How Hillary Would Have Done

This is a silly parlor game of course but I like Poblano's post about it so I will discuss it here:

If America had woken up last Tuesday morning and magically found Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot in lieu of Barack Obama, might she have won by 11 points? Perhaps. She certainly proved herself to be an exceptionally compelling candidate, even if her execution and staffing decisions were sometimes wanting. But what would Clinton's numbers have looked like if she had actually endured ... you know ... a campaign?

More . . .

This is where the Media Darling issue becomes crucial to understanding why Obama was the better choice for Democrats in terms of electoral considerations. Poblano writes:

Would [Clinton] have managed the media as deftly as Obama did? Perhaps not.

Definitely NOT. Not only would Clinton have not been the Media darling Obama was, her candidacy would have turned John McCain into a Media Darling. Now this is not a reflection on the merits of Hillary Clinton, politician and stateswoman - it is a reflection on the state of the Media.

I think in the end, unlike Poblano, I do not think anyone can really doubt Clinton would have won the Presidency. She surely would have won Ohio and Florida more easily than Obama did. She would not have won Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana or Colorado though.

It was always clear to me that Obama had more upside potential and at the same time, carried a greater risk. He and his team ran a masterful general election campaign and he caught every political break in the book. But at the bottom of it all was the Media Darling status. Obama could withstand everything McCain and the Republicans threw at him because the Media would not accept having Obama attacked.

Going forward, I think Obama will have the same luxury in governance (unlike Bill Clinton and unlike Hillary Clinton would have had.) Because of this Obama can be bold and truly transform the political landscape for a generation. If he so chooses. For all of Hillary Clinton's admirable traits and formidable political skills (and I for one completely underestimated her on all counts), she simply would not have had the same window of opportunity that Barack Obama has. And yes, THAT is why I supported him for the Presidency. Now I think is the time to try and prod him to be the bold transformative leader that will change the political landscape for a generation.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | Feingold Calls For New Leadership At Intelligence Agencies >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is one time I am glad (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:36:18 PM EST
    you added "speaking for me only."  You really don't speak for me.  Obama got the anti-Bush/frightening economy vote, plain and simple.  Hillary would have also acquired that.  Further,  there is no doubt she would have carried the HIspanic vote overwhelmingly also.  The AA's, I think yes.  So, as you were saying???  

    Obama did better (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:42:33 PM EST
    with younger whites, higher educated folks, higher income folks and drove A-A turnout to unbelievably high levels.

    Clinton certainly would have done better with white working class, white women and Latinos.


    So (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Pepe on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:21:14 PM EST
    younger whites, higher educated folks, higher income folks, and Blacks would not have voted for Clinton? They would have voted for McCain or not voted at all? Please, that is not even a credible statement.

    Gah (none / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:00:05 PM EST
    Younger voters went for Obama by huge margins (66% for Obama - Kerry only got 55% of this group, Gore 48%, Bill 53% see a trend???).  That doesn't mean Hillary wouldn't have "won" the youth vote.  But she wouldn't have run up those margins.  She also probably would not have won the Colin Powell/Bill Weld moderate republicans.  And finally, of course black voters would have voted for Clinton.  They wouldn't have turned out in the record numbers that they did this year - it would've been like any other year with the Dem winning 90% of the black vote and regular turnout by them.

    However, she would've done better among older voters, and WWC voters.  And she clearly would've won.

    My final question - do you REALLY think she would've gotten the same kind of Black turnout Obama did???  THAT is not a credible statement.


    First of all (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Pepe on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:42:37 PM EST
    Clinton isn't Kerry. Clinton was winning the Black vote by huge numbers early in the primaries before Obama played the race card. Clinton would have done just fine with the Black vote - good enough to win which was the point of my post.

    As for the youth vote you really don't make a case. Clinton isn't Kerry and where would the youth vote have gone? No Obama, vote for McCain? No.

    You need some hard numbers to rebut want I said and you have none.


    Hard numbers? (none / 0) (#163)
    by CST on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:53:39 PM EST
    Where are yours???  At least I brought in SOME numbers.

    Clinton isn't Kerry.  Which is why I also brought up Gore and the other Clinton.  It wasn't just Kerry.  Kerry was no anomoly with the youth vote -Obama was.

    I agree Clinton would've done "fine" with the black vote.  Obama did waaaay better than "fine".  And as for Clinton winning the black vote early in the primaries... which primary would that be? You can't "win" something that never happened.

    The point of your post was not that Clinton would've done "good enough to win".  If that was the case, you wouldn't have disagreed with BTD - since that was his point too.  Where are your hard numbers to rebut his post which you said wasn't "credible"???


    I posted elsewhere in the thread (none / 0) (#172)
    by Pepe on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:08:56 PM EST
    some mentions of polls that back some of what I said. I'll mention here that this is 2008. Not 2000. Not 1996. Not 1992. A lot of things are different and if your proof is to point to the past and past candidates as if it represents the present then it is no proof at all.

    My point is the same. I disagree with BTD's premise in his post. His blanket statement is ridiculous.

    As for Obama and the Black vote I know of no combined states where a higher turnout was the defining vote that won him the election. As for he did better than Clinton would have - that's your statement not mine - and since you have no proof for it because it is unprovable I will treat it as such.



    The "race card" (none / 0) (#185)
    by Spamlet on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:47:17 PM EST
    I do believe Obama played it.

    But Obama won black voters because he won the lily-white Iowa caucuses, thus showing African Americans that white voters, too, would support him, and that he would not be just a flash in the pan, so they could get their hopes up.

    When Obama and his campaign played that special card, it was to consolidate his support among all the young and/or affluent white voters who went for Obama primarily or perhaps only because he is black--the kind of people who make a point, and apparently a hobby, of demonstrating that they are not racists but others are, particularly the less privileged white people that they would like to drive out of the Democratic Party in any case.

    I am not saying that all young and/or affluent white Obama supporters fit this profile. But plenty do, and we've all met them.


    pretty much up to the point when the Obama campaign smeared Hillary over the benign remarks she had made about MLK and Lyndon Johnson.

    Than Bill said something benign in relation to the term "fairy tale", and the obama campaign made him a card-carrying member of the KKK.

    Ergo, that was the end of AA support for Hillary.


    But . . . (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:57:23 PM EST
    Kerry and Gore are certainly not Hillary.  Come on!  Though I supported both Kerry and Gore, they put even me to sleep.  Hillary Clinton inspired and motivated people in a way niether Kerry or Gore could.  Not a good comparison.  She would have garnered far more votes than Kerry or Gore.  

    Sure (none / 0) (#171)
    by CST on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:04:01 PM EST
    She probably would've done better than Kerry or Gore, although Kerry did historically pretty well.

    Obama did better than any candidate EVER with this group since they've started reporting exit polls by age in 1976.  I just don't see her replicating that.  Obama did much better than her with this group in the primary.

    Look, it's OK to say Obama performed better with some groups.  That doesn't mean Hillary would've been a bad candidate, or that she wouldn't have also won by large margins, maybe even larger.  I think it's pretty clear though that Obama did better with some groups, the youth being one of those groups.


    With what group?? (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:18:41 PM EST
    the youngins??  Perhaps, yes.  But, I really think that is it.  Hillary would have garnered more of the senior vote so all things being equal . . .



    Yea (none / 0) (#182)
    by CST on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:36:04 PM EST
    Sorry, maybe that was un-clear.  My only comparison to Kerry/Gore was the youth vote.  I agree she would've done much better over-all than either of them.  She probably would've done better with the youth too.  I just don't think she would've done as well as Obama with that group, or with black voter turnout since he did better than any politician in history (at least the history of exit-polling) in that regard.

    I certainly agree she would've done better with seniors and also white, working class voters.

    I have no speculation about who would've done better over-all - maybe we'll be really lucky and find out for sure in 2016 :)


    IMO the losts of the economy in Sept was the trick (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Saul on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:37:34 PM EST
    that cinched the election for Obama.  Had it not been for that the election would have  been very close.  Now if Hilary had been on the ticket with Obama as VP and there was no economy manna from heaven stuff I think Hilary would have won by a larger margin than Obama in popular vote.

    Yep!! The economy did it (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:21:44 PM EST
    Recall when Obama did his world wind tour abroad and the polls had him even with McCain and McCain even a bit ahead. Obama was going nowhere.  Well, what happened next??  

    The economy tanked!!  

    Only then did the race open up and Obama lead.


    This gives me an opportunity to ask (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:37:49 PM EST
    a question I've been dying to ask.  Do you think Hillary would have won in WV or AR?  Possibly TN or KY?  She did very well in those states in the primaries and she would have an advantage in AR I think.  

    I was just struck by the map Krugman posted the other day.  Which states trend the deepest red?  AR, TN.  Is this a deep trend, or does this really have to do with Hillary?

    I believe the answer is yes (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by TN Dem on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    In TN.

    I live in East TN, (the most conservative part of TN) and judging by the excitment for Hillary here, I honestly believe she would have won TN. There were MANY signs and bumper stickers, people wearing Hillary T's and pins were very visable, and Mcain signs were nowhere to be found.

    After the primary, I could count the Obama signs I could see in some of our most Dem leaning subdivisions on one hand...it was the most sparce showing I have seen in years. Mcain was not popular here but Obama was not even on the radar.

    It's not something I am proud of that is sure, but it is something I predicted when arguing for Hillary to one of our superdelegates here.

    Oh, and if you are still in doubt, check out Bill's numbers here....TN LOVES the Clintons!


    Arkansas certainly (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:40:41 PM EST
    WV, maybe.

    Kentucky, maybe.

    Tennessee, no.

    Missouri probably.


    I think Tennessee would have been much closer (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    as would have Louisiana, and Kentucky. (OTOH, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Minnesota would have been more of a struggle).

    I think you're right that the map wasn't much of an issue--Hillary would have won too, just differently. I don't disagree with your post-election analysis either.


    But she woluld have won (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Pepe on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:04:40 PM EST
    Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana or Colorado. You are wrong on that account and offered no rational for your opinion.

    For you to say that is to say that voters in those states who voted for Obama would not have voted for her. That is wrong headed as many of those voters were hers in the primary. So you are saying that his voters would not have voted for her. But the polls showed exactly the opposite. In fact his supporters were more likely to vote for her, than hers for him.

    Additionally, to break it down somewhat, you are saying that educated higher income liberals, younger voters, and Blacks would have voted for McCain instead of Clinton. Ridiculous.

    As for the Media Darling thing that is flawed also. The medaia was not key in the General (nor were they key in the primary if you look how Clinton finished at the end). All the media did in the General was reflect what the public was already ready to do - oust the Republicans. I don't think you or anyone else can make a credible argument that it was anything else than that.


    Looks like we found (none / 0) (#12)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:44:02 PM EST
    PUMA headquarters then.

    Why wouldn't she have won Colorado? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:46:32 PM EST

    Obama's performance in red counties (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by magster on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:08:02 PM EST
    Obama received 40% of the vote in El Paso and Douglas counties, up almost 10% from Kerry.  Obama had offices in red counties and didn't concede these counties like Kerry did. I didn't get the sense that Hillary would have used Obama's grassroot campaign infrastructure strategy in CO or elsewhere.

    Clinton might have won CO with Denver and Boulder counties alone, but Obama crushed in CO because of limiting his losses in red counties.


    In the primary (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:46:25 PM EST
    Hillary did much better than Obama in red areas of swing states.  I believe that's how she won Ohio and PA without taking the urban areas.  WJC also did extensive campaigning in rural areas and did very well.  

    Not so sure she wouldn't have focused on rural counties after the primary experience.


    "endured a campaign"? (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:49:05 PM EST
    What exactly were the primaries?  What was she supposed to be - some frail flower of femininity?

    I don't mind an honest post mortem, but I can do without the biases.  Poblano loves to crunch the numbers, so why didn't he?  The Dem primaries were very closely followed.

    That point of his was quite ridiculous (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:50:23 PM EST
    and it wasn't the first time he's made it.

    As for number crunching--he didn't add anything to what we already had from other sources.


    I know. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:57:25 PM EST
    BTD and others are better at using the numbers to tell us what is there, rather than what they want to be there.

    (Had my fill of that post Prop 8, with people claiming that the exit polls were horribly flawed or just plain wrong.  The best way to prove any poll/study wrong is with another one that has better data and analysis.)


    What do you mean by (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:59:43 PM EST
    bold political transformation?  I think Hillary would've been determined to transform healthcare, and we know she would push HOLC.  I think she has political transformation down when it comes to policy.  Maybe not foreign policy.  

    I think Obama will probably transform foreign policy but as far as healthcare and HOLC go, I only have hopes.  Whether there will be domestic transformation is unclear.  But he is far less New New Dealish than Hillary.

    Electorally, I think it is good Obama won as it allows us to put down roots in a lot of new states.  I don't think Hillary would have similarly revolutionized the way we think electorally.

    Not at all clear (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:43:44 PM EST
    to me that Obama revolutionized anything enduring or replicable electorally by anyone else.

    Reproducible results. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:27:12 PM EST
    Is where it's at.  Are they one-size-fits-all strategies or do they only work for once, for one person?

    Bill said GE would be the easy part for Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by magster on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:00:40 PM EST
    While a bunch of variables would have changed, it was a Democrat's year to blow the general election.  Obama didn't blow it and Hillary probably wouldn't have either.

    Experience (none / 0) (#122)
    by Pepe on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:18:21 PM EST
    Hillary would not have had the Inexperience hanging around her neck like Obama did. Toward the end the biggest concern of uncommitted voters was
    Experience'. Needless to say many of them voted for McCain because the popular vote was closer than most polls showed.

    Ergo she would have won by a larger margin.


    so i guess that whole primary (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by cpinva on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:05:43 PM EST
    thing was just, what, a silly game?

    But what would Clinton's numbers have looked like if she had actually endured ... you know ... a campaign?

    this guy's an idiot.

    clinton would have eviscerated both mccain/palin and the press, she's been doing the latter quite succesfully for nearly 20 years. sure, she'd have been accused of murdering everyone in the country, but so what? they've been doing that since 1992.

    bear in mind, the press would also have had some concerns (nominal, i grant you, because the press is amazingly stupid.) about backlash from women. not the right-wingnut media of course, they could care less, and they didn't join in the obama lovin'.

    and, being realistic, given palin's god awful nasaly screech of a voice, no more would have been made of clinton's.

    she'd have won, handily.

    problem with this is (none / 0) (#38)
    by Howard Zinn on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:22:07 PM EST
    Palin wouldn't have been the VP pick :-)

    True (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:04:58 PM EST
    it would have been Clinton/Obama v. McCain/Romney? McCain/Lieberman? It wouldn't have mattered. Unless it was McCain/Jesus, a Clinton/Obama ticket would have trounced the GOP, given how the economy played out and given the super-duper double-historic nature of the Dem offering.

    So was the end (5.00 / 13) (#30)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:06:43 PM EST
    worth the means?  When the same end, a Dem president, could have been achieved?

    We'll see -- as we have yet to see what the end really means as well as what the means may cost the party . . . and the country.

    Now, CC, you have to see the glass (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    as half full and think "potential."  

    Obama (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:16:29 PM EST
    when he started talking like Hillary, literally, cut out all the dreamy hopey stuff with the help of the meltdown, he got the ones who were to be taken.  Hillary did not need to retool to talk about the economy.  

    NO disagreement from me. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    ugh (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:43:13 PM EST
    when he started talking like Hillary



    Yes, I hope so (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:40:03 PM EST
    and that he will achieve his potential -- as a niece and new voter put it in explaining her vote, that he is a "potential hero."

    Ah, but as I told here, I also hope that she is one.


    It certainly put to rest once and (none / 0) (#93)
    by hairspray on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:39:29 PM EST
    for all that money should be limited  in our political campaigns.  Six hundred million dollars this year and who knows what the GOP will bring in next time around. But hey! the ends do seem to justify the means.

    The one thing that most people (5.00 / 10) (#42)
    by Mike Pridmore on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:30:00 PM EST
    seem to be ignoring is that the downturn in the economy helped Obama over McCain considerably and that is what ended up being the margin of victory in states Obama might otherwise have lost.

    Though others are free to disagree, I personally think Hillary is a much stronger candidate on the economy than Obama (see that as part of the discussion here) and that she would have turned the economic downturn into an even bigger advantage than Obama did.

    I will even go so far as to say that if the economic downturn had come at the beginning of this year that she would have beaten Obama in the primaries.  But I am mostly happy with Obama.  What makes me unhappy is all the Obots who go out of their way to downplay the narrow margin by which Obama won the primary.  This absolute refusal to give Hillary her due respect will probably bite them in the butt eventually.

    I agree. Economic good times seemed (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by hairspray on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:45:35 PM EST
    synonymous with the Clinton name.  The one thing I heard over and over from people sitting on the fence was that the Clinton years were the best and they wanted them back.  

    The village hated the Clintons (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:30:19 PM EST
    because of class-based prejudice.  They were from Arkansas, after all.  They're at the hill-billy level.  Also, the Clintons told self-designated doyenne of Washington society, Sally Quinn, to stuff it.

    The village loves Obama because he's the cool black guy, and he makes them feel cool too.  They get "derivative coolness" by being for him.

    On the hill-billy status (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:34:46 PM EST
    It brings the more recent "wassilla Hillbilly" to mind. While Palin was not a good choice by any means, a lot of the deriding was class-related.

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:09:53 PM EST
    Palin is an unqualified, hatemongering person, who also showed herself to be unable to string together a sentence that makes sense on any issue. She deserves to be harshly criticized.

    The only class-based thing came from the McCain campaign itself. In the usual Republican class-warfare antics, they presented her as a "regular" (or dare I say "real") American. Because, as we all know, anyone who dares get an education and talks in an educated manner, is an elitist who can't be trusted.


    She was only derided on (none / 0) (#64)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:53:10 PM EST
    a class-based basis by the anonymous McCain camp insiders.

    Palin began to get negative pub, after her 2-week or so honeymoon period post-convention, because she'd so badly performed in the Gibson and Couric interviews, which exposed her very soft underbelly of ignorance.  For sure, she didn't help herself by severely limiting press interviews.

    Invoking class either as to Palin or Oxford-educated Clinton seems off the mark to me.  


    Yep! Remember how the left and the (none / 0) (#102)
    by hairspray on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:47:29 PM EST
    media derided HRC's supporters as old hillbillies. The DNC should have put a stop to that.

    The real question to me (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Amiss on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:44:27 PM EST
    is would Obama have gotten out and tirelessly campaigned for Hillary had he lost? Would Michelle have? Would he and the continuing question is will he get out and support and campaign down-ticket Dems as Hillary and Bill have?

    Got an email today about the DNC being so broke, to answer someone's question above what Obama's leftover campaign funds will be used for.

    Just askin.

    Don't know about Barack (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:48:12 PM EST
    but for Michelle, it would have depended on Hillary's "tone." (Referencing Michelle's reply when asked if she would support Hillary if she won the primary - apparently, it would depend on Hillary's tone. OTOH, Hillary "owed" Obama her undying support).

    Answer (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Trickster on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    Hillary would almost certainly have selected Obama for Veep.  It made even more sense for her to select him than for him to select her.

    I've never been a big (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:45:53 PM EST
    fan of the class-based reason for the media's abuse of Bill.  He was an Oxford guy after all, via other elite places like Yale and Georgetown.

    And the MSM didn't seem to have a problem cozying up to a couple of Texan rubes -- Lyndon (pre-68) and Junior.  

    And recall how Gore was press-bashed in 2000 for being a fancy-pants know-it-all who'd grown up in a luxury D.C. hotel.  Junior they liked -- he was just the sort of average guy you'd want to have a beer with.

    Nah, I think that since 1980 and until this last cycle, the corp media just decided to report based on whether the candidate had a "D" or an "R" next to his name -- almost as if Jack Welsh and Sumner Redstone called the shots from their bunker for all the major media.

    Did you read the book by Conason and (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by hairspray on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:50:37 PM EST
    Lyons titled "The Hunting of the President?" They made a very strong case for the "hillbily" Clintons. And the Clintons were never on their party circuit.

    the media (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:52:26 PM EST
    didn't care for LBJ - they loved Kennedy and LBJ was considered to be uncultured.

    and the village insiders hated the Clintons.  because washington was their town where nancy and barbara threw lovely parties and everyone wore fur and the clintons messed that up with their love of BBQ and funny accents.

    the media loved GWB but he was no texas farm boy - he was part of the privileged washington elite who's father and grandfather both served in congress...


    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#162)
    by Politalkix on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:50:02 PM EST
    got more favorable media coverage than GHW Bush and Bob Dole. in 1992, Bill Clinton was the kewl saxophone playing outsider while GWH was the born-with-a-silver spoon, elitist President who looked at his watch during debates and looked out of touch with the common people when he went to buy socks in departmental stores. The media also portrayed Bob Dole as the gruff politician from Kansas who said something mean in 1976 and would take away Medicare and social security from seniors and who seemed scary to "soccer moms".
    It was a good thing that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996. However, those who endlessly gripe about how bad the media was towards the Clintons, conveniently forget how favorable they were towards him when he ran for the Presidency. Many in TL, live in a world of fiction that they have created for themselves. Those who put down Obama's brilliant win by saying that he did so only because of the economy need to be taken back to 1992. The country was in the economic doldrums even at that time. If the bad economy helped Obama, it helped Bill Clinton also!
    Dukakis and Gore can rightfully claim unfair treatment from the media when they contested the Presidency. The treatment of Kerry was neither fair nor unfair. Clinton and Obama received slightly favorable treatments (because the media saw them as ratings boosters for them, that is all there is to it).

    I wasn't around during Clinton's time (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:56:55 PM EST
    so I won't comment on that front. But I wouldn't say Obama received "slightly" favourable treatment from the media. The media during this election were an embarrassment to journalism. They were clearly biased and it didn't take a genius to see who they were rooting for.

    This article of faith (none / 0) (#203)
    by Politalkix on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:23:47 PM EST
    that HRC received unfair treatment by the media compared to Obama is not supported by facts. The Democrats had their first debate of the primaries in Apri 2007. From April 2007-October 2007, the media was extremely supportive of HRC. Group thinking led them to proclaim that she was running a "flawless" campaign and Obama was making one rookie mistake after another. Pat Buchanan (or that Morning Joe guy) went to the extent of calling the Democrat Party primary contest as one between HRC and the seven "dwarfs". The first doubt regarding HRC's campaign surfaced in the media only in October 2007, after her awkward answer about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants during a debate in Philadelphia. Obama was given no chance of winning the nomination before he actually won in the Iowa caucuses. For a few days after Iowa, he was the David in the David and Goliath tale. But then HRC became the comeback kid in New Hampshire. Not till his win in South Carolina and his success in the rest of the caucuses and primaries in February did Obama once again regain "media darling" status. But that change in fortune was also short lived. Media coverage changed after Ohio and Texas and particularly before Pennsylvania, Obama got very rough treatment. The media went out of its way to harp about Jeremiah Wright, Ayers, bitter and cling, flagpins, "lack of experience", "Michelle Obama and first time proud of my countryetc, etc, etc. They tripped over each other in voicing endless reasons why Obama could never win the "white working class' votes, votes of Hispanics, women and senior citizens. Many in TL picked up these media narratives and embarassed themselves. It was clear from March onwards that the media wanted HRC to continue winning, so that the horserace could continue till the end of the scheduled primaries (and hopefully for them to the Convention), giving people good reason to remain glued to their television sets.

    Of course the economy helped Bill (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:34:12 PM EST
    in 1992. No queston about it.

    The media in 1992 also spent a fair time on whether he was a draft dodger, whether he inhaled, and whether he had an affair with Ms. Flowers. Their treatment of Bill in 1992 (and Hillary) was horrible, just horrible. To suggest that he was treated well or that there is any similarity between the media's treatment of Bill and their treatment of Sen. Obama is just at variance with reality.


    Facts are facts (none / 0) (#197)
    by Politalkix on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:38:04 PM EST
    Didn't the media cover Jeremaih Wright, Bill Ayers, "flagpins", "bitter and clinging", etc, etc in 2008? Your inability to see that makes your analysis suspect.
    FOX news, Hannity, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc, etc were hardly the beasts in 1992 that they are now. Also, GWH Bush ran a milquetoast campaign in 1992 compared to what McCain-Palin did in 2008. Quayle would obliquely criticize Clinton by harping on "family values" and go after Murphy Brown but did nothing that is in the same ball park as what Palin did when she said "he is palling around with terrorists" The media was generally very supportive of McCain and Palin till they started to self destruct (McCain, when he suspended his campaign and announced that he would postpone the 1st debate and Palin, till the Katie Couric interview). The internet was also in its early days in 1992, so Bill Clinton really did not have to deal with internet smears (he is a Muslim, etc, etc).
    Bill Clinton really had it easy compared to Gore, Kerry and Obama!



    How Hillary would have done (5.00 / 10) (#58)
    by oldpro on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:47:12 PM EST
    would have depended on a couple of things:

    If she had selected Obama as running mate, which I do not doubt for a minute, that would have been the BIG nail in the R's coffin this cycle and she would have won states that Obama lost and perhaps expanded the map to include Colorado, etc. that he won without her.  Huge win.

    If she had NOT selected him as veep, does anyone alive believe (there's that word again!) that the Obama's would have hit the campaign trail for Hillary and the Democrats as the Clintons both did post convention?  

    In 2 months, Bill and Hil made over 75 campaign appearances in Florida, Pannsylvania, etc. etc. for Obama-Biden.

    And maybe as much as Obama's (5.00 / 9) (#61)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    "media darling status" (though instinctively I believe much more) it was Hillary's and Bill's DNC speeches and tireless campaigning that a got a large number of her followers in his corner.

    Somehow I doubt Obama would have made the effort for Hillary. Remember his supporters would not support Hillary as her suppoerters would support him...


    Which tells us a lot about (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by oldpro on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:54:20 PM EST
    whose politics are issue driven and whose are not.

    The Economic Crisis (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by Trickster on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    Would've been a high fat hanging curve right in her wheelhouse.  "The Clintons" would've had instant credibility because of the 90s.  She would be seen talking to Robert Rubin, say some wise words about what to do - and they probably WOULD have been wise, as compared to the political pablum that exuded from the actual candidate - and that would've been that.

    She woulda trounced McCain.

    When Merrill Lynch folds, people listen.

    Obama is not a bold politican, IMO (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:09:53 PM EST
    I doubt that he will take advantage of what has been offered. I wish he would, but I doubt it.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:23:52 PM EST
    Obviously your "independent minded friends" don't represent the majority of the American public or, for that matter, Democratic voters. Or they are woefully out of touch with both.

    The Clinton name is so "dreaded" that Bill left office on the highest approval ratings of any president in modern history--yes, including St. Ronnie--and Hillary won more votes (MANY more votes) than Obama did in the primary. Don't mean to rehash that ugly old history but it is a fact. It's also a fact that until the DNC intervened she was beating Obama by huge margins in states that had primaries.

    Oh, and I don't know how inevitable her pick of Obama would have been. From rumors I heard (and I'm admitting they were rumors) she wanted to pick Wes Clark as her VP.

    I know. Go ahead and cry while you ponder that.

    Hillary would have slaughtered McCain.

    Actually (none / 0) (#100)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:46:43 PM EST
    My independent minded friends have provided a rather accurate barometer of the last few election cycles. These are not "out of touch" people and even when I have thought that some of their views were ridiculous, they seem to have fallen in line with the views of many independents when all has been said and done.

    It's not that the Clinton name is necessarily dreaded it's that people want change.  There is a reason why McCain tried to grab the change mantle because they knew it was a winner. Yes, Hillary being the first female president would have been change but being a Clinton would also say establishment dem and partisanship for better or worse.

    There is no guarantee that Hillary would have slaughtered McCain. After all, wasn't she supposed to slaughter Obama?

    Also, the DNC had nothing to do with this, the voters spoke.


    Yeah, people want change -- (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:52:03 PM EST
    they want a change in the economy. She would have campaigned hard on that. She represented -- he**, any Dem represented -- change in this year. Every day on the campaign trail it would have been "If you want more of the same, vote for McCain. If you want change, vote Clinton/Obama."

    The superdelegates (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by WS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:53:23 PM EST
    spoke. The primary was as close to 50/50 as you can get with both sides claiming a popular vote victory.  

    Superdelegates broke the impasse, and they chose Obama due to his delegate victory and other reasons.  


    Based on the delegate count (none / 0) (#110)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:56:51 PM EST
    and how we pick nominees. Does anyone honestly think that with Hillary trailing in the delegate count that the Superdelegates would have chosen her instead of Obama? I understand that neither of them could have reached the number needed without SD's but do you realize what that would have done for our chances in the fall?

    You proved my point (none / 0) (#119)
    by WS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:11:34 PM EST
    The superdelegates spoke and chose Obama.  The voters were split 50/50.

    What? (none / 0) (#127)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:21:20 PM EST
    You were arguing or at least that is what I interpreted your comments that the DNC stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton.

    My point is that going by the rules and what would have been an electoral disaster come the fall election, Obama won fairly.


    Electoral disaster? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:34:43 PM EST
    Obama won most of those delegates in caucus states and we know how "democratic" the caucus process is. Hillary won most of the primaries, and quite a few of them handily.

    As far as I know there are no caucus states in the GE.


    Maybe you should (none / 0) (#148)
    by WS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:10:04 PM EST
    read my comment again.  You have a tendency to make assumptions that are wrong.  

    Synonym? (none / 0) (#187)
    by DET103 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:51:01 PM EST
    "Also, the DNC had nothing to do with this, the voters spoke."

    "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result"


    What "full unifying mandate" (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:26:51 PM EST
    did Obama get?

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:47:28 PM EST
    When you win by almost 7% and 350+ electoral votes from east to west, that would be a mandate.

    I believe Obama's media darling ... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:38:31 PM EST
    status is generational.

    Clinton was the same age as many of the rising stars in the media, and so he was hated for achieving what many of them had dreamed of achieving.  They could also read generational cues that are harder to read if you're not part of a generation.

    Most of those people are still media figures.

    Obama, on the other hand, isn't as old as most in the media, nor young enough to be a child of most of the media people.

    They have no connection to his generation either by being part of it or parenting someone who is part of it.  So they can't read the generational cues.  

    I think this extends to the base of Obama's support.  Most Obama cultists are baby boomers or Gen Yers.  

    Pre-baby boom seniors and first wave Gen Xers are the most skeptical of him. Obama's on the Generation X cusp.  Doug Coupland who popularized the term said it started in '60.

    Media darling status helps (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:41:47 PM EST
    I think BTD's theory has been proven largely true....

    Obama's ability to enjoy popular support could be turned into power...

    I don't think Hillary could have matched Obama's ground game--especially in Nevada where he won by 12 points.....A lot of Californians and I were part of that ground game the Saturday and Sunday before the election....Team Obama knocked on the door of every Democratic voter who had not yet voted (in early voting) three times that weekend in Las Vegas.  

    But Hillary would have won anyway, no doubt....Arkansas, Ohio and Florida were hers.


    I don't see it. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:39:02 PM EST
    If Obama didn't want her as close as the VP, I don't see her as close as the SoS.

    Difference (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by CST on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:42:36 PM EST
    There is no "election factor" to being SOS.

    I think he was tired/wary of the Clinton-Obama drama that the press loved to write about and make up.  So he picked Biden because the one thing it did was make the press completely ignore his V.P. pick.


    Are we sure it was him who didn't want her as VP? (none / 0) (#145)
    by 1040su on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:58:22 PM EST
    According to something I read here in the last week or so, it seems it was his inner circle who didn't want her & he asked them several times - Are you sure? So, I'm not convinced that he was convinced she was all that bad. The news reports I saw of them campaigning together in Florida showed 2 people who seemed at ease with each other and seemed to genuinely like each other.  He even gave her a lot of the credit for his recent boost in the polls there.  Being a New Yorker, one thing I've learned about Hillary over the years is that when people really get to know her they like her.  They find out she's not the person the media & her detractors make her out to be.

    Mister "Bold" strikes again! (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:21:51 PM EST
    Let him run it through his focus groups.

    to know her is to love her. I don't usually admire (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by iceblinkjm on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:03:11 PM EST
    politicians because of who and what they are but HIllary is different.  Everything she is and embodies makes me proud to be an American. Bill and Chelsea are so lucky to count her as family.

    I disagree... Hillary would have won more states (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Exeter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:45:28 PM EST
    She couldn't have gotten worse coverage than in the primaries and she still polled better than Obama. Plus the dynamic would change from being the traditional white candidate against the historic black guy to being the historic female candidate against the traditional white guy.

    Also she would have picked Obama and the media would have liked that.

    At the end of the day, either would have won by at least 11 points-- Hillary just would have won more states. She would  have won Missouri, Arkansas, Georgia, West Virginia, Louisana  

    I don't know about (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by WS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:50:34 PM EST
    Louisiana and Georgia.  She would have lost those states.  She would have had a chance with Tennessee and Kentucky.  

    Sorry but the only reason why the Dem's lost LA (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by iceblinkjm on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:23:15 PM EST
    was because Obama was the nominee and he did not make any effort at all within the state to win or even to ask the people of LA for their votes. Especially with the Cajun or Catholic enclaves of South East LA areas which Hillary would have easily won. There's a reason why Landrieu took so long to endorse. Obama was not liked outside of the city of New Orleans and especially after Hillary conceded.

    So then by that logic (none / 0) (#133)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    wouldn't hillary have won the primary there instead of losing by almost 30 points?

    Louisiana has really changed since Katrina and if the Republicans had a credible challenger to Landrieu, she would have been gone.


    I can't disagree with anything you said. (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:15:51 PM EST
    I just wonder when we will actually elect a president based on, umm, the democratic process, vs. the continuation of the MSM selecting and coronating our choice .

    How about fixing the Democratic process (4.25 / 4) (#137)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:29:11 PM EST
    within the party first -- that may be more attainable than fixing the massive role that American society has accorded the media.

    Interestingly, either way for fixing the party or fixing the media, a good first step would be to get rid of Donna "Fairy Tale is a Racist Term!" Brazile.


    DB (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:23:40 PM EST
    Can't believe they pay her for what she does! There has to be someone who can do a better job available.

    Before the NC primaries, (none / 0) (#164)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:55:43 PM EST
    I called a highschool friend who is married w/kids and lives in NC.  I asked her about her upcoming primary vote.  Her reply, paraphrasing, was I just want the Dem to win and I don't see how Hillary can win with the press against her.  

    According to CBS (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by trillian on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:51:25 PM EST
    Hillary would have won by a larger margin than Obama

    You see the Media loved Obama,  but the voters loved Hillary.  And in an election, it's the voters who count.

    Thought-provoking post.  Relevant to your comments is the fact that many experts have argued that Obama is a member of Generation Jones...the heretofore lost generation between the Boomers and Xers, now 42-54 years old.

    You may have noticed, like I have, that there's been quite a bit of buzz about GenJones in the context of this election; I saw several discussions on national TV about Obama being a Joneser, as well as about GenJones voters being a key swing vote.

    You may find this link interesting, my friends and I have been linking people to this page because we think it matters: it has a bunch of print excerpts and videos of big time publications (e.g. The New York Times, Newsweek, etc.) and pundits (e.g. David Brooks, Clarence Page, etc.) all talking about Obama's identity as part of Generation Jones:  http://www.generationjones.com/2008election.html

    she would have won easily (3.83 / 6) (#78)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:16:52 PM EST
    but she would not have been the imaginary god people are trying to make of Obama.  

    You know, the election is over (3.60 / 5) (#48)
    by ericinatl on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:37:42 PM EST
    I don't see why we need a post attacking Hillary when she wasn't the nominee.  It seems more than a little self-serving.

    At the bottom of Obama's win was not his media darling status.  It was the economy.  That's it.  Otherwise, it would have been a very, very close race.

    Bill's record on the economy would have swept Hillary to an even bigger win than Obama.  Bank on it.

    Who's attacking Hillary? (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by CST on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:48:44 PM EST
    Not this post.

    Critical analysis is not the same thing as an attack.


    Sadly, I agree with you (3.50 / 2) (#45)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:33:35 PM EST
    Hillary would not have been the media darling that Obama was, and I'm not sure she could have won because the media may have chosen McCain against her.

    Not only that, amongst democrats, she would not have inspired the extremes of adulation that Obama did. It seems that extreme kind of reverence, adulation, and thrill-up-the-leg thing doesn't happen in men for female leaders.

    Right... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    ...because the male segment of the GOP didn't get the "thrill-up-the-leg thing" at all with Sarah.  

    Got any more sweeping, inaccurate generalizations you want to put out there?    


    Well, it is tempting.... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:21:50 PM EST
    Got any more sweeping, inaccurate generalizations you want to put out there?  

    considering your Palin comment, but I'll resist.

    Thank you, actually, because your comment helps me understand this point even better, in spite of your mocking intention. You see, the 'thrill-up-the-leg' phenomenon I was referring to was the not the, erm, MILF phenomenon directed towards Palin that you misinterpret it as. I was referring to the fawning, tears-streaming-down-the-face, Dear Leader, kind of thing that Olbermann, Matthews, and their ilk directed towards Obama - an entirely different phenomenon, sometimes described by my kids and their friends as a 'man-crush' (to my great amusement). Your funny misinterpretation of what I was talking about as the kind of sexual 'thrill up the leg' exhibited by some towards Palin is actually helpful, thanks.

    As far as my 'sweeping, inaccurate generalizations', you may notice that my comment is just my opinion, and we are all entitled to those, big guy.

    I'd be happy to hear about an example that would change my mind, however, if you have anything to offer other than derision. I just haven't yet seen that kind of response from men towards a woman in a big authority or leadership role to date, an I'm having difficulty imagining it. I'm not saying they don't elect women to office, I only said that I have yet to see a female running for president or other high office inspire that particular kind of (over?)reaction among male voters. One of my male friends likens the 'man-crush' phenomenon in U.S. politics to his experience in the military, where he says that female officers don't seem able to quite inspire the same degree of adoration and loyalty and as males do. They just don't see it in them, although they may respect them.

    But perhaps this is wrong and you can correct me - fine by me.


    On the contrary (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:29:14 PM EST
    "I just haven't yet seen that kind of response from men towards a woman in a big authority or leadership role to date, an I'm having difficulty imagining it."

    On the contrary, I can't think of a female leader who hasn't been regularly met with derisive remarks (ball-buster, result of nepotism, etc. etc.) from the male half of the population. Far be it from them actually "adoring" a female leader.


    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#85)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:29:38 PM EST
    I'm 40 years old and Obama is the first candidate I have ever been excited about in my life.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with gender.


    Why, thank you, flyerhawk (none / 0) (#157)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:39:38 PM EST
    For your comment that is completely unrelated to mine.

    Me too, and I have (none / 0) (#161)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:49:04 PM EST
    you beat in the age category by a few....

    But just young at heart, delusional, I suppose....There is an idealism which is refreshing....We certainly have enough cynicism to last forever....  


    So, Fly what was the attraction? (none / 0) (#175)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:21:03 PM EST
    "Adulation" equals support (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:45:17 PM EST
    Obama had it and is still enjoying it.....It is not a bad thing.....unless the shoe is on the other foot as it was with Reagan.

    No, actually (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:00:25 PM EST
    'adulation' and 'support' have quite distinct meanings. Which was my point.

    Since both were electable, the risk of the (none / 0) (#1)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:33:23 PM EST
    unknowns entailed with choosing Obama should have been far more important, IMO.

    That was a reasonable position (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    It was my view that in this electoral year, the risks were slight.

    New Yorker article today (none / 0) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:39:58 PM EST
    Did not finish reading, but boy I would love your take on this...
    Battle Plans: How Obama Won

    I my mind it would be ... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:13:06 PM EST
    a very short article.  Three words in fact:

    Lehman Brothers failed.


    I thought it a poor article (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:42:59 PM EST
    She would not have (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    Hillary raised enormous amounts of money. Not as much as Obama but she would have opted out for sure.

    Media darling? (none / 0) (#13)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    I just don't buy the notion that a candidate is the media darling.  Any relationship is built out of a combination of work (mostly) and attraction (a dash of).  

    I think the thing that hurt her in terms of this relationship, was that she was built up as the inevitable Democratic canidate, and I am guessing during that time didn't continue to cultivate the relationship with media personalities (too which there are too many to have a conspiracy) she should have.  When she turned her candidacy around she was definitly building up a solid group of supporters in the media (my view as an Obama supporter).  However, that turn around is not based upon sudden attraction, but work.  She began to have a message to build something on.  

    The media have hated Hillary (and Bill) (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    since they came to Washington. The shoddy reporting on Whitewater etc. was as much about Hillary as Bill, and it carried on forever.

    Obama started as an icon, and has continued that way.


    I agree... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Thanin on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:53:20 PM EST
    but what Im unsure of is why.  Why where/are they so hated by the media?  

    My first vote in a presidential election was in 1992 for Bill, but beyond the vote I wasnt nearly as engaged as I am now (ideologically I was but not on a practical level).  So I never realized how bad it was at the time.


    Joe Conason and Gene Lyons (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:55:08 PM EST
    wrote a book on it.

    In a nutshell, read about the Arkansas Project.


    Is there a good book for Gore v Bush? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:00:15 PM EST
    Sometimes looking the election coverage solo makes it easier to see the bias.  

    Well, having lived it, I didn't really (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:05:27 PM EST
    look for a book. Recount was pretty good.

    Oh, and the campaign against Gore was very much fruit of the Arkansas project.

    Remember "Gore will say anything?"


    It was a different game. (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:25:03 PM EST
    The animus against the Clintons was easier to see - it hid in plain sight.

    Gore and Bush was different, the animus was disguised as sly digs.  


    Ouch (none / 0) (#24)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:58:04 PM EST
    Remind me to be nice to this guy.

    the recommended books are good (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by sj on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:07:41 PM EST
    but in his own succinct way, Bill Clinton said it best.  They hated him because he won.

    They thought Bill (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by BernieO on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:02:45 PM EST
    was a hick. They also looked down on Jimmy Carter, repeatedly calling him a peanut farmer, as if he had never been a governor. The media obsessed about his brother Billy's antics, as well as Roger Clinton's, but glossed over Neil Bush's admission in court that he had been with call girls. Having relatives that do crass things fits the hick image, but not that of the elite Bushes. Palin received the same treatment. (Just a small town mayor, messy relatives, etc.) Many of the same crowd who were so appalled at Clinton's sexual dalliance also worship JFK who had many mistresses, one of which was simultaneously the mistress of a mob kingpin, and a couple who were almost surely spies. (Ellen Rometsch when he was president and one when he was an ensign working for the Secretary of the Navy). Yet the MSM never criticize Kennedy for his much more egregious behavior because he was a classy guy from the northeast. (This is not to denigrate Kennedy, only to point out how the media excuses behavior from an "insider" that they trash the rest of us for.)

    The media wants only cool kids elected and are very offended when we rubes dare to choose someone who doesn't come from a big city or the coasts.

    As Tom Brokaw recently bragged, politics is like high school. Funny I don't remember popularity contests in high school getting people killed.


    Amen (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by DFLer on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:56:01 PM EST
    sombody (?) said Bill was resented because he was BOTH a hick/trailer trash and a Rhodes Scholar...drove 'em nuts.

    Bill was well known as brilliant (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST
    back then--a Rhodes Scholar....

    I'm not buying the "hick" argument....

    There was a lack of drama in the 90s--the peace and prosperity just didn't have a lot of entertainment value....No sizzle....A tawdry scandal and byzantine financial quest filled the void; whether true or not, they kept people's interest and were therefore pushed...


    In addition, Bill Clinton was (none / 0) (#189)
    by Spamlet on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:54:52 PM EST
    the first Baby Boomer president. Thus he was caught between the fury and disdain of conservatives in his parents' generation, who were still fuming about the late 1960s, and the toxic envy of some in his own age cohort, especially mediocrities who were working in the media.

    Reagan and Junior Bush were (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:08:02 PM EST
    flat-out "media darlings."  By comparison, Obama, in the general, was merely a slightly preferred candidate as against McCain in the coverage I saw.

    Olbermann recently went through a long list of stupid things McCain had said or done in the election cycle, and noted how remarkably uninterested the MSM seemed to be in making them into major stories.  He asked the viewer to consider whether Obama or any Dem nominee would have gotten such a mostly free-pass on the stupidities and controversies if the D had been the one to make them.

    As for Hillary as nominee, it would have been a much uglier GE than we did have, thanks to the Clinton-obsessed corp media, and the added fact that she would have beaten their preferred Dem, Obama.  

    I think she would have found a way to combat it -- probably because it would have been so over the top in its ferocity that it would have created a sizable backlash against the media and, as happened to some extent in the primary season, forced some of them to back off.

    The Dems were going to prevail in this solidly Dem yr anyway, but the financial crisis kicking up in the fall made it a certainty for any nominee this side of Kucinich.


    And I'm not so sure about ... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by sj on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    ... the exception for Kucinich ;)

    The media apparently gave McCain a free pass (none / 0) (#40)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:26:22 PM EST
    at least in the latter nine weeks because they had a more "news-worthy" scape-goat in Palin.

    Granted, I didn't really watch most US coverage being in Canada, but it seemed to me CNN at least couldn't get enough of Obama. Maybe in the States, the other news-stations tempered that a little.


    Palin is a hick (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by BernieO on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:07:11 PM EST
    in their eyes. McCain is cool - fighter pilot, etc. - but not as cool as Obama, partly because of his age.
    Also they clearly have big problems with women, who are never considered as cool as guys.
    This has nothing to do with ideology. Don't forget they loved Bush because he was more fun than they nerdy Gore, who made them feel dumb by comparison.

    Obama stiffed the (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    media far more than Hillary (or Bill) ever did, and they still got thrills up their legs.

    The Clintons/media problem is not because of anything the Clintons did or didn't do, it's because of who the media is.  Or are.  Or something.  You get my meaning.


    I call that (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CST on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:42:05 PM EST
    The "shiny new object factor".  Obama had it, Hillary didn't.

    Yes, and let's be honest (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:46:25 PM EST
    it's also heavily the white liberal guilt factor.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CST on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:52:03 PM EST
    No argument from me there.

    For anyone who watches the daily show - they had a skit about the newly emerged "black liberal guilt".  It was pretty priceless.


    Howard Dean was a (none / 0) (#66)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:55:54 PM EST
    shiny new object in 2004.  But after his summer swoon with the press in 03, he got skewered repeatedly by them pre-IA.  Then post-IA, they buried his chances with a solid week of running the Scream Speech.

    Might be something there, though, re media white librul guilt ...


    Sometimes they like (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:21:56 PM EST
    shiny new objects and sometimes they hate 'em.

    For reasons I will never understand, they hated Howard Dean's guts maybe more than the Clintons (although not more than Al Gore).  The MSM absolutely literally destroyed Dean's candidacy, and the "scream" was only the icing on the cake after he'd lost Iowa pretty badly and was on a rapid slide downward anyway.

    It was utter high Broderism.  Because Dean dared to oppose the war and call out Bush Republicanism for what it is, he was characterized harshly from the very beginning as "angry" and out of control and a little bit nutty.  Oooohh, horrors.  Can't have angry!  It upsets the Village dinner parties!


    Re. the media take-down of Dean... (none / 0) (#181)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:34:40 PM EST
    I believe the Democratic establish gave the MSM tacit permission to take down Howard Dean. Like Hillary in '08, Dean was not the favored candidate of the Dem establishment in '04.

    They seized the moment with the "scream", which was not a scream at all.

    The audio record levels were adjusted so that his voice sounded disproportionately loud relative to the noise of the crowd. There are other video/audio recordings of the same event where you can barely hear him over the crowd.


    Dean was done *before* (none / 0) (#184)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:44:31 PM EST
    the famous scream.  And yes, it was distorted, as reported on ABC News the very next day.

    The Dem establishment doesn't give permission to media for anything, nor does the media require it.  The media and the Dem. (and GOP) establishment are all part of the same Village and generally share the same "Ick" reactions.


    Forgot to say (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:31:08 PM EST
    she was definitely not building up anything resembling "support" in the media.  What she was getting was largely grudging respect, and a good deal more of it from the right-leaning media who would never vote for her under any circumstances, than from the left-leaners and the ostensibly neutral.

    She only -- only -- got sincere praise from the media when she gave rousing speeches on behalf of You Know Who.  IOW, once she was out of the running, they conscended to praise her for her submission to their favorite.


    The Clintons were the Palins (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:43:34 PM EST
    of 1992.  And Senator Clinton had plenty of time to cultivate relationships with media blah blah blah -- as will Sarah Palin in years to come, but just wait and see how well that works with the villagers.

    Then you'll see.


    Ah, no, Palin is intellectually bereft.. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by byteb on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:16:26 PM EST
    nothing will change this. The Clintons were always intellectually dazzling,
    Also the 'villagers' were quite taken with Palin after her acceptance speech. They gushed. It was only after her interviews with Gibson and Couric that the narrative started changing. The MSM never even pretended to like the Clintons.

    I have to agree... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Thanin on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:19:24 PM EST
    that it was those interviews.  They were just indefensible in their horridness.  Had her performance been even adequate things wouldnt have gone as badly for them.

    Intellect is a minor factor (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:24:01 PM EST
    Evidence: Look at a lot of members of Congress.  Not to mention more than a few Presidents.

    And no, look back at the coverage of Palin from the start -- here, too -- with lots of mocking of the accent and the narrative . . . and lots of questions being lined up to take her down, no matter how the first interviews went.  The stage was set.


    You really must (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:27:46 PM EST
    understand the distinctions here.  The media only gushed over the stunning boldness of the choice and her, you have to admit, pretty dazzling performance at the convention.  But they were wildly condescending, to say the very least, at the idea of a young (Alaska! Ew!) governor as a vice presidential nominee.  She was labeled as the least qualified in history right smack from the get-go.

    They began to ridicule her and spread what turned out to be false stories about her (book banning, creationism in the classroom, etc.) well before -- well before -- she did the first disastrous interview.  They insisted from the beginning that she wasn't doing interviews because she was so ignorant and ill-prepared.  They snickered about how she must be holed up with briefers 24/7.  And on and on and on.

    That wasn't necessarily unfair, although the tone sure was nasty, but to say that they "gushed" over her for more than about 30 seconds is simply false.


    Oh and the constant (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:37:13 PM EST
    referring to her as the mayor of a small town, and trying to sweep the fact that she was actually governor of a state under the carpet. That irritated me no end.

    You are a young fellow correct? (3.25 / 4) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:46:16 PM EST
    You were not more than 5 or 6 during the 90s?

    Because your comment is silly imo.


    Certainly the Clinton's were attacked (none / 0) (#22)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:55:46 PM EST
    But was that because they had a bad relationship (initially) or the negative stuff that President Clinton did (and the stuff they said he and she did) sold papers and boosted rating.  In that regard, the relationship between the media and the Clintons was trumped by the relationship between the media and its stockholders.

    Also, I don't think there is a doubt that Conservative media came into its own during this time, and did push the "mainstream" media to the right in response.

    Also, though Senator Clinton was (and is) attacked by some in the press, those attacks built her mythology up (not a bad thing), as there were also many in the press that supported her- as you could see she did a good job.


    As I say (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:13:21 PM EST
    and I mean it, I swear, not to demean you, if you  lived through the 90s, then you would not ask that question.

    What was the role of $600M vs. $87M (none / 0) (#47)
    by jerry on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:36:31 PM EST
    I am very glad Obama is the President, but I am curious about the role of the $600M to $87M.

    Up until this year, I had been told that election reform was a liberal issue.  This year I was told many doubtful things.  Election reform was completely broken.  Online donations EQUATED to or was BETTER THAN public financing.

    Part of me is just appalled at what seems to have been a colossal waste of money.

    And the impression: did we buy the election?  Did we buy the media?

    And the question: what did a 7:1 advantage buy?  It was still pretty close.  Why was it so close?  Is it because:
    a)  America is racist
    b)  Two party systems suck and will always drive close elections

    What happened to the rest of the money?  Any left over?  How can Obama use it?

    I'd love to see some pundits pundit this question.

    2016 (none / 0) (#69)
    by WS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:07:07 PM EST
    But 8 years is a long time. Hopefully, Obama has a successful Presidency so Hillary can say how much more Democratic governance is needed if she decides to run again and wins a 2016 nomination.

    The Republicans are already grooming Bobby Jindal for a shot at the White House.  

    The Dem establishment and the Obama (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:48:37 PM EST
    campaign deemed Hillary too old and too much of a "Washington insider" in '08.

    What will change in 2016? Will long-lived, hard-won experience be more revered than green-horn "youth" and "hope"?

    I think not. Although it might, if Obama's youth and hope prove to be more of a liability than an asset.


    Speaking of "Washington insiders" (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:51:22 PM EST
    How's that Cabinet looking?

    This has nothing to do with the media (none / 0) (#73)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:12:21 PM EST
    I was always an Obama supporter but would have been perfectly okay with Hillary. I may not have knocked on doors but I would have still donated and voted for her. The problem I saw with Hillary was just from sampling from my very independent minded friends that she was too polarizing. These people do not like the idea of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, aren't really into the rank partisanship and don't really care for establishment figures. I even met former Hillary supporters who said that looking back on it they weren't even sure she could actually win based on how her campaign was run and the Clinton name. For all of the positive things that Bill did there are still a sizeable number of people who do not like the idea of two families running this country.

    Hillary's negatives, an incompetently run campaign with Mark Penn at the helm, and a fired up base on the GOP side would have doomed her chances.  She may well have won FL and OH but she would have lost MN, WA, and OR in the process.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by WS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:16:33 PM EST
    she wouldn't have lost those states.  All this is hypothetical but both Hillary and Obama had different paths to victory.  Hillary's for instance, included Arkansas and West Virginia.

    I'm just hoping Hillary gives it another go in 2016.  She can become President but it requires a successful Obama Presidency and of course, winning the nomination if she wants to run again.    


    She probably would have (none / 0) (#94)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:40:52 PM EST
    Without Portland's anti-war base, Oregon is a red state and Hillary would have done horrible up there. Trust me, I have friends there and one who worked on the Merkley campaign and when their pollsters found her trailing in hypothetical matchups in the state while Obama was consistently ahead.  I've heard similar about Washington.

    Hillary appealed to "traditional" democrats and this isn't to say that anyone can't be a traditional democrat but she primarily appealed to working class dems in states like FL, PA, OH but did not appeal to the more socially and economically, better educated dems. She would have barely squeaked by like Al Gore did in 2000 in Oregon and WA if she squeaked by at all. CA would have been the only safe  coastal state for her.

    My other concern is I'm not even sure she would have raised as much money as Obama. Hillary placed a huge emphasis on her big corporate donors and wasn't as internet fundraising savvy as Obama. You saw what happened after Super Tuesday?  

    If she had to spend time defending places like WA, OR, and MN which she would most likely have had to do, JOhn McCain could have played serious offense in must win states like PA, OH, and FL as she would not have been competitive in the mountain west.


    Trust me, (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by WS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:45:48 PM EST
    you're wrong.  I do think it would have been more competitive but just like McCain wanted to turn PA blue, he would have failed at this endeavor. In this environment, the blue states vote blue.  

    Again, this is hypothetical, but like I said earlier, please let go of your CDS.


    Actually I'll trust the numbers (none / 0) (#108)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:54:37 PM EST
    and the feet on the ground in those states that actually know a thing or two. Maybe you missed it but I had no problem voting for either dem, I just had a preference and one that I thought had a better shot at winning. Now Clinton Derangement Syndrome from me. Btw, that's rather offensive to say to someone that you don't even know.

    "competitive" is key to what you just said as that means resources and money have to be spent playing DEFENSE instead of making sure the states that you need to win are solidly in your column early on. This was one of the McCain campaign's biggest downfalls was that Obama was competitive in too many states for them to have a real shot unless they drew a straight. This was also the problem that I saw with Hillary and that ultimately doomed Gore and Kerry. They were playing defense in too many states, running out of money and time all while Bush had several routes to victory.

    If McCain had picked a more serious choice for VP and ran as a bipartisan reformer, it would have been a Kerry like margin for HRC in PA which would have forced her to spend big bucks there just to hold the state as he would have done well in the suburbs.


    In your hypothetical (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:56:51 PM EST
    Who is Clinton's VP?

    Clark or Bayh (none / 0) (#112)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:58:10 PM EST
    From what I had heard, Obama wasn't even on the list for VP no matter what happened in the primaries.

    OK, then I understand your perspective (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:01:12 PM EST
    Obama would have been her VP. She's no dummy.

    Why would he? (none / 0) (#115)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:04:37 PM EST
    What would have been the need from her perspective? I ask people this question and all I get is crickets.

    People could give me a reason why Obama would need Hillary but not the other way around. VP's aren't chosen because they are bosom buddies they are chosen on more strategic or practical basis.

    Give me a reason why Hillary would need Obama? I say this as an Obama supporter who thought it was absolute crap when HRC said she would pick Obama knowing there was a 1% chance of her actually doing it.

    Also, I don't think he would have accepted.


    Because of the exact argument you are making (5.00 / 7) (#118)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:11:28 PM EST
    That she would have had to defend too many states without him. That's what I mean when I say she's no dummy.  She can see the electoral map as well as anyone. I think she absolutely wanted to win and absolutely would have picked him

    I don't know if he would have accepted. I don't see him as a loyal Dem, so he might have said no. And if that's really the case, it gives me that much more admiration for her and what she did to get him elected.


    I still disagree (none / 0) (#123)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:18:58 PM EST
    and again ask for you like I do everyone who says she would have picked him, what would he bring to help her win? Someone could always name a specific demographic that Hillary could "bring" if she were on the ticket for Obama but not vice versa. It goes back to "traditional" democrat appeal that Hillary had in PA and OH but not really outside of the rust belt and parts of appalachia.

    Hillary at the top of the ticket and Obama at the bottom would not have helped her win for instance CO or VA.


    Of course it would have helped her (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:28:53 PM EST
    Obama drove African-American turnout to high levels. Those levels may not have been quite as high if he were in the VP rather than P position, but they still would have been very high. And that ticket would have done very well with young people, although it wouldn't have done as well as it did with Obama in the P slot.

    Obama as VP would have been used very differently than Biden was.  With Biden it was basically, "Please don't say anything too stupid."  With Obama, he would have had very high visibility, he would have been encouraged to go out and vigorously convince his supporters that they should vote for the ticket. If he had done for her what she did for him (which she did even though she wasn't on the ticket), the Dems would have slaughtered McCain.

    Would he have done it? I dunno. Did he want to elect a Democrat or just elect himself?


    "Did he want to elect a Democrat (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:39:24 PM EST
    or just elect himself?"

    Ooh, ooh, can I answer.


    That's what you would hope (none / 0) (#153)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:25:12 PM EST
    There are alot of "ifs" there.  

    She wouldn't have picked him and even if she offered it to him, he wouldn't have accepted.


    Just think about it a nanosecond or two (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Trickster on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:49:49 PM EST
    • Young people
    • Black people
    • People who were pissed at her from the primary
    • Money
    • Media cachet
    • Consistency with the strong hints she had given
    • Chance to tutor/influence a rising talent
    • Begin a 16-year President/veep dynasty

    I spent a very short period of time coming up with that list. I'm sure there are more good reasons.

    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#154)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:26:56 PM EST
    you are assuming that all of those groups would have been equally attracted to Hillary at the top of the ticket as they would have been with Obama.

    This is why I never saw the idea of the "dream ticket" that people kept trying to promote. It never made any real sense.


    well, sure (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:21:10 PM EST
    I agree that those groups would have been a little weaker with O as VP rather than P. But a little weaker doesn't mean you lose; it just means you don't win as big. (But Hillary would have brought other strengths to the ticket, so who knows what the net effect would be.)

    Let's not forget (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:29:53 PM EST
    that she would have brought in the vote of the so-called "PUMAs" - if we're going to talk about how she would be weaker with the Obama constituents, it's only fair to counter that with where she would have been stronger. (Not to mention that some PUMAs actually voted Republican - so that's less of an obstacle she'd have to overcome)

    Not at all (none / 0) (#174)
    by Trickster on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:20:04 PM EST
    I'm just assuming that Obama as veep would've exerted some level of attraction for the people who were his constituency as a presidential candidate, and that therefore his presence on the ticket at the #2 spot would've enhanced her draw.  Given that many of his supporters were pretty passionate about him, I think it's an extremely safe assumption.

    Why would Hillary have chosen Obama as VP? (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:58:08 PM EST
    Because AA voters would have turned out in mega-huge numbers to vote for Obama as VP, much as they did for him as POTUS.

    Consider also, the combined effect of Latino voters turning out for both Clinton and Obama.


    Judging by your past comments (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by WS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:06:22 PM EST
    about Bill Clinton.  You have CDS.  Please work on that.  You don't have to hate on Bill to bring up Obama. They're both good people.    

    Just like Obama worked for and won Ohio, she would have worked for and won Oregon and Washington without too much difficulty. Ohio would have been a lot easier with Hillary.  

    Hillary would have gone with the old Clinton map strategy and it includes Oregon and Washington.  I question your political acumen if you actually think McCain would have had a chance with those two states against any Democrat.      


    Again you miss my point (none / 0) (#120)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:15:28 PM EST
    Obama had a ton of money to spend to win all of the states that he played hard in. I'm not so sure Hillary would have been able to do the same. Being competitive in WA and OR(which would have been true in her case based on actual numbers) would have been a disaster given her fundraising problems in the primaries (yes, there were serious problems).  She would have had to play defense in too many states only to rely on two expensive states (FL and OH) for a definite win.  

    If you knew of Oregon and Washington you would know that McCain would have definitely run strong there and would have had a good shot of winning at least Oregon.

    My issues with Bill are from his actions during the primary. I don't have a problem with Hillary as a person and have said as much.  I would have voted for her anyway I just don't think she would have won.


    Obama had a ton of money in the primaries, too (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by sj on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:28:09 PM EST
    He badly outspent her and she was still winning primaries (note:  I said primaries, not caucuses).  

    Same with the General Election.  Was it really $600M to $87M?  The cost per vote was really, really high.


    Well, you should (none / 0) (#147)
    by WS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:07:51 PM EST
    work on your issues with Bill.  Let go of your CDS.  

    Again, your political acumen is faulty if that's what you believe.  


    Not In PA (none / 0) (#178)
    by Blue Jean on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:25:58 PM EST
    She had deep roots in Pennsylvania; they gave her a big win when the tide was going for Obama.  Yeah, I'd agree with you that Kerry had trouble in PA, but Hillary was a favorite daughter.

    Numbers (none / 0) (#202)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:07:29 PM EST
    You have numbers on a hypothetical Clinton-McCain match-up in Oregon in the fall of 08?  If so, I'd like to see them because I don't actually think such polling was done.  And any polling done in the height of the primary is completely moot after the failure of Lehman Brothers....

    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:21:15 PM EST
    Clinton made history by raising $10 million in 24 hours after her victory in WV (I think, or maybe VA). But never mind that, it's only Obama who can garner in the big bucks.

    Also, didn't Hillary already have a sizeable stash for the GE. There's no reason to believe she couldn't have raised more.


    Yep, she spent years raising funds (4.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:26:27 PM EST
    for the run.  Then the money was put in the hands of campaign manager Patty Solis Doyle . . . and pffft went the funds.  And it turns out that Solis Doyle is tight with the Chicago machine.  Go figure.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:40:34 PM EST
    That didn't sit well with me at all. Nice going Patti.

    No, it was a very localized (3.50 / 2) (#196)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:24:23 PM EST
    conspiracy.  You don't know about the "Chicago Way," about Patti's brother, etc.?  Read the Trib's John Kass, and then come on back, bless your heart.

    That was actually disputed IIRC (none / 0) (#151)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:23:38 PM EST
    This was after the PA primary and this was disputed when the sheets were due.  The numbers were fluffed up by mostly maxed out donors.

    She relied heavily on big money and didn't use the internet to garner support. I'm not saying that she wouldn't but it just didn't seem that she was as interested in grassroots fundraising.


    Maxed out donors can't fluff up anything. (none / 0) (#195)
    by Teresa on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:23:41 PM EST
    Lost WA and OR? (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:17:46 PM EST
    I don't think so. Not this year.

    For all of the supposed "incompetence" of that team, they won lots of difficult--though numerically inconsequential--victories.

    We haven't heard much recently about Obama's embarrassment in Texas and Ohio last march, but it was a real one.


    nope (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:18:52 PM EST
    she would have won those states and arkansas and WV.  She would have won VA and NV too, but she might have lost NC, so freaking what.  She would have actually earned the election rather than just been a market brand.

    She would have lost VA (none / 0) (#95)
    by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:41:48 PM EST
    Arkansas, yes? VA, absolutely not.  

    Again, Hillary's base was "traditional" dems.


    The thing is (none / 0) (#81)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:22:10 PM EST
    Obama's campaign was truly innovative and groundbreaking in terms of organization, fundraising, and GOTV.  Even if the people whom Obama got to the polls would have voted for Hillary as well, it's not a given that Hillary's more traditionally-run campaign would have gotten all those people to the polls.

    I think Hillary obviously would have won and it's absurd for Poblano to suggest otherwise.  But realistically, as events actually turned out, Obama basically got his best-case scenario and the broadest possible mandate.  I still believe Hillary was the safer bet, but it's hard to see how she ever could have achieved the full unifying mandate that Obama ended up with.  I have always agreed with BTD that Obama had more upside and more downside, and he ended up realizing that upside.

    With you right up until (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:36:32 PM EST
    anything resembling "unity".

    For an election, yes.  Beyond Nov 4, 2008?  I'll believe it when I see it.


    The other thing is (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by sj on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    As far as that mandate goes:  Hillary would have used it.  Obama doesn't seem inclined to.

    I understand it's still early days, but I don't yet see any bold steps on the horizon that are Obama initiated.


    I agree when you say (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by SM on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:02:04 PM EST
    Obama isn't inclined to use his mandate. As for Hillary using it, at least in terms of health care, I'm sure she would have.

    Speaking of Hillary (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:35:17 PM EST
    I wonder if there is anything at all to this report.

    SOS?  Not the first place I'd think to put her, but I could definitely live with it.

    That would be a very good pick (none / 0) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:37:50 PM EST
    I think she could bring a refreshing change to Foggy Bottom.

    Hillary would have won as well (none / 0) (#89)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    She likely would have won within a 1 or 2 points of the margin that Obama won by.

    I'm not sure what her impact on the down ticket races would have been though.  There are a lot of people that really don't like her.  

    I also think that the divisiveness in Washington would have intensified with Hillary primarily because she is such a lightning rod for emotional angst.

    No matter who would have won by more, here (none / 0) (#132)
    by steviez314 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:27:15 PM EST
    is a better question:

    Would the new voters this cycle have gone 2-1 for Clinton like they did for Obama?  If Obama is a successful President, will they stay Democrats for a long time?  Will 2012 also bring a new 12% of the voters who go for the Democrats 2-1?  How many election cycles can those numbers be replicated for?

    Even assuming some slippage, that is a major wave rippling through the demographics of the electorate.  Imagine if 20% of the electorate will be voting Democratic 65-35 for the next 25 years.

    It's my opinion that Obama's victory, as it included younger, faster-growing states, will have a much longer lasting effect on the fortunes of the Democratic Party than a Clinton victory would have.

    That's assuming it's a successful presidency of course.

    the election that never happened (none / 0) (#156)
    by joel dan walls on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:37:38 PM EST
    If I had some ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had any eggs.

    Fore sure Obama ran a well oiled ground game (none / 0) (#191)
    by thereyougo on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:04:45 PM EST
     millions people volunteered, so I hear.The 50 state strategy will be copied by the GOP, trust me. They have a habit of taking Democratic ideas and twisting them for their own gain.

    Obama's campaign saturated the airwaves in New Mexico, where they ran non-stop days before the the vote.Obama was a tireless campaigner too, who kept showing up at UNM and other places around the state. Some  of my neighbors said they waited 4-5 hours and there were still more who couldn't get in.

    Obama's ads were effective too. McCain's?, eh! Tepid BS ads, playing to empty rhetoric, he's ready to lead,type ads. Obama will be tested!!.

    almost felt sorry for McCain. But not really.

    Yes, Hillary would not have won some of those states, but she would have won the election. She was a big favorite. Unfortunately her ground game wasn't a fine tuned machine as her rival's.

    Obama's well heeled, well oiled, lets not forget exxxxpensive, team got him the win. He has to live up to the expectations now.

    Hillary will be revered wherever she goes now, like Al Gore. With a sadness in my heart that she wasn't the nominee,I nonetheless support the new president and we shall see. The country is in a real fine mess. Thx to the worst administration in modern times.

    But McCain and Clinton are VERY good friends (none / 0) (#192)
    by JoeCHI on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:11:11 PM EST
    I see your points.  I agree with some.

    That said, neither you nor Poblano consider how McCain's and Clinton's deep and respectful friendship may have effected the campaign.

    The disdain that Obama and McCain had for each other would have been absent from the race, and we, and the media, would be dealing with a completely different dynamic.

    She would have won too (none / 0) (#200)
    by Baal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:54:54 PM EST
    but maybe not by as much.  Probably would not have had coattails as long, which IS important.  Obama or Clinton as president, far far far better than any GOP alternative.  As it stands, we have Obama.  A new face, not a bad thing, not so many old animosities to deal with.

    I believe Hillary will distinguish herself in the senate, and will become a great Senator.  I hope so, anyway.

    I think your analysis is pretty spot on (none / 0) (#201)
    by Jgarza on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    I think Hillary would have won, by how big a margin, I don't know.  She would have a different looking coalition.  She probably would not have won Virginia, NC Indiana, or CO.  But she would have won Arkansas WV and have a good chance of carrying Tenn, she could have competed in Kentucky and LA.  Its too bad we couldn't morph the two of them into one candidate it would have been a landslide of historic proportions.  

    She would have over performed democrats in the Appalachia belt, but would not have had suck HUGE margins in Urban areas.

    What do you guys think of the report she might be Secretary of State?  I would be surprised if she wants to go in that direction, but she is absolutely qualified and a good choice.

    50-state strategy (none / 0) (#204)
    by obiden08 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:03:12 PM EST
    I think the question is whether Hillary would have spread the map the way Obama did or if she would have gone for the traditional Democratic map, looking to pull in Ohio, Florida and West Virginia.  I'm not sure she would have campaigned in VA, NC, CO to the extent Obama did.  I don't think she would have had the money, for one thing.

    That said, she still would have won, but I'm not sure she would have garnered as many electoral votes.

    Obama is a political genius (none / 0) (#205)
    by Abbey on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:18:50 PM EST

    Please (none / 0) (#206)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:47:28 AM EST
    the DNC had nothing to do with this, the voters spoke.

    Yes, and when they did they chose Hillary. Interesting, no? She beat him handily in the popular vote and absolutely crushed him in states that had primaries. Yeah he won the caucuses, but caucuses are rife with fraud, the facts of which are just starting to come to light. Then there was the DNC deciding to steal Hillary's votes and delegates to drag Obama across the finish line. Oh yes, the voters spoke: A handful of voters on the RBC, that is.

    My issues with Bill are from his actions during the primary.

    Only someone badly infected with raging CDS could make this statement with a straight face.