In the spring of 2007, Hillary Rodham Clinton had it all. The Clinton name. Its legacy. Bill Clinton at her side. A high profile Senate career. Contacts and supporters among the superdelegate class. Favors compiled. And money. Lots and lots of money.
So when Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for President of the United States in a video on her website, few seriously thought Hillary could be stopped. Yet stopped she was.
Why? How did the improbable fall of the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton occur?
This diary argues that Iraq, Mark Penn, and John Edwards, in a nutshell, are the biggest of the causes for the unlikely fall of Hillary Rodham Clinton, everything else being secondary and supportive.
Below the fold, we will examine these three primary causes along with some of the more visible secondary causes that suppressed the ability of Clinton to mount a sustainable comeback in her quest for the Democratic nomination.
As I sit here ruminating over the state of the election this Sunday before the last primaries in South Dakota and Montana, where Barack Obama needs only some 40-odd delegates to clinch the nomination, I wonder what the state of the nomination would be today if John Edwards had not suspended his campaign after the Nevada caucus? Especially after Clinton has made her late run with her groups of supporters.
There was absolutely no doubt in my mind last summer and early fall that Al Gore would enter the Presidential run in 2008. I thought Al just had too much going for him to pass on a 2008 run.
When Gore didn't enter by November, it was not all that hard for me to fall back to my number 2 choice, John Edwards.
Let's not miss the forest for the trees. It's clear that Obama has a path to the Presidency in directions contrary to the traditional wisdom (namely, the Gore/Kerry states plus either Florida or Ohio).
And it's great that Obama can be elected President without either Florida or Ohio.
But why in the world would Obama want to completely ignore the "Gore + 1" strategy when he doesn't have to? When he can run his own "multi-state" strategy in addition to the "Gore + 1" strategy?
Hillary Clinton finally made a fatal blunder in tonight's ABC "debate."
The key to Clinton's theoretical path to the nomination is with the superdelegates. This is no secret.
The Clinton campaign has always admitted that her path to victory lies with the supers. And in convincing the supers that only she can lead the party to victory in November.
Both campaigns know that Pennsylvania is "critical" only in the event (a) Obama ekes out a victory, or (b) Clinton wins by 20+. Neither is likely to occur.
Hence, full circle back to the importance of the supers.
But in tonight's debate the dynamic changed with the utterance of a few words.
WARNING: If you're an avid support of Hillary Clinton, you really don't want to continue reading this diary. It says bad things about your candidate. You'd probably be better off just passing through.
You know, folks, I've voted for the Democratic nominee for President my entire life. Starting with Bobby in '68, Humphrey, McGovern, Harris, Carter, Kennedy, and on and on.
I've listened to hundreds of speeches, worked in campaigns (some hopeless), given money, and done the kinds of things many other Democrats reading this diary have done through the years. I've seen tough campaigns and foolish campaigns. And I've participated in both.
But I've never seen a campaign where one Democratic candidate comes right out and says the Republican nominee has crossed the "Commander-in-Chief threshold," while the rival Democratic candidate has not crossed the "threshold." Until now.
And so, for the first time in my life, I am very seriously considering sitting out the Presidential election (I will vote down ticket) if Senator Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee of the party.
Tonight is the night Bill Clinton comes to Abilene Texas for an airport rally for Hillary.
Since the news of Bill's visit hit the local newpaper this past Friday, the local Democratic Party has been well motivated. The newspaper estimated that about 1000 people would show up, but the newspaper was wrong.
You can't really throw rocks at the newspaper's underestimation of the crowd (misunderestimation, in Bush speak), because Texas rarely counts in national Presidential politics these days. Not only because Texas turned red in 1980, but also because the Democratic nomination is generally sewed up by the first Tuesday in March. And because you just don't get Presidents, or former Presidents, or Presidential candidates in Abilene Texas anyway.
So it was with great excitement that Abilene Democrats headed to the local airport tonight to listen the former President's speech, regardless of one's preference on Tuesday.
Hillary's firewall is the vote on March 4, particularly Texas and Ohio. Hillary is campaigning in El Paso as this diary is published. A Barack Obama victory in Texas or in Ohio, no matter how narrow, promises to derail Hillary's Presidential ambitions for the 2008 election cycle.
While Ohio is much more important than Texas in November, Texas (with 228 delegates and a hybrid primary/caucus system) is the most important state in March because of its larger delegate yield. Two-thirds of Texas' delegates will be decided in the primary with one-third being decided by caucus, beginning at 7:15 pm on March 4. Also some early February polls indicate Ohio may be a tough hill to climb.
Below the fold I take my hand at proposing an Obama approach to the March 4 vote.
We had a horrible experience after the Kansas caucus this year.
My wife and I and my neighbor and his wife are really strong Barack Obama supporters and we decided to make the trip into Leawood for the caucus.
Leawood is not far from the Missouri border, and as a lot of you may know, there's been a lot of tension between Kansas and Missouri through the years, the whole Jayhawker thing.
Regardless of who is inaugurated as President in January 2009, he or she will be facing the biggest financial crisis in the history of the nation. By 2009, the word "recession" will surely be replaced by the word "depression." This very day stock markets around the world have been savaged, plundered, and laid waste -- the best news for the US being that US markets are closed.
With the confluence of the subprime mortgage collapse, increasing oil depletion (in the face of increasing demand), and dollar devaluation, the spectre of economic hard-times is stark. Echoing the title of Noami Klein's Shock Doctrine, Deborah Schuller, a regional credit officer for Moody’s Investor Service in Asia, said that the coming "downturns in store for Asia" are "going to shock people."
As an erstwhile supporter of John Edwards, I have wondered if the Democratic Presidential candidates are "getting it." Given the unfolding of the Democratic Primary, I have especially wondered if Hillary Clinton is "getting it." Because it is looking increasingly like Mrs. Clinton may become the Democratic nominee for President.
Yes, these were the words that greeted this Edwards supporter's ears on "the day after" the Iowa caucuses:
"My 'Bama!, Your 'Bama!, Our 'Bama!, O-Bama!"
Like that soul tortured so long ago by Poe's raven taunting "nevermore," so were these words burned into my ears by my daughter, a high school senior, as she kept repeating, "My 'Bama!, Your 'Bama!, Our 'Bama!, O-Bama!"
Those who have followed politics for some time undoubtedly were as shocked as I was with the voter turnout in the Iowa caucuses:
Turnout for the caucuses was much larger than in previous years, partly because of the tightly contested races in both parties. This is the first time in more than 50 years that neither party has a president or vice president in the running.
Is this it? The reason for the huge turnout was "tightly contested races" combined with no president or vice-president "in the running?" Perhaps.
But "My 'Bama!, Your 'Bama!, Our 'Bama!, O-Bama!" gives me cause for skepticism. For those interested, follow me below the fold.
"Rising Demand for Oil Provokes New Energy Crisis", proclaims the New York Times on November 9, 2007. While the conclusion of the headline is correct, the reasoning of the article is grossly misleading, discounting the real specter laying just ahead.
Consider what the Times claims the problem to be:
"This is the world’s first demand-led energy shock," said Lawrence Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation of Washington.
So why is the Times misleading? Consider the discussion below the fold.
In spite of warmonger Bill Kristol's screams to attack Iran (video at Crooks and Liars here) made on FoxNews Sunday earlier today, it is clear that Iran believes that it has a "war equalizer" up its sleeve.
Iran claimed on Saturday that it would fire off 11,000 rockets at "enemy bases" within "a minute" after the United States launched military action against it:
"In the first minute of an invasion by the enemy, 11,000 rockets and cannons would be fired at enemy bases," said a brigadier general in the elite Revolutionary Guards, Mahmoud Chaharbaghi.
First, I congratulate Al Gore and the IPCC on winning the Nobel Peace Prize. It is an award that hopefully will further highlight the IMMEDIATE need to curb greenhouse gases that are destroying the planet.
Second, let me be clear about this: I have voted for Al Gore in every Presidential election since 1988, with the exception of 2004. I didn't vote for Al Gore in 2004 because he came out fairly early on, and discouraged all the efforts of the grassroots to entice him to run. So I am unabashedly biased.
