Clinton Machine Shaken By Setback

[maxparrish]

The scope of Barack Obama's victory in Iowa has shaken the Clinton machine down to its bolts. Donors are panicking. The campaign has been making a round of calls to reassure notoriously fickle "superdelegates" — elected officials and party regulars who are awarded convention spots by virtue of their titles and positions — who might be reconsidering their decisions to back the candidate who formerly looked like a sure winner. And internally, a round of recriminations is being aimed at her chief strategist, Mark Penn, as the representative of everything about her pseudo-incumbent campaign that has been too cautious, too arrogant, too conventional and too clueless as to how much the political landscape has shifted since the last Clinton reign. One adviser summed up the biggest challenge that faces the campaign in two words: "Fresh thinking."

Specifically, those inside the campaign and outside advisers fault Penn for failing to see the Iowa defeat coming. They say he was assuring Clinton and her allies right up until the caucuses that they would win it. Says one: "He did not predict in any way, shape or form the tidal wave we saw." In particular, he had assured them that Clinton's support among women would carry her through. Yet she managed to win only 30% of the women's vote, while 35% of them went for Obama.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5074396#post5074396

Good News Keeps a Coming...

[PaulRevere]

Gee, all the baggage from the scandal-laden Clinton years didn't have anything to do with it did it?

The planted questions from audiences didn't have anything to do with it, did it?

The comical succession of goofy expressions Hillary makes while trying to 'personally connect' with her audience didn't have anything to do with it, did it?

Both her and Obama's messages may sound pretty, but they are hallow; an inch deep. "We need change" is a slogan for a group of street bums, not a presidential candidate, IMO.

[The_Elucidator]

Specifically, those inside the campaign and outside advisers fault Penn for failing to see the Iowa defeat coming.

Her campaign is fatally flawed just like Rudy's is! They initially ignored Iowa and the momentum cost them. Neither will be the nominee now because of it! Both are hoping for a "Super Tuesday" comeback, neither will see it! Good!

[DoctorDoom]

Their mindless, meaningless buzzword is "change", but none of those imbeciles will tell us what "change" they want to affect. As Rush often says, they don't dare to run on the liberal platform, because it loses every time. Ergo they preach pompous platitudes. Their MO: if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

[Kathy30]

Last night's debate did not help Hillary either. She initially looked drugged, or really tired. She had that "get me out of here" look that women reserve for husbands who are too long at the party. Seeing her Ummm through the questions was downright painful.

[Riverboat]

"We need change" is a slogan for a group of street bums, not a presidential candidate, IMO.I DO love this comment!

[dajoga]

Both her and Obama's messages may sound pretty, but they are hallow; an inch deep. "We need change" is a slogan for a group of street bums, not a presidential candidate, IMO.


But that's all the candidates can say when the other party is in the WH! John sKerry's best line was, "We can do better!"

Well, duh, since it's not a perfect world, there's always room for a little improvement! The BIG question is, how do I know a candidate CAN really do better?

[Teenager]

I've been warning for several months that I didn't see Clinton as the big threat, but rather that Obama was. Obama keeps saying "We need change, and I will make change." Yet the only change that he'll bring is impending doom to America and victory for her enemies...

[DesertFox]

Ho cryin' now, so doan nobody say, "It all over but the cryin'."

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=54453