excellent aritcle:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-vogel/the-clinton-meltdown_b_88211.html

Dede is right -- look, Stephanopolis got the great gig as heart-throbby man with brain, she didn't. Her more talented brain goes to waste over Gorgeous Georges sellout style. Clinton is the quintessential symbol for women of the modern era, but like the ERA - that hope is of no concern anymore. The big fight over Title 9, which allowed for more equality for women, got skanked by the male predominant social structure. (Eg: Harvard dean comments just two years ago; and the statistical evidence of males getting better attention in grade schools). Guys can't admit it's been their mammas or their wives who got to clean up after them. It's simply indelible. Women belong in the kitchen, or doing favors for men. Obama may end up being the happy lawn jockey in the end for the white boy - but better than having an old nag in charge. Right? Or are you not remembering the tales of men wounded on the battlefield -- crying for their mammas to make the pain go away.

It's real simple, folks. Hillary is losing because of the relentless misogyny and sexism in America. Why women don't wake up to this fact is astounding.

Aside from her good looks, I've also enjoyed DeeDee Meyers perspective. Even though she was forced out, she maintains a healthy perspective and is able to divorce those feelings and think clearly. As a women who has been there and who has laid ground work for the woman doing the same position now, her perspective is very important to me-because, she's been there.

Hillary lost because she grossly overestimated her appeal as a politician and greatly exaggerated her capacity. It has nothing--at all--to do with sexism of any kind. She's just not that compelling.

So Dee-Dee has finally plucked and trimmed her eyebrows I see.

When the question of who voted for whom in the Democratic campaign was examined --


Analysis of exit polls tells us --


1. about 80% to 90% of blacks voted for Obama

2. about 60 % of white men voted for Obama

3. white women favored Clinton by about 10 points.


Taking note of these analyses, the media completely ignored the fact that --

4. blacks tended to vote on the basis of color

5. white males tended to vote on the basis of gender

6. white women tended to give Senator Clinton only around a 10 point margin


On the basis of these exit poll analyses, we need to ask why the pundits accepted the skewed voting of white males and of blacks without comment but continually attributed Senator Clinton's showing to a "women's vote".

Look, fraidycats­...Hillary is NOT FEMININE. Despite the pantsuits, despite the phony tears, despite the make-up and whatever gawdaful fragrance(s) she puts on, she is a masculinistic, scheming, disingenuous coconspirator with husband, Bilk Lint-on. The spot-weld moment for me was when Hillarious was marching around Washington protesting the Dubai Ports Deal while Big Wheelie was over in the Emirates (Dubai-area) coaching the sheiks on how to win-over the American peeples. It has nothing to do with her genitals or her emotional dispostion and in my mind, I doubt she has a zero "Y chromosome count."

There was a day when Nancy Pelosi (about day 33-1/3) looked like a VP candidate to me. I've thought Oprah could be a great influence in Washington if she were given some power. Hey...Suze Orman, Martha Stewart, Caroline Kennedy, Meryl Streep, Babs Streisand...all flawed in their own ways...are WOMEN. Ariana Huffington has her really great days too! I've thought these real women could be great in power. So let's drop the context and phony excuse that because she has functionable mammary glands and other bits which differentiate her, that somehow that is why people don't like her. It is her predatory actions, her insincere countenance, her dependence on philanerous Bill and 300 million other reasons...that creature, Hillary, makes me gag. Yuck, Spit...end of statement.

Lets show some respect everyone. It is President Clinton, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Each of these people have put themselves and their record before the electorate and have been elected. That is something none of us (so far as I can see) can claim. Some of the name calling on here is not only juvenile but more than rude.

Here is a good question?

What if Obama lost 10 straight.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022102159.html?nav=hcmodule

Eugene Robinson

Humor me while we conduct a little thought experiment. Imagine that Barack Obama had lost 10 contests in a row. Imagine that he now trailed Hillary Clinton substantially in the number of Democratic primaries and caucuses won, in total votes cast, in pledged convention delegates, in the overall delegate count, in fundraising and in the ineffable attribute called mojo. Imagine that Obama was struggling, at this late hour, to come up with the right message. What would the conventional wisdom say?

That it was over, of course. That Obama was toast. That staking everything on the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas was a starry-eyed hope, not a plan, and that it was time to smell the coffee.

Whenever Obama faced reporters, he'd have to answer tough questions. Why was he carrying on, knowing that he'd have to win by unrealistically large margins in all the remaining states to catch up? Didn't it worry him that relying on the superdelegates -- the Democratic establishment, basically -- to hand him the nomination could divide and weaken the party? Wasn't he concerned that Republican John McCain has such a head start in unifying his party and plotting his general election campaign?

The above, you will have noticed, is an accurate description of where Clinton stands right now. Yet nobody is forcing her to respond publicly to those painful questions. The reason is obvious: She's Hillary Clinton, and history suggests it's foolish to count out a Clinton until the last dog dies.

Hillary did blow it.

She blew it when she sided with the Neo_Cons on the Kyl-Lieberman vote.

A DC insider should have known that Cheney was holding up the NIE for the reasons we found out.

She should have known this but she sided with the Neo-Cons again. How could she.

It showed that Hillary did not learn anything form her experience of having to defend her Iraq vote for 5 years.

The lesson to be learned was DO NOT TRUST BUSH.

She is paying for it.

She thought politics with her votes instead of what the progressive base wanted.

It was a huge mistake and opened the door for Obama.

So yeah she blew it.

1. A couple of very obvious observations.
HRC's campaign strategy can be described in short order as the following: "If you build it they will come". In other words, being trapped in 1994 w/Netscape 2.0 browser while all the time trying to psyche everyone out by reiterating that the coronation is complete already anyway -- a standard practice rooted in traditional high school dynamics. Except well it's been a while since high school.

2. BO's ground game is simply an established version of what Howard Dean first brought to the table and the likes of McAuliffe and the entire Old Guard DNC etc. thought was churlish, novel and really not going anywhere.

3. The ease in which white male voters have even crossed party lines to vote for BO has as much potentially to do with "sexism" as something even more profound --- specifically that white males actually might feel comfortable w/a black male in a high level govermental capacity. And for that we should thank 41 and 43 --- through them we got years of Colin Powell and Condi Rice (and others too like Rod Page etc.). Say what you want about the Bushes and their policy -- by initiating and appointing people of color into significant cabinet positions, they have indirectly helped make it not such a big deal to consider a black president, let alone help make it possible.

I tried to support Hillary, I honestly did...but the hubris, the campaign of 'inevitability', and then the horrible mismanagement of her own campaign of which I would assume she could be referred to as the 'CEO'? What does that say about her ability to lead on 'day one'? She got blindsided by a rookie from Illinois and she didn't even see it coming

The Hillary Clinton campaign basically displayed what Americans have seen enough of in the W era - hubris. Their primary strategy during this campaign tragically echoes what we've seen in another campaign - the war in Iraq. I in no way wish to denigrate Hillary Clinton or her campaign, but just illustrate some interesting parallels between the two. "Hillary would be greeted as a liberator" they said. There was NO long-term planning and NO "what-if" strategies were developed. The Clinton campaign assumed it could "shock and awe" its challengers and end major combat operations by Super Tuesday. They actually did well up until Super Tuesday, much like US troops did have Iraq under control immediately after the initial invasion. But because they hadn't planned for an "occupation", a long-term slug through the remaining primary states, they were in no position to defend their gains after Super Tuesday. And thus the insurgence began chipping away their control of the situation. They believe the war would cost less than $200 billion (okay, @ $100 million in primary election terms) and did not deploy enough troops on the ground (grass-roots movement anyone?) to keep the lead. Now they're trying to deploy a "surge", only this time, unlike the Iraq war, the Clinton campaign has REAL benchmarks and a timetable to meet - x number of superdelegates by the end of the primary season in the summer. Ironically, unlike the war, the Clintons' can't run up a trillion dollar deficit.
And yes, the Clinton camp had "professionals" with long resumes working on their war plan, however, I would imagine they probably had their share of generals who told them they needed more troops, resources and planning to fight through the primary campaign. Like the Iraq war, they've changed the generals (campaign manager), but haven't fired the major strategist­s/architec­ts of the situation. Some Clinton supporters blame the Iranians/R­epublicans for aiding the insurgents and fail to acknowledge their own missteps in strategy. The Clintons can still win, much as the US can still win in Iraq. But the question is whether in the long-term Iraq or Democratic party can survive the intra-party carnage that grows worse as long as the situation remains unresolved and there is no clear winner. Both Iraq and the Dems need to be viable to face the real challenges OUTSIDE their borders that still lie ahead.

The Hillary Clinton campaign basically displayed what Americans have seen enough of in the W era - hubris. Their primary strategy during this campaign tragically echoes what we've seen in another campaign - the war in Iraq. I in no way wish to denigrate Hillary Clinton or her campaign, but just illustrate some interesting parallels between the two. "Hillary would be greeted as a liberator" they said. There was NO long-term planning and NO "what-if" strategies were developed. The Clinton campaign assumed it could "shock and awe" its challengers and end major combat operations by Super Tuesday. They actually did well up until Super Tuesday, much like US troops did have Iraq under control immediately after the initial invasion. But because they hadn't planned for an "occupation", a long-term slug through the remaining primary states, they were in no position to defend their gains after Super Tuesday. And thus the insurgence began chipping away their control of the situation. They believe the war would cost less than $200 billion (okay, @ $100 million in primary election terms) and did not deploy enough troops on the ground (grass-roots movement anyone?) to keep the lead. Now they're trying to deploy a "surge", only this time, unlike the Iraq war, the Clinton campaign has REAL benchmarks and a timetable to meet - x number of superdelegates by the end of the primary season in the summer. Ironically, unlike the war, the Clintons' can't run up a trillion dollar deficit.
And yes, the Clinton camp had "professionals" with long resumes working on their war plan, however, I would imagine they probably had their share of generals who told them they needed more troops, resources and planning to fight through the primary campaign. Like the Iraq war, they've changed the generals (campaign manager), but haven't fired the major strategist­s/architec­ts of the situation. Some Clinton supporters blame the Iranians/R­epublicans for aiding the insurgents and fail to acknowledge their own missteps in strategy. The Clintons can still win, much as the US can still win in Iraq. But the question is whether in the long-term Iraq or Democratic party can survive the intra-party carnage that grows worse as long as the situation remains unresolved and there is no clear winner. Both Iraq and the Dems need to be viable to face the real challenges OUTSIDE their borders that still lie ahead.