Hillary under-estimated voters hunger for change?

[kentuck]

From the moment she brought Bill into her campaign, she thought voters would be in a rush to return to the "good ol' days" of the Clinton Administration. She believed that was her ace in the hole. Just bring out Bill.

However, after the Iowa election, it appears she has miscalculated. Voters do not want to return to the good ol' days. They want to move forward into the future. And the young people, at least in Iowa, are leading the charge. They voted over-whelmingly for Obama. They may have waited until the last second but it appears that the young folks have decided to step up to the plate and join the political discussion in this country. That is a good thing.

The voters are saying they do not like the Republicans. But they are also saying they do not wish to return to the Clinton years. Unless Hillary recognizes that fact, she will remain mired in the questions of the past. It is about the future. That is Obama's appeal.

No doubt, many of the old politicos in the Hillary camp are scratching their heads this morning, trying to figure out what went wrong in Iowa? Do they go negative on Obama? What can they do to turn the tide? They have to understand that it is about message. It is not about experience or accomplishments. Obama has neither in great abundance. He has message.

[razorman]

1. I think that the word, "change" has been used and abused so much,

that is has ceased to have much meaning to the public. Besides, Hillary has a really tough time convincing folks that she represents anything but business as usual in politics. What change has she actually introduced? Experience? Show us the details. We have a right to know these things if she expects us to vote for her. I'm willing to be convinced, but I have to see much more proof than I have so far.

[PATRICK]

2. To be fair

she may not have under-estimated anything. Her hands are really tied in the kinds of strategy that works for her. She might have been more adept at marginalizing Iowa but she was drawn in nonetheless by the very success of her front runner strategy and the vocal debate with Obama who broke the Hillary advantaged plan and decided to go for it. It sounds simple and maybe that she got blindsided by poor judgment, or that it was simply vulnerable to challenge by uncooperative rivals. If it true that her strategy is fixedly precarious like this maybe she should now think twice about continuing. All the smarts in the world can't break through some losing situations and at the least the REAL test looks much more ominous in the fall. Only massive ego can dismiss these cracks in the dam, but that is the nature of politicians like all champions, not to give in that easily. She still has very legitimate reasons to forge ahead.

[kentuck]

3. Perhaps she should consider leaving Bill at home...

and running on her own? Would that be more effective?

[razorman]

5. I think that a part of her problem is that she has tried the strategies

and techniques that worked so well for her husband, but she does not have his political talents. Hillary is not Bill.

[PATRICK]

9. And she is necklaced

by Bill right into burdening her presidency. Part of the innate counterweights she is pushing down the center of the road. There are no innate talents to escape this.

[razorman]

17. And there is the American aversion to dynasties, be they either Bush or Clinton.

[dmosh42]

6. What will really count is Feb 5!......

As long as she doesn't make any big mistakes between now and then, then her 'big money political machines' will take over in Cal., NY, etc. I'm not a supporter, but I wouldn't count her out.

[PATRICK]

10. I wouldn't either

but by some of that possible logic we should have done peachy keen in Iraq as well. Some of the trouble is inevitably self-defined whatever possible triumphs might be rationalized. I don't think her campaign can be capable of making that happen. Her rivals would have to melt down and reality accommodate.

[Toots]

14. They are a TEAM and always have been

She could no more leave Bill at home than she could abandon Chelsey. They were a STRONG TEAM in Bills time and they will continue to be one no matter where they end up. Bill never made a single decision without consulting Hillary. Not one..(leaving out his sexual dalliances) Every single adviser during the Clinton Administration said that was the way it was. If you elect a Clinton you do indeed get two for the price of one..

[KharmaTrain]

4. Hillary Blew Golden Opportunities

Yep...I agree...she thought that people were so fed up with boooshie and the Repugnicans we'd have a "Happy Days" nostalgia for all things 90's/Clinton and that she would bring back those halcyon days. It was a calculation that might have won had she been on record against the Iraq war or had spearheaded opposition to this regime...she didn't and it all rings hollow.

I think many people, including myself, were willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on some things she's done or that she had a role in the Clinton administration...however, she's not Bill and those who bothered to look closely at her record sees it. In my case it was her support of the Kyl/Libermann ammendment that is oen bridge too far...this just verified she had no regrets on that Iraq vote and wasn't the "agent of change" in this area...then when the NIE came out that debunked Iran's nukes, she took a bigger tumble as it was obvious she did't do due dilligence...took boooshie's word again. That's not the leader I was looking for.

There's definitely a booooosh/Clinton fatigue that is at play in this election. Repugnicans avoid mentioning boooshie's name at all costs...and Hillary is now getting some backlash by people who, while not rejecting much of what the Clinton 90s were about, but sure are tired of the partisanship and "triangulation."

Iowa proved what many of us have been seeing/feeling...people want a REAL change...not a name change. They want to look forward, not backwards. Hillary can't offer that future since she's so strongly tied herself to the past.

[salin]

13. I think that is a good analysis... and I would be warmer

to her if she had been taken a role in "righting the wrongs" taht we are learning about the Bush administration. When this race started what I wanted to see was someone who could grasp the extent to which our government has been f*cked up - I mean the outright politicization from top to bottom of the civil service which then plays out in the administration of govt, and the extreme damage done to our system of justice (and the degradation of the Constitution). The war is a big deal to me, the Kyl/Lieberman vote is - for the reasons you state - a big deal to me and indicate a lack of healthy skepticism OR that political calculations outweighed healthy skepticism. So while I wasn't thrilled with her - of those in the race that are in striking distance, she really does have the ability to fully comprehend how compromised our government has become and there for could start early on trying to get the right people in to begin to comprehensively deal with righting things. But those votes - esp Kyl Lieberman, really undermines my belief that she had the advantage of the wisdom/experience to get the scope of the job ahead - those votes make me think that she wouldn't necessarily impliment such changes. Not because of nefarious reasons - but because she would be seeking the next move - on what ever front - that fits certain political calculus.

*sigh*

You can guess that I was one who was DYING for Gore to get into the race.

[KharmaTrain]

15. We Are Where We Are

I've sat blissfully uncommitted for the reasons we're seeing play out right now. Yes, I would have loved President Gore to have run or a Russ Feingold but the real world says different and I appreciate what it takes to run a campaign and the toll it takes on a person.

Despite being my junior Senator, I, like many felt Senator Obama wasn't ready for prime time and that his inexperience on the national level would be problematic. I really like Senator Edwards, but I could see a year ago that his campaign was going to suffer from both cash and publicity in the shadows of both Clinton and Obama and he needed something to break out. He hasn't...and that's a shame. Even the support from the netroots hasn't helped. So that leaves Hillary. And it sounds like we've had similar adventures in soul searching about her candidacy and viability.

Now that we've heard from the first set of Democratic voters, my mind is getting a stronger indication of what both the party and electorate is looking for. I've seen it in canvassing, but now this verifies that change and new faces are what people are looking for. They're tired of negative...the corporate media and want a fresh start in '08....similar to how JFK was a clean start for Democrats in '60 and Raygun was for Repugnicans in '80. Hillary is not that change agent...and her "experience" is also suspect.

Sit back and enjoy the show, my friend...this compressed primary schedule will make the next month both interesting and amusing.

[salin]

16. I almost wish I could wave a wand...

and be at the mid February with all the dust settled and a pretty good idea of how the rest of the primaries will play out.

If I lean anywhere it is towards Edwards - but that is not for the experience (his is but more than Obama and Clinton's) but for his 'fight'. But I don't see how he has the money to keep going unless Hillary or Obama flames out (which I just don't see happening at this moment). Plus - TPM raised a question on Friday - the FEC essentially has just stopped functioning due to Senate Confirmation slowdowns that started when bushco nominated one of the corrupted DOJers (who helped f*ckup the civil rights division) as one of the chairs- and the dems refused and in protest McConnell pulled off the table *any* discussion of replacing the two vacant (of four) chairs. So the question raised - is what happens to the distribution of federal campaign dollars with this shut down?

[droidamus2]

7. Not really true

As I found out on another political site the Iowa caucus was actually a statistical tie. Ok, I don't like the electoral college idea very much but that is basically how the Iowa system works. The votes you get earn you delegates, so the only use of the 'popular' vote is in calculating the number of delegates each candidate receives. According to the site Obama received 16 delegates, Clinton - 15 and Edwards 14. Of course the msm zeros in on the 'popular' vote. Does this mean the 'popular' vote has no meaning, of course not, Obama did a great job in Iowa and deserves to be seen as the winner. On the other hand this idea that Clinton and Edwards are now in big trouble because a small midwestern state did not select them number one is ridiculous. I used to live in California and it always made me angry when the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary were over and the msm was already telling us who the candidates were going to be. I think the media pushes their own agenda as far as what candidates they really support. Hopefully the public will not be fooled this time and we will have a real battle for the nomination.

[kentuck]

8. Iowa and NH are important to the media ...

Because those are two states that the media can manipulate to their way of thinking without having to appeal to the nation at large. Regional primaries should be the wave of the future.

[Annces]

11. I am glad that she is not automatically in #1

and that people want to chose and not be chosen for. She plays it safe, but that does not always work.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

12. Hillary's oppressive / dull health plan: blind-sided by the Safeway model?

No doubt about it: we have to do something about obesity and diabetes.
But Hillary may have been too impressed by the one-year-success of the supermarket chain,
Safeway, which brought down health costs by 11%, I believe, by a mixture of bullying and
cajoling the employees. There was also a good use of nurses involved, I recall.

She and her advisers went overboard with that, I suggest. There are many ways
to bring down obesity and excess use of emergency rooms. No need to rely entirely
on HMOs and such learning to emulate Safeway. And no need to rush to install
a system of mandates, which could be so hard on many of the working poor.

Instead, Hillary, or any Democratic candidate, might begin with
1) some good laws to restrict various health industry abuses,
2) a lot of encouragement. To exercise. To gain knowledge of health science.
Go on good, walking-swimming-hiking-canoing vacations,
if you can afford the time off.
Try to persuade industries to allow the time off.

Of course, there's more that would be needed.

But my point is that there is room for excitement here
(before starting in on those mandates).