Meg Whitman Will Mount A Second Terrible Political Campaign As Soon As She Figures Out Why The First One Was Terrible

I've been having a great time today, reading on the blogs about one of our favorite candidates of the 2010 cycle, failed California gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman. She was one of the self-funding candidates we tracked because we had a feeling that self-funding is typically the first step on the road to political failure. Rick Scott, in Florida, proved to be the exception to the rule, but in my defense, I'll remind you that Rick Scott is really, really good at defrauding people.

Sayeth the San Francisco Chronicle:

California Republican Meg Whitman's failed $150 million-plus drive to become California governor is barely in the rear view mirror -- but her appearance in San Francisco today, the first public gig since the 2010 election, has sparked buzz that she's thinking about a political comeback.

As Ken Layne points out, "comeback ... is usually a word we reserve for people who have actually succeeded at something, earlier." In this case, it's a term glibly applied to someone who, having failed to win an open seat after spending $160 million, will instead attempt to dislodge an entrenched incumbent in the form of Dianne Feinstein. On the strength of what, exactly? Who knows? That's what Whitman aims to find out. Based on the way this next step is framed, I don't favor her chances:

"Sources say Whitman in the last months has sought a detailed explanation regarding what went wrong in her resounding defeat by Brown ... As one of America's wealthiest women, several in the know suggest she aims to emerge again with a message and a profile on the California politics scene. And fairly soon."

From whom, exactly, is she seeking a "detailed explanation" about "what went wrong?" This is politics: the answer to this question "What went wrong?" is most likely either "You were terrible" or "We, the people from whom you want a detailed explanation, were terrible." If Whitman wants to save a little money -- for once! -- she should just take the help that Peter Feld has on offer.

Or she can buy a "message" and a "profile on the California politics scene," for hundreds of kajillions of dollars. Jesus.

[Hat tip.]

RELATED:
Meg Whitman Now Hoping To Piss Away $$$ By Losing To Feinstein [Wonkette]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[spiralskydancer]

05:57 PM on 01/24/2011

at least she's creating some jobs......

[Zygote9111]

04:20 PM on 01/24/2011

Good. I hope she spends all her ill-gotten loot and loses, AGAIN!

[storeysound]

04:20 PM on 01/24/2011

Here's a detailed explanation of what went wrong with Meg Whitman's gubernatorial campaign.

It was a campaign to get Meg Whitman elected.

Now, how is she going to change that on her next try?

[Elbrando]

04:18 PM on 01/24/2011

Because people don't like her.

[caad4]

04:06 PM on 01/24/2011

Look, we already HAVE a republican representative. Her name is Diane Feinstein. She's been in republican drag since the late 80's.

[Sandra Stipp]

03:57 PM on 01/24/2011

God help California.

[Amber Troska]

03:05 PM on 01/24/2011

Spending money like a politician doesn't make you one.

[Igor13]

02:51 PM on 01/24/2011

I thought the next thing she would mount is "Chico The Wonder Mule".

[simple mind]

02:49 PM on 01/24/2011

If the Chronicle article is accurate, this is a case of the epitome of "All hat, no cattle" politics. Let's imagine Meg running a grocery store that failed. It couldn't possibly be that her produce was rotten, the bread was stale and the food was overpriced. It must be that the store was painted the wrong color. The simple fact is that the people of California didn't want Meg to be Governor. They won't want her to be Senator. Contrary to arrogant neo-politicians like Whitman, its not all in the marketing. Sometimes, the voters actually have an opinion and know what they don't want.

[grf67]

02:06 PM on 01/24/2011

Is whitman under the impression that anyone cares what she thinks? She is just another repub with more money then sense.

[StopMakingSense2]

01:56 PM on 01/24/2011

Go Meg! Nothing funnier than delusions of grandeur.

[pphhrogg]

01:52 PM on 01/24/2011

I think secretly that Meg doesn't like being rich, so she plans to spend ALL of her millions on more failed political campaigns until she is just one of us peons again.

[GaiasChild]

01:26 PM on 01/24/2011

maybe a lack of grass roots support and work? maybe a little corporate ceo arrogance? maybe people don't want to be bought? i don't know.

[Awake-and-Sing]

01:03 PM on 01/24/2011

I am a huge Jerry Brown fan and am thrilled he won.

That said, if Meg Whitman really wants to help California, there are other things she (and all of us) could do to help this state.

All California nonprofits are ailing. That $150 million could make a dramatic difference in the the quality of people's lives and our society by funding those nonprofits struggling to even survive the great recession.

If she wants to influence public policy, she could form a think tank and come up with some new ideas for the state budget and state government.

If she wants to pass along her successful experience, she could start her own educational program to train kids in business and entrepreneurialism, or help the unemployed go into business for themselves.

She could try voting every once in a while in an election.

We don't all have to run for office to make a positive difference in society.

If Meg Whitman sincerely wants to help California, and for argument's sake let us assume she does, there are probably more effective ways for her to do that than running for Governor or U.S. Senator.

If she really wants to run for office, than she should look at running for a local office or a state legislative office. Running statewide when you have no experience in government and no history of even voting is foolhardy.

[lachihuahua]

12:42 PM on 01/24/2011

Meg, the problem was you. Unfortunately, Californian's like our leaders with charisma. You have none. Moreover, we like our leaders to be easy breezy and comfortable. You are and were quite stiff throughout your campaign. That makes us nervous about you. We like our leaders not to treat us like id0ts. You ma'am, did just that with some of your campaign pledges.

It doesn't matter how much money you through at another potential campaign. Unfortunately, you don't fit. It's not personal. It just is. (nn)