The Clinton campaign - what went wrong

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton, rival Barack Obama planned for the long haul.

Clinton hinged her whole campaign on an early knockout blow on Super Tuesday, while Obama's staff researched congressional districts in states with primaries that were months away. What they found were opportunities to win delegates, even in states they would eventually lose.

Obama's campaign mastered some of the most arcane rules in politics, and then used them to foil a front-runner who seemed to have every advantage—money, fame and a husband who had essentially run the Democratic Party for eight years as president.

"Without a doubt, their understanding of the nominating process was one of the keys to their success," said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist not aligned with either candidate. "They understood the nuances of it and approached it at a strategic level that the Clinton campaign did not."

Careful planning is one reason why Obama is emerging as the nominee as the Democratic Party prepares for its final three primaries, Puerto Rico on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. Attributing his success only to soaring speeches and prodigious fundraising ignores a critical part of contest.

Obama used the Democrats' system of awarding delegates to limit his losses in states won by Clinton while maximizing gains in states he carried. Clinton, meanwhile, conserved her resources by essentially conceding states that favored Obama, including many states that held caucuses instead of primaries.

In a stark example, Obama's victory in Kansas wiped out the gains made by Clinton for winning New Jersey, even though New Jersey had three times as many delegates at stake. Obama did it by winning big in Kansas while keeping the vote relatively close in New Jersey.

...

What made it especially hard for Clinton to catch up was that Obama understood and took advantage of a nominating system that emerged from the 1970s and '80s, when the party struggled to find a balance between party insiders and its rank-and-file voters.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

[mawilson 2,133]

Nothing went wrong - no-one can stop her march to nomination

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[Peikko 1,575]

Very interesting assessment. However, is understanding how to win the nomination race and being a great candidate one and the same? We shall see.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Very interesting assessment. However, is understanding how to win the nomination race and being a great candidate one and the same? We shall see.

Strategy is more than half the battle. In the primaries as in the general election. I think that Obama has some gains to make from working hard to put additional states into play. Not putting all the focus on going after the usual suspects once again - as Hillary clearly indicates she would - might just be what tips this thing one way or the other. Again, Obama outperformed and outmaneuvered the Clintons; he did what half a year ago was clear to everyone couldn't be done.

[ginger1981 0]

However, the question is can Obama beat McCain? I have to say that that will be the big question come convention time.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

However, the question is can Obama beat McCain? I have to say that that will be the big question come convention time.

If that question is raised at the convention, then there won't be a need for a campaign. If the Democrats do not go to Denver united, McCain will be President in Jan 2009.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am no expert on American politics, but that last statement really sounds like some kind of cop out. Whether you think it's 'fair' that Hillary keeps on going or not, she is not doing anything that is against Democratic party rules and it is less than reasonable to suppose that this is all some Hillary conspiracy to ensure her own election at some future date.

It is way too easy to just blame Hillary for future losses rather than making an effort to find out what Barack could/should be doing differently to persuade current Clinton supporters to switch from her to him. It is also rather sloppy reasoning to suppose that registered Democrats have the only say in how the presidential election will be determined. Barack has to have his sights set on independants if he wants to win presidential election and I personally would think him a pretty poor candidate if he blames Hillary's part in the nomination process for his loss in the actual presidential election should that come to pass.

I said before and I will say again he can and should be a lot clearer on the policies he would implement should he become elected and spend less time just saying we need a change. I think 'change' as a platform is akin to the 'gas tax holiday' which for the record I also believe is a crock.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am no expert on American politics, ...

You're clearly not. There has not been a successful candidate coming out of a contentious convention. On either side of the spectrum. It's just that simple.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Maybe she's not, but her analysis was pretty spot on

[Peikko 1,575]

Fair enough, if it is 'just that simple' but it seems to me to be ridiculous.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Fair enough, if it is 'just that simple' but it seems to me to be ridiculous.

I didn't write the history. It just presents itself this way.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Sen. Clinton must have been reading the polls when the process began and presumed that she had it locked-up. This is a perfect example of keeping on top of your game and not settling because you feel entitled or that your success is eminent. What a shame...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Careful planning is one reason why Obama is emerging as the nominee as the Democratic Party prepares for its final three primaries, Puerto Rico on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. Attributing his success only to soaring speeches and prodigious fundraising ignores a critical part of contest.

Say it ain't so.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[metta 0]

Very interesting assessment. However, is understanding how to win the nomination race and being a great candidate one and the same? We shall see.

Well, think Karl Rove and George W. Bush or Jody Powell, Ham Jordan and Jimmy Carter.

Barack is a great candidate alright and aided by a veteran startegist Axelrod who was HRC's senate campaign strategist (former insider).

The question is, will he be a good POTUS for this given moment in history?