillary Hating" is simplistic and misses the lessons of this anomaly of a political year.

[zonmoy]

3. one word proves you wrong.

diebold.

[emilyg]

4. Dick Morris. Pulezeeee.