digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at time.com

The Five Mistakes Clinton Made

time.com — It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • livegreenordie, on 05/08/2008, -17/+1Good comment, bad link!
    • Frost9999, on 05/08/2008, -4/+9If Clinton made it to the next election, and got voted in - your presidents would have been from only 2 families four times in a row... Bush Snr, Clinton, Bush Jnr, then a Clinton again... That seems wrong to me.
      • Cowboy1015, on 05/08/2008, -2/+7why? because of the alternate pattern?
        would it be better if... Bush Snr, Bush Jr, Clinton, Clinton?
        • Frost9999, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7Yes, yes that was my point exactly, the pattern is ugly.
      • 666dorado, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3it's all one big white inbred family anyway, with every single other candidate out there...that's why obama is so refreshing.
      • dOOBiEx213, on 05/08/2008, -5/+2I agree with your comment, and I'm against dynasties. But what the ***** did your comment have to do with the one you replied to? OHH, I see... you're looking for attention. Ok, carry on.
  • suwoo244, on 05/08/2008, -17/+108#6: Being a bitch.
    • craineum, on 05/08/2008, -2/+11Being herself
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 05/08/2008, -10/+67# Thinking she would have total blind support of the media, like the Clinton's had the last time they were President. She should have known that they would jump behind the cool black candidate who is a better public speaker (because lets face it, there no policy difference between them).
      • tatical, on 05/08/2008, -5/+6buried for:

        "(because lets face it, there no policy difference between them)"
        • yojiffyskippy, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1Actually that part was true but "blind support of the media"? Give me a break. While that may have been true during his first term, the second term was awash with Clinton bashing (most but not all for good reason).
    • thomash, on 05/08/2008, -2/+9it's not a serious comment but i get really ***** off at the polarization that happens in american politics. if obama weren't there clinton would be the hero on digg and mccain would be the bitch.
      everything is always black and white here. i believe obama is a better choice too but it doesn't make me hate his opponent immediately. no matter if she made some stupid mistakes or not.
      • craineum, on 05/08/2008, -5/+7I agree! I just hate all of them, since they are all politicians.
        • 471776, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5How is that better? There are some people who get into politics for the right reasons. It's stupid and ignorant to say "all politicians are evil, unconditionally".
          • austinhamon, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2i agree with you about stereotypes but unfortunately there aren't but a handful of politicians left that do things for the right reasons
      • citizenchan, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Thing is she did more than just make stupid mistakes. There was unnecessary and underhanded bashing of Obama, changes of political views and stances, a couple retarded ideas like a Gas Tax holiday...wtf. So, it's not just "mistakes."
      • jamesLankford, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1no she wouldn't, there are many middle of the road republicans, like myself, who hate Hillary, and would hate her just as much if Obama weren't around
      • Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that a lot of the hostility that people have against Clinton is that she's a women. I respect her as a candidate, and those who support her have noble reasons they can attest to for why they would support her (her healthcare plan IS more universal than Obama's). As an Obama supporter, I even feel myself lowering myself down to a basic level where I call her a "bitch" because it is such an instinctual thing to call female competitors. If she was a male candidate, would we be using similar terminology? If you oppose Clinton, don't polarize this countries political system anymore than it is by degrading all humanity from her campaign.
    • Homerr, on 05/08/2008, -1/+16#8 She had a complete lack of integrity. LYING about the sniper fire was the cherry on top of a string of lies, falsehoods, and diversionary attacks instead of her being herself.
      • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8Maybe she WAS being herself, ever think about that? Ever wonder why Richardson defected? People who know her, know she is awful.
      • Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Way to play into character politics. I'm sorry, but stop being such a tool for talking points. I say this as an Obama supporter who supported Obama after a close analysis of his policy positions.
    • ClevelandBrown, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2#9 Housing a vicious monstrosity of a creature in her snizz
    • whiterice0, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3I hear she shot JFK too.
    • sailor, on 05/08/2008, -2/+210. murder
      11. greed
      12. lies
      13. bill
    • jamesLankford, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1that's exactly what I was going to say
  • bitfreak, on 05/08/2008, -4/+139I've said this before, and I still think it's accurate. She started this campaign with $100-108M (estimates for around January), the support of most of the DNC heavyweights and superdelegates, and was the presumptive nominee. People referred to the "Clinton Fundraising Machine" with awe. She had (and still has) massive name recognition, and coming into the race had the support of a good chunk of the African American vote (the was a Clinton bragging right, "the Black vote"). Along comes a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama, a freshman Senator, with a very small amount of money in the beginning; a virtual nobody. And he beat her. It's not just that; consider how much ground he had to cover just to break even with her, let alone pass her up. She has a former president campaigning every day, Obama does not. So Obama is basically beating 2 Clintons (I don't count the Clinton Jr.). The fall from her pedestal is eclipsed only by her arrogance; her hubris was the bullet that killed her. Want more? Look at how the campaigns have been run; organizationally, fund raising, consistency, or any other metric of your choice. He beats her there too. The nomination was hers to lose, and she did so in Grand fashion. Obama earned this nomination with hard work, solid planning, and a consistently open and honest message. I think he earned the right to play tomorrow by laying well today; she did not.
    • cashman57, on 05/08/2008, -5/+30Obama is biracial
      • neognostic, on 05/08/2008, -5/+2It's a Kodak moment, cashman57 made a thoughtful comment! Stop the presses! ;-)
      • Lyk4n, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5How is that thoughtful?
    • bitfreak, on 05/08/2008, -3/+5I made a typo in the last sentence: "laying", which should have been PLAYING. My bad.
      • bpoteat, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8i just assumed it was a figure of speech I've never heard. :)
    • Flamancot, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Say word.
    • plhearn, on 05/08/2008, -7/+7how many times are you gonna copy and paste the same message? get some originality.
      • bitfreak, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4I've said this before, and I still think it's accurate. She started this campaign with $100-108M (estimates for around January), the support of most of the DNC heavyweights and superdelegates, and was the presumptive nominee. People referred to the "Clinton Fundraising Machine" with awe. She had (and still has) massive name recognition, and coming into the race had the support of a good chunk of the African American vote (the was a Clinton bragging right, "the Black vote"). Along comes a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama, a freshman Senator, with a very small amount of money in the beginning; a virtual nobody. And he beat her. It's not just that; consider how much ground he had to cover just to break even with her, let alone pass her up. She has a former president campaigning every day, Obama does not. So Obama is basically beating 2 Clintons (I don't count the Clinton Jr.). The fall from her pedestal is eclipsed only by her arrogance; her hubris was the bullet that killed her. Want more? Look at how the campaigns have been run; organizationally, fund raising, consistency, or any other metric of your choice. He beats her there too. The nomination was hers to lose, and she did so in Grand fashion. Obama earned this nomination with hard work, solid planning, and a consistently open and honest message. I think he earned the right to play tomorrow by laying well today; she did not.
    • TJSnodgrass, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1It was a monumental collapse. There will be a great movie made about this campaign one day. In the distant future. please god in the distant future.
      • Lyk4n, on 05/08/2008, -0/+10Hillary can be played by Kurt Russell..
        • netant, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1And if they can't get Russell, Paul Giamatti would make an effective stand-in.
    • SPThom, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7Although I don't think Clinton has done much to help her own cause, I don't feel its fair to act like it's all her wrongdoing. Obama surpassed her because he's amazingly well-spoken and charismatic, he shows qualities of leadership and wisdom that we haven't seen for ages. It would be hard for anyone to compete with that.
      • oldgal, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2I would have to add:
        - the skill with which he managed and organized his campaign;
        - choosing a high-quality, effective campaign staff;
        - effective use of the internet/social networking to engage supporters and put them to work.
        i.e. skills that are key to being a successful executive
    • Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1As an Obama supporter, I actually bet my friend $20 at the start of the primaries that Clinton would win because I needed a way to make up for the depression of knowing Obama would lose. Amazingly, Obama managed to catch up with Clinton after being 20-30 percentage points behind her. I guess they weren't lying when they ran their campaign on the theme of "hope" - it really worked.
  • chicoer2001, on 05/08/2008, -4/+40Another mistake: Still being in the race
    • Cowboy1015, on 05/08/2008, -10/+2Huh? How is being still in the race a mistake? Can you please make some sense.
  • lsumed, on 05/08/2008, -1/+59Thank you Iowa.
    • smackjack, on 05/08/2008, -3/+14Seriously. If Obama didn't win Iowa, this race would have ended a long time ago.
    • Genady, on 05/08/2008, -1/+19You're welcome.
    • trentrezn0r, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Really, Thank you!

      The Iowa caucuses took the time to discuss the issues between the candidates at depth, not just relying on the mainstream media spoon feedings to base their decisions. Caucus are the most honest way of holding an election. You see everyone's pick emerge in front of you. No anonymity or mysterious votes there.

      For Iowa to go Obama, that was on the main reasons Obama's next states when his way, making his entire run possible. Iowa has a big responsibility going first in the primaries, and they sure lived up to it this year.

      It wouldn't have been possible without Iowa.
      Thank you!

      P.S. Hope we can count on you again in November...
      • sovereign3, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1"P.S. Hope we can count on you again in November...

        ^I wouldn't count on it bud.

    • jj2me, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Except for the corn-based ethanol pandering that came with the Iowa caucus, which turned out to be a contributor to world hunger.
      • Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1lol you are so right too. Oh well, I guess as they say: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs!
  • mwilke, on 05/08/2008, -3/+5Great Article
  • whiterice0, on 05/08/2008, -25/+7From the article:
    1) She misjudged the mood
    2) She didn't master the rules
    3) She underestimated the caucus states
    4) She relied on old money
    5) She never counted on a long haul

    So what you're saying is she didn't play the political game as well as Obama? She could still be the better candidate and better leader, but she just wasn't as crafty. Good point.
    • glucoseboy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+11No, it doesn't say she doesn't play the political game as well, it says that all she can play is politics. Surrounding herself with people who were more loyal than capable, which is the lynch-pin to the whole problem.
      It came up in during that time when two key campaign advisers were forced out., if she can't manage her campaign, how can she manage the country?
      • Lyk4n, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4That's the real question here, I haven't heard a single one of her supporters counter that either..
    • Thayer75, on 05/08/2008, -1/+10More like Obama was better organized and is a more inspirational speaker. For all Clinton's talk of Obama being an elitist, he actually has a better understanding of the ethos of the American people than she does.

      Part of the downfall of Clinton's campaign was that she couldn't even keep her own house in order. All her campaign advisers were telling her conflicting strategies and there was internal bickering. At some point the leader of the campaign, the presidential hopeful, has to step up and instill unity in her own campaign. The basis of the article was that Clinton wasn't prepared and made some costly mistakes. She started off with a huge advantage and lost it. If she can't even run a successful campaign, how can she run a country? We don't need more poor planning.
    • dystopian108, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5No, what the article is saying is Sen Obama's team mastered the game and had substance to back it up. Sen Clinton had the "Here's why I have the keys to the White House" mentality instead of the "Here's why you should give me the keys to the White House" mentality. Obama crushed her on winning over the 'turn the page' voters who didn't want the perceived inevitable candidate (Clinton).

      1) She misjudged the mood [Voters didn't want the establishment/experience, they wanted change]
      2) She didn't master the rules [She only focused on throwing long bomb passes ("big states") instead of mixing up her game with all states]
      3) She underestimated the caucus states [...who came through huge for Obama time and time again.]
      4) She relied on old money [It was funny to see her campaign emails go from asking for almost only $50 & $100 amounts to the 'give what you can' mimicking Obama..but she was too little too late]
      5) She never counted on a long haul [Early on her campaign was spending like they just got their Christmas bonus]

      Therefore, it wasn't about being crafty but more so smart like Obama which shows the better candidate and leader.
    • acroyear2, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2There's nothing "crafty" about playing a good game. My god, you're really grasping at straws here.



      You: So what you're saying here is she wasn't crafty enough to get more delegates by campaigning better in caucus states and planning ahead and appealing to more, small, donors? I don't want a president who thinks ahead. I want Hillary Clinton.
  • jstohler, on 05/08/2008, -1/+57Mark Penn not understanding about proportional allocation is crazy. What a *****.
    • Zipko, on 05/08/2008, -0/+10To be fair, I'm sure he understands how it works but it is absurd that he didn't know those were the rules. The quote in the article makes it sound like someone told him the primary had proportional allocation and he responded by saying "good, we'll win California and get a 370 delegate boost."
      • Schmapdi, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3yeah, he doesn't seem to be worth the millions he was paid.
    • Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Before the first primaries, the race looked absolutely hopeless for Obama. The situation was so bleak and insurmountable. To see that they actually pulled off a win and beat Clinton is amazing and a testament to the theme of 'Hope' that their campaign ran on.
  • santiago1, on 05/08/2008, -6/+10 Picking the wrong day to quit sniffing glue?
    • Zipko, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5Surely there must be something she can do.
    • tsaxer, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8No there isn't. And don't call me Shirley.
  • skidme, on 05/08/2008, -14/+33Clinton is bad Clinton smells Clinton eats panda bears Clinton eats endangered baby eagles Clinton has threesomes with the devil and saddam Clinton pollutes the environment Clinton has money and doesn't share Clinton has 666 tattooed on her appendix Clinton has 2girls1cup as her screensaver Clinton is behind goatse Clinton hates gta Clinton fathered hitler Clinton likes country music

    That about sums it up.
    • thescimitar, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8That is the best summation of our political discourse, on both sides of the aisle, that I have ever seen.
    • whiterice0, on 05/08/2008, -8/+6The Digg herd doesn't even see the sarcasm in the comment. They're digging you up because they really feel that way. Sort of like they're blind. Bizarre, huh?
      • petebot, on 05/08/2008, -3/+13I have a feeling they're digging the sarcasm.
      • Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I dugg you up when I really meant to digg you down. Maybe I really am I blind, hopeless digger... *****.
    • plhearn, on 05/08/2008, -8/+4Every Obamabot argument ever made packed into one paragraph. Bravo!
    • chavarin, on 05/08/2008, -5/+2Ha. Cute. whiterice0: "I'm the only one who understands jokes, I liked good charlotte before it was popular."
    • absurdist, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2HEY... Don't insult the Goatse!!!!!11one
  • dnields, on 05/08/2008, -10/+5He married Hillary.... oh, wait... we're not talking about Bill, are we?
  • mxmj, on 05/08/2008, -1/+16Only five...?
  • Pyehole, on 05/08/2008, -13/+7Her first mistake, was being Hillary Clinton.
    • whiterice0, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6As opposed to say, Abraham Lincoln with a uterus. (Things are pretty strange around here).
      • Pyehole, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2I'd believe she has a beard that she just keeps shaved. But I cannot identify any other similarities to Abe Lincoln in HRC. Well, aside from them both being gay perhaps.
  • hydroplane, on 05/08/2008, -1/+70#1 Thinking she is entitled to the presidency.
    • Lyk4n, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5No one is entitled to lead any nation, it should be earned.
    • billyfalconer, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5She's been quoted saying she believes that Obabma thinks he's the one who acts like he's entitled to be president. She really is clueless about how she's perceived. She's always seemed like a person who doesn't understand what basic ethics are. And I'm someone who voted for her sleazebag husband twice.
    • Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Obama's message of unity was brilliant because Clinton's rhetoric only further contrasted Obama's message. It worked perfectly against her.
  • chrgrose, on 05/08/2008, -7/+10#0: Getting the idea that she would be a good president.
  • crushtheenemy, on 05/08/2008, -18/+6#6 she's a woman
    • SteeleJK, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1lolz.
    • SwordofKahless, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Why is he being dugg down? Male Dems have less of a problem with race than they do gender.
      • Xondar, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1If you think that, then you are clueless to how the world works.
  • patpl22391, on 05/08/2008, -7/+8The Clinton's will manage to get Michigan and Florida counted, party leaders know that they cannot disenfranchise two very important battle ground states. Democrats are screwed either way this election. If they go with Obama, they risk losing blue collar white workers, and if they go with Clinton, african-americans will feel that the nomination was stolen from them. The only possible solution I see is a joint ticket, but Clinton won't settle for second place, and Obama certainly wouldn't want to be associated with the Clinton name.
    • IphtashuFitz, on 05/08/2008, -0/+10They may get them counted, but the Democratic party won't allow all those delegates to do to Clinton. In order to maintain fairness the most likely outcome is that they'll split the delegates 50/50 between Clinton and Obama, meaning that their numbers are effectively moot anyway. There's no way the Clintons could convince the DNC to give all, or even the majorty, of those delegates to Hillary.
    • prolix21, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7they'd have to do a re-vote in Michigan though, obama wasn't even on the ballot since he was playing by the rules. hillary shouldn't be awarded delegates won by ignoring party rules.
      • IphtashuFitz, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Exactly why I said the most likely outcome is that the DNC will split those delegates 50/50 among the two candidates.
      • Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I think it was pretty stupid on Obama's part to drop his name on the ballot. I think every bloody person saw it coming that those races would become important. I almost feel as if he dropped his name off the ballot more because he knew he would do bad, and by not being on the ballot, he could further reinforce his stance that their votes shouldn't count.
    • cresswga, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Dean has already said that they will be seated but, as he is as keen for this race to be over as everyone else, do not expect anything other than the 50/50 split that IphtashuFitz mentions.
    • ClawBlade, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4I've said it before, if Michigan is disenfranchised to voting Democratic, it's going to be because our white, female, Clinton supporting, Democratic Governor has done nothing but make a bigger mess out of our economy than it already was.

      That said, the Michigan "vote" was a complete farce, only having one viable candidate on the ballot, and not being counted. I wouldn't say that anyone I know has felt at all disenfranchised because of the stripping of our delegates, the only impact I noticed was that more people stayed home from the poles because their candidate of choice wasn't available.

      Hell, I wonder if it wasn't all a big conspiracy to get Clinton some skewed results she could dip into if the rest of the country who followed the rules didn't go her way. Clinton supporters called the shots to make us not count, Clinton stayed on the ballet, coincidence? Or did I have too much Kool-Aid with lunch?
  • BrendanSheehan, on 05/08/2008, -6/+26#7. Forgot she was running against one of the best presidential potentials in US history.
    • mweflen, on 05/08/2008, -9/+1WTF does this even mean?
      • BrendanSheehan, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4It means she forgot she was running against one of the best presidential potentials in US history.
      • burnblue, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3What it means is that Obama is a type of politician many people say they haven't seen in their lifetime. Remember the Kennedy comparisons. Remember the chills running up Chris Matthews' leg.
        • timmythepenquin, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0Remember how Kennedy was shot...
    • fleischner, on 05/08/2008, -20/+4I just threw up in my mouth a bit. He's OBJECTIVELY the WORST presidential potentials in US history.
      • Gerz1219, on 05/08/2008, -1/+16You might want to look up the word "objective". It doesn't mean what you think it means.
        • fleischner, on 05/08/2008, -11/+1Yes, it means exactly what I think it means. You know -- it's not my opinion that an ultra-Left, super-inexperienced, America-bashing, terrorist- and racist-praising youngster is the worst potential president in history.
        • AYork, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5So you're saying you can feel it in your gut, that he's objectively the worst?
          • vikblazin, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1yea, that would be subjective.....
        • wacomwacoff, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Oh, I see! You're one of those parrots who repeats what they see on Digg without actually thinking about it.
          Ok, let's see... he's not ultra-left by any stretch, he's a populist. He's got more experience than Hillary does and passed more bills in his first years as a Senator than she did. He's never bashed America in any way, shape, or form. He has never praised a terrorist. Rev. Wright is not a racist in any way, so he's not a racist-praiser, either. And yeah, he's young. So was JFK. Sounds good to me.
        • petebot, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
        • fleischner, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1I just listed why and none of those things came from my gut. Defend them if you want to try, but I don't expect much.
          • robdiggity, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Gut? No, perhaps not.

            Ass? Absolutely.
          • fleischner, on 05/08/2008, -7/+1I rest my case. When confronted with facts, expect name-calling and juvenile "jokes" from liberals. Those are the people who support The Manchurian Candidate, BHO.
          • robdiggity, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3I am a registered republican, and have been for 18 years. Are you even old enough to vote?

            Common sense spans politics. The ability to spot a douche from a mile off transcends politics. Guess what? I see you!

            You haven't listed any facts. You have however spewed tons of nonsense and unfounded garbage. Clearly you are a troll. You're fun!
        • fleischner, on 05/08/2008, -8/+1@wacomwacoff: now you're just lying. He has been rated the MOST liberal senator. He's not a populist, he's a deceiving upper-crust elitist. He's bashed America in many ways, as has his wife. His relationship with William Ayers is traitorous. And to say Wright is not a racist in any way is the final nail on your coffin of obvious, blatant, and just completely ridiculous lies. I mean, please. That's just brainless and indefensible.
          • wacomwacoff, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8I think it's cute the way you resort to calling me a liar.

            Upper-crust elitist? This is a guy who has run his entire campaign on PUBLIC FUNDS and grew up in the ghetto. You're comparing him with a man who owns seven houses and a former Wal-Mart boardmember. He's far from 'elite'.
            You haven't said how he's 'bashed America', so I'm assuming you're just making stuff up. Seeing as how the guy's running for president and wrote an entire book about how much he loves America, that's just silly.
            You didn't bother watching Wright's speeches, did you? If you'd watched them in full, rather than the out-of-context soundbites, it's easy to see that there's zero racist content in what he's said. If anything, he's simply pointing out what black people have gone through at the hands of the US government.
            Far from indefensible, I actually spend time reading Obama's books, watching Wright's speeches, and making up my own mind. But I guess it's easier to get your info from Digg and FOX and just call people liars when you don't know any better.
      • eth3l, on 05/08/2008, -10/+1I threw up with you
      • wacomwacoff, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7You've got to be kidding. This is a guy who, after his DNC speech in 2004, was on the cover of TIME magazine with the headline OUR NEXT PRESIDENT? That's how impressive and presidential Obama is. He said he wasn't going to run -- but the tide of popular support drew him in. Yes, he's one of the best presidential hopefuls in 50 years. Tell me how he isn't.
        • fleischner, on 05/08/2008, -10/+2I just did. And in case there's something seriously wrong with your brain: the fact that Time Magazine put him on the cover does not a president make. Address my list above instead of being led like a dog on a leash by the liberal media.
          • wacomwacoff, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7Sure thing! I'll happily repeat myself. I mention Time Magazine because we're talking about how the candidates are perceived by the public, and being touted as the next president on the cover of Time four years ago is a pretty good indication of how much he impressed people with a single inspiring speech.

            Ok, let's see... he's not ultra-left by any stretch, he's a populist. He's got more experience than Hillary does and passed more bills in his first years as a Senator than she did. He's never bashed America in any way, shape, or form. He has never praised a terrorist. Rev. Wright is not a racist in any way, so he's not a racist-praiser, either. And yeah, he's young. So was JFK. Sounds good to me.
    • plhearn, on 05/08/2008, -10/+3Thats right! McCain 08!
      • Akronos, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6Since when does coming fresh out of the nursing home mean you are "one of the best presidential potentials"? The only potential McCain has is bankrupting America by fighting wars against those "KRAZY ISLAMOMAMOFACSICTIC TERRORIZERS WITH POCKET KNIVES AND LINT IN THEIR TURBANS".
    • xen0blue, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1are you kidding me?
      • wacomwacoff, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7Uh.... no. He really is a good candidate.
        • fleischner, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1By your logic, everybody is a good candidate then and there are no standards. Great, he can give a good speech (but only when there's a TelePromter by the way). He has nothing else going for him, and a thousand things against him, particularly the people he associates with and his anti-Constitutional voting record. Apply any pressure on him (and he doesn't have a prepared speech as a response) and he folds like a cheap suit. And then the army of sycophants go after the questioner for being "mean to him." His presidency would be the very worst thing that could ever happen to this country.
          • wacomwacoff, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3It's strange that you're focusing on his performance in what's been called the worst-run presidential debate in years. You could just as easily point to Hillary and say "she fell back on prepared responses without saying anything of value, so obviously she has nothing to offer as a candidate". On the contrary, Obama's very good under pressure and thinking off-the-cuff.
            You can think what you want, but after eight years under the worst president in history (by recent polls) that's put America in a war based on lies, a destroyed economy, and a world hostile against America, we need someone with integrity to change things. If you don't like it, leave.
        • JakobVirgil, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4I don't know why you are arguing with a dito-head anyone who uses the word liberal as an insult was not a real Clinton supporter anyway.
          this Guy is just a Bloated Shill.
          -Jake
  • glucoseboy, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4of course, hindsight is 20/20
    • Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1So true. Look at how screwed over Florida and Michigan are because they thought it would be important to become an early voting state! In the end the states with the most attention were the later ones, yet they lost all chance to become important by trying to shove their election date forward! Hindsight truly is 20/20.
  • bobbarkerbilly, on 05/08/2008, -0/+162) She didn't master the rules.

    And they didn't even mention Michigan and Florida?
  • brownrecluse888, on 05/08/2008, -18/+6This is great, the 9 trillionth anti clinton story...whats next, a pro obama story? Wouldn't that be something fresh and new...
    • AYork, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2HOW ABOUT RONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAUL?
    • reuscel, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Would the person who is holding a gun to brownrecluse888's head to force him to click on this story please knock it off?
    • SydBarrett420, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2How about a Jess Ventura for Minnesota senate article followed by a Jesse Ventura for President 2012 article?
    • riyadc, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3http://digg.com/users/brownrecluse888

      Someone's a little obsessed.
      • SteeleJK, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3It's worse than I ever imagined.
      • Mitijea, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Whoa, Brownrecluse888, how much do you get paid to keep this up? And do you get a health/dental plan with it... I could use a side job and this looks pretty cush.
    • Brad324, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2you see, it's not about picking sides - it's about logic. Diggers might be losers, virgins and geeks - but they understand logic. When you see the website spammed with a one-sided viewpoint on an issue, it's probably because it's an obvious logical choice, and the other choice is trying to appeal to those who lack logic. This is one of the few places where this type of thinking actually represents the majority... Thinking that choices should be 50/50 is what creates corporations like Fox News. Just watch the Jon Stewart owning Tucker Carlson video.
  • flamincheney, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4They seem to have left continued, unapologetic, pathological lying that was transparent via only the most basic fact checking. I think people have had at least 8 years too much of that.

  • ferrell, on 05/08/2008, -3/+11#6 Sniper fire.
  • Br3ach, on 05/08/2008, -4/+29Only 5?

    Let's see

    1 Lied
    2 Lied some more
    3 Kept lying
    4 Had Bill lie for her
    5 Receive Lifetime Achievement award in snowballing the public

    Sounds about right to me
  • vikblazin, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6i just have a feeling that if clinton does drop out, all of the clinton supporters would most probably just move over to Obama's side. This race, the way i see it, is more of a Democrats vs Republican popularity contest, rather people voting for the candidate that would actually be the best for the country. I don't care about which party a candidate is in, compared to the candidate's views and qualities. All of the candidates in this race are not execptionally good, and i wont go as far as to say that theyre crap, but not the best. Obama gives the vibe thatt he can actually be a great president, which is why i would vote for him.
    • SydBarrett420, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Don't believe the right wing hype that Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama out of anger
  • crushtheenemy, on 05/08/2008, -10/+2wait, obama is bi?
  • IphtashuFitz, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7"When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner."

    Well said. I just hope she concedes soon so she can start using her influence to assist Obama. All the talk from people who voted for one candidate but claim to refuse to be willing to vote for the other means there's a rift in the Democratic party that needs healing, and that healing needs to start ASAP.
  • dcmcderm, on 05/08/2008, -1/+21someone needs to send here an HD-DVD player as *congrats* on the big win in Indiana.
    • trentrezn0r, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1LOL, the HD-DVD, always a great gift for rich people because you know will never take it out of the box anyway. It's like sending them a brick in a box, but they never even open the box. However, you still get to keep your brick which has more uses than a HD-DVD player!
  • taradisiac, on 05/08/2008, -0/+15She use her husband's wealth and popularity to become the Senator of a State she never lived on and she calls her time as first lady "experience". How come people don't see through that *****?
    At least Obama got to the same place she's at by himself.
    • robdiggity, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2"How come people don't see through that *****?"

      They don't?
      • taradisiac, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1The ones who repeat Hillary's crap about Obama being a rookie still don't
  • linuxpenguin, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3What happened to all the other ones?
  • jerrolds, on 05/08/2008, -0/+15I wonder how the country would take an Obama/Clinton ticket in Nov? :P

    Kind of reminds me of Dave Chappelle's comedy where if he was running for President, he'd have a Mexican VP - "For insurance, you can shoot me if you want but youre just gonna open the border up, so you can leave me n Vice President Santigo to our own devices".
    • petebot, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2I think they both kind of screwed themselves out of that a while ago. I do wonder who would be a good VP for Obama, though... I would assume someone old with military experience.
      • okaroleo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1There is only one choice: VP Powell.
    • bignerd, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1That was f*ckin' hilarious!
  • lukifer, on 05/08/2008, -4/+6#1: Voting for the goddamned war.
  • eth3l, on 05/08/2008, -18/+2running against a black guy

    running against a black guy

    running against a black guy

    running against a black guy

    running against a black guy
    • Malaga, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1huh?
    • reuscel, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6I forgot about the huge advantages and privileges black people feel every day as a result of their race. Lucky bastards.

      /sarcasm
      • acroyear2, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4I'm so ***** tired of all these black presidents. Hillary should've known she can't fight against the establishment.
  • shutaro, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7#6: Creating a rift in the Democratic party that will take decades to repair. When Harvey Weinstein and his friends come out and threaten to back McCain and/or withhold funding from from the DCCC... Well, it can only go downhill from there. Unless Hillary withdraws from the race, which we know she'll never do while Florida and Michigan are still in question (and maybe not even once all hope of that saving her is lost)... I see this going all the way to the convention, and I see it being an utter bloodbath. I mean, they won't be clubbing and gassing hippies in the streets, but it'll be just as damaging to the party and we'll have to deal with a loss in 2008 and forty more years of bland, stiff presidential candidates from the Democratic side.
  • codyph55, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4seems like a small number
  • kylere, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6How about being the only woman on the planet stupid enough to ever fall for the line "Baby, baby, I was not cheating on you with that intern, it was all a vast right wing conspiracy!"
  • chrissku, on 05/08/2008, -0/+9That article pretty much sums it up. They did however leave out one major mistake she made. That mistake was using the race card as a scare tactic. She turned the campaign very negative and dragged Obama through the mud. It's going to be tough for many Democrats to forgive her for that
  • kman2190, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4She was too confident, she felt as if the nomination was going to be handed to her on a silver plate but up to this point she is clearly fighting for scraps
    • shutaro, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Well, in fairness to her, the Clintons have been *the* Democratic party for, what, the better part of the last sixteen years? I mean, the real failure is the lack of any real leadership from within the party outside of Bill and Hillary. Well, any leadership that has the guts to stand up and say what needs to be said.
    • fanclerks, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Damn you digg and not letting me change my vote. I meant to digg you up.

      She definitely comes off as thinking she is entitled to being the next POTUS. It makes me view her much in the same light that I view Bush in. And honestly... who the hell wants to have 20 years of two families running this country?!
  • aussiejan, on 05/08/2008, -0/+29The other mistake Clinton made was running such a blatantly negative campaign whenever the going got rough. For example, with the sniper fire incident, Obama could have made much of it but instead he said that everybody makes mistakes in campaigns or something to that effect and they needed to move on. Given a similar opportunity to take the high road with the Rev. Wright mess, Hillary instead brought it up every chance she had. The muckraking turned off a lot of people including one of her core group of supporters, young (under 60) women. They have been flocking to Obama in recent weeks until all she had left were the old and the uneducated.
    • davidlow, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Wow. It's possible to say "young women" and mean women under 60?
  • soulonfire928, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2#6. running for President
  • getatmedigg, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1She entered the race too soon.
  • alwshiloh, on 05/08/2008, -2/+12Time misses the mark on this one. Sure, those were problems, but the real reason that she failed is that the media turned against her. She was invincible while she was their candidate. But then, the media decided that Obama was more cool and hip. And they started doing something they had not done up till then: reporting her lies and missteps. She knew she was lying about the sniper fire, but she also knew that the facts would never be reported. What she didn't know was that somewhere along the way she ceased to be the media's darling. They decided that they would no longer work to get her to the White House. So they started reporting the lies. Her shock that she was no longer being protected was obvious.

    The media wasn't entirely one-sided. They also reported on Obama's mistakes, because the Obama/Hillary duel was too good a story to pass up and not perpetuate. Now they have had their fun, they no longer want to play, and Obama is the media's choice to be President. They will no longer report on Obama's mistakes, or any facts that cast him in a bad light. They will now focus on tearing down McCain. Obama can relax now, and say what ever he wants, even lie if he wants to. He's in the club. He's taken Hillary's place.
    • shutaro, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3You hit it right on the head, and I think it's one of the main reasons why she won't quit and is so willing to take the whole party down in flames with her... This was supposed to be *her* year. The only reason she even ran for a senate seat is with an eventual presidental bid in mind... Obama almost came out of nowhere and stole a lot of what was supposed to be her thunder. So, I can see where the bitterness would come from... Especially when you consider what her chances would be trying to run four, or eight, years from now.
    • bignerd, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2You obviously haven't been watching CNN or FoxNews throughout the primaries. Clinton is, without a doubt, CNN's favorite candidate... And FoxNews is, well... FoxNews! I'll give you MSNBC but I totally disagree with the "Media" was main reason HillDog lost.
  • Jeveran, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8...and she forgot to leave the sense of entitlement at home.
    • scamper22, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0then you'd accuse her of being inconsistent with her platform

      //hihat..
  • ggelling, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6But will she blend?
  • diggB, on 05/08/2008, -0/+10Her defeat is summarized best by George Will of the Washington Post (May 8, 2008):

    "Gen. Douglas MacArthur said that every military defeat can be explained by two words: "too late." Too late in anticipating danger, too late in preparing for it, too late in taking action. Clinton's political defeat can be similarly explained -- too late in recognizing that the electorate does not acknowledge her entitlement to the presidency, too late in understanding that she had a serious challenger, too late in anticipating that she would not dispatch Barack Obama by Super Tuesday (Feb. 5), too late in planning for the special challenges of caucus states, too late in channeling her inner shot-and-a-beer hard hat."
  • chavarin, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5I always believed Obama had a better chance of defeating McCain anyway. Her being a better candidate (if only in her mind) doesn't matter as long as she is more vulnerable to the competition than Obama. Pokemon? Anyone? Level 15 Fire beats level 20 Grass? HMMM?



    • austinhamon, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3dugg up for combining Pokemon and politics. you my friend should write text books.
  • zepher5150, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7People...try not to rub it in too bad...Democrats are going need Hillary supporters to now back Obama come Nov.

    Plus, she is such an easy target...But, we need to stay focus and remember it's about changing Washington and taking back America. Another reason I back Obama is he seems to try to take the high road and stick to the issues...Let' s try to do the same...so try to be nice to any nice Hillary supporters. They just have to change thier slogin a little...to "Yes We Can"..instead of Hillary pledgerized "Yes We Will"
    • burnblue, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Not attacking you, but it's 'plagiarized'
    • bignerd, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I agree, we really need to get back on track!
  • Cowboy1015, on 05/08/2008, -2/+12I'm just afraid of Barack... Coz once we go black we'll never go back...
  • msaleem, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Wait, only five?
  • jpmulli, on 05/08/2008, -4/+4Her biggest mistake was thinking that the American public, even being as braindead as we apparently are, would even consider putting another Clinton in the White House after the debacle that was Bill Clinton.
    • zepher5150, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Bill Clinton was not a debacle as a President. America was pretty prosperous as a nation...the National debt was paid off...Our country was at peace. The Economy was strong. I could care less about him not being able to keep his hands to himself...that's his personal life...but as a President and what he gave to this country...he was pretty darn good.

      Now the debacle of the Bush adminstration...and where America is at today. The economy is on the verge of a recession -$124 bucks a barrel of oil......the housing market crisis..the cost of food. 4073 dead American soliders in Iraq.

      America needs change.
      Obama 08
      • bigfruitbasket, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Clinton was a debacle, then we got another debacle--GW Bush! While Clinton was diddling in the White House, al Qiada and the Taliban built themselves a network of terror. That terror was visited on us. Clinton stripped the intelligence services down to the point of insignificance. Then, the intelligence services fought with each other and bungled the whole thing--on Clinton's watch. The economy was good without Clinton influence--thank Alan Greenspan for that, not the Prez. Change is good. Read your history first zepher5150.
      • jpmulli, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1As far as the prosperous state of our nation under Bill Clinton goes, he merely rode the coattails of programs and policies that the previous administrations (Bush Sr., and Reagan) had put in place. You can't really judge a president's performance based on what occurs or seems to occur during his actula time in office. There is always a 4-8 year trickle down effect for policies to take effect and an impact to be felt. I will add that from a personal standpoint, whenever the US has a Democratic president I pay extra income tax and when Republicans are in office I get refunds.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.