How Hillary Clinton lost the democratic nomination the week before South Carolina

[Tropics_Dude83]

Fascinating article, which leads me to a broader point that the article doesn't mention:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/26/america/clinton.php?page=1

This got me to thinking. Let's rewind folks. On Saturday, Jan 5, Hillary Clinton hit a home run at the New Hampshire debate. On Monday, January 7th, New Hampshire voters were offended and appalled at the "iron my shirt" comment and moved strongly by HRC showing who she really was when she got emotional at that New Hampshire diner and explained why she was running.

A day later, January 8th, her double digit deficit in New Hampshire vanishes and she wins by 2 points stunning all the media! She found her "voice'. Then, the culinary workers endorse Obama for the Nevada Caucuses. OMG, the media says. That's it! No one without the support of the culinary workers can win Nevada! Again, Hillary wins and not just narrowly but BY 6 points!

So, on Monday January 21st, we have HRC with a double digit national lead coming off of a Nevada caucus victory. Sure, they were likely destined to have lost S.C. but if they have played it cool, they might have made it closer and not alienated 90% of the AA population nationwide. You get beat in South Carolina, so what. You know that you're cruising for a massive win in Florida 3 days later. Let Obama have his victory in S.C. You're still up! She also decides to get into a knock-down drag out brawl at the S.C. debate, if you recall, which again, she had no reason to do.

Instead, she has Bill Clinton out there in S.C. frankly acting like an idiot and playing the race card calling Obama "Jessie Jackson" and she infuriates the Kennedy clan by saying LBJ passed civil rights. So, the combination of Bill not "chilling out" and her LBJ comments, makes S.C. a nearly 30 point loss and leads the Liberal Lion Senator Ted Kennedy to endorse Senator Obama.

Within days, her national poll lead vanishes and she loses the delegate count in what was supposed to be her massive firewall of 2/5.

What on earth were they thinking? I will never understand why they acted so desperate in S.C. when things were going entirely her way after Nevada and New Hampshire. They could have handled a S.C. loss.

I say all of this as a strong Obama supporter who just marvels at how inept the Clinton campaign was and how things could have been so different for her without their antics the week before S.C.

Does anybody disagree with my thesis? Perhaps, the Obama wave would have caught up to her anyway. Somehow, I doubt it without the S.C. interlude.

[TheDonkey]

1. Things were not going entirely their way. She was strong but Obama was still to close

They decided to act like thugs and remind Americans the dirty tricks and caustic values that the Clintons brought along with victory.

Hillary just was never destined for President. That is why I've supported Obama since Day 1. I wasn't afraid of her "inevitable" victory because I knew Americans would know where the truth really was.

[lapfog_1]

2. Edwards was supposed to win Iowa, Clinton was supposed to be

a close second... then New Hampshire was going to be a win, and that would be the end of it. Wrap things up on Super Tuesday.

Oops, major miscalculation, no plan B.

[Tropics_Dude83]

4. What's funny is I bet no one would have predicted..

A crushing HRC loss in Iowa followed by a amazing comeback win in New Hampshire followed by losing the nomination anyway.

[krkaufman]

7. I still remain puzzled by the media spin of "an amazing comeback in New Hampshire"

She'd been leading in the polls for months, and Obama had only recently caught-up to her in NH; so his "lead" was tenuous, at best. Personally, I was surprised that Obama was within 3% in NH.

[sandnsea]

3. Delegates

They tied delegates in NH and he won more delegates in NV. FL & MI did not count. They were heading into Super Tuesday with no back-up. And the racist attacks started coming out in Iowa. This is just who she is.

[Ravy]

5. I don't think it was so much of their words, it was portraying them as racists that did it. nt

[papau]

6. I agree - Obama played the race card and moved the AA split to 80/20

[krkaufman]

8. Sorry, but the card was played by those associated with the Clinton campaign.

Some associated with the Obama campaign, along with the media, simply called them on it.

[Awsi Dooger]

9. Your summary is almost identical to what I've been saying to my dad for a month

Disclosure: my dad and I supported Edwards but knew he had no chance, then preferred Hillary to Obama.

After winning in Nevada there was no reason to contest South Carolina. The demographics were certain to favor Obama, and not by a little bit. I keep an Excel spreadsheet of statewide demographic breakdown and that state was tilted in his favor to the extreme, based on likely splits.

Only the spot on the calendar caused the turn of events. If South Carolina had not been bumped in the schedule there's no way the Clintons would have prioritized it, and therefore likely avoided the implosion among African Americans. Plus, the Clintons maintained false belief they were invulnerable to collapse among blacks due to Bill's presidency.

I do agree with a couple of posts in this thread that Obama, and the media, milked the comments beyond what they were. For one thing, I really wish we had seen the entire tape of Bill Clinton's comments when he mentioned Jesse Jackson. Not merely a supposedly complete transcript. Several people who watched it live insist there were prior questions that led to what he said, that the Jackson comment was not brought out of the blue. But so what. You can't dangle a topic like that without understanding the major boomerang potential.

It's incredible to me how fortunate Obama has been, not taking away from his excellent campaign, but merely a strange boost. South Carolina being moved up impacted the impression of the two candidates from a black perspective. And Florida was originally scheduled for March 4. I'm a native Floridian and I seriously doubt Obama could have overcome his demographic deficit in this state. Stick Florida on the calendar next Tuesday and the narrative changes dramatically, along with the delegate count to some extent. If Hillary were to carry Ohio and Florida, even if narrowly losing Texas, the impression of where the race stands would be markedly different than merely a Texas/Ohio split.

If Hillary wins Texas and Ohio I'll be admittedly ill, since no doubt Florida would have followed suit, and that high populus trifecta would trump the 10-state winning streak, at least in the eyes of super delegates.

[jackson_dem]

10. If she loses it will be because the Clintons were swiftboated on race

This is what the Orwellian "politics of hope" will bring? Give me more of that old politics then...