Gothamist: Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Failure to Win the Nomination

EastRiver

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:22:18 -0500

Her husband was the same age as Obama is now, when he entered the presidency, and yet she ran her campaign on the basis that he didn't have enough experience. Experience isn't about age. By the time he ran for President Clinton had more than a decade of executive experience as a governor. Obama has four years as a Senator and a few more years as a state Senator.

cucarachita

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:11:27 -0500

What bothers me is the weird self-sexism of the Hillary supporters who wanted Hillary just because she's a woman, and who threatened to vote for McCain! That kind of hysterical attitude gives modern feminists (I guess I mean under 50 years old feminists), a really bad name, and just makes us cringe. Hillary had my vote when she first started, but she lost it long ago, when she started showing herself to be more interested in her own legacy than in our country. She showed herself to be ungracious, and a low-hitter. She conducted her campaign like some of the nastiest men I've seen running for office, while Obama managed to shine throughout. Her husband was the same age as Obama is now, when he entered the presidency, and yet she ran her campaign on the basis that he didn't have enough experience. She was a sore loser, and I'm frankly glad she's gone. I just hope the Republicans don't use clips from her campaign as fodder against Obama! There's certainly plenty of nasty attacks there, enough so that the Republicans don't even have to come up with their own!

Murray Hillster

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:03:05 -0500

I think coming up with reasons the Clintons remains in the news is a futile exercise in applying rationality to irrational behavior. It's like trying to explain why people follow every move of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Explanations will get you only so far before you have to acknowledge people are nuts and are obsessed for irrational reasons.

Jen Chung

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:07:42 -0500

I think that the media concentrates on Clinton's story because (1) she seemed to have the campaign in the bag last fall - she had the money and the power, but her campaign was, many people believe, too arrogant, (2) her husband was president and a very vocal part of her campaign, and (3) she's made sure to stay in the media's focus, whether it's good news or bad news.

moonbeam

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:02:04 -0500

"Why are so many of the sheep rooting for Hillary and basically threatening to vote for McCain if Obama wins?" I'm convinced that most of the self proclaimed "Hillary supporters" who loudly threaten to support McCain are actually Republicans just trying to stir up controversy. They never truly intended to vote for any Democratic candidate. Their only motivation was to get Clinton into the general election, where they're convinced she would be an easier opponent than Obama.

bklynd

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:55:31 -0500

Matty, I think it also goes beyond "identity politics" (I will vote X because I am X), and becomes a kind of consumerist mentality where you become irrationally invested in the thing you choose, want it to succeed, and highly value your own opinion about it. Even a statement like "I prefer Y" is seen as hostile. How many times have you tried to tell somebody about a restaurant or bar or something that you like, and they say something like "Oh yeah, I tried that place once and didn't like it." And inside you are thinking "OK whatever, jerk!"

matty

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:53:02 -0500

"Why are so many of the sheep rooting for Hillary and basically threatening to vote for McCain if Obama wins?" Considering Obama and Clinton are almost identical policy wise I think the media says it best when they call it "identity politics." The Clintonistas will vote for McCain - and against their own self interests - for no reason other than they don't like Obama on a personal level. Sadly, I found myself in the same camp when I thought Obama was going to lose - I was definitely going to vote for McCain if Obama lost. I know it is counter-intuitive to do so, but that's just how I felt. Both Candidates have a power of personality that is impossible to ignore - and liking one usually means hating the other. Sad yes, but a fact nonetheless.

Jen S

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:42:50 -0500

FYI: long video + auto-refresh = no good.

sonyactivision

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:42:28 -0500

They always say they're going to "work their heart out to elect their rival", but then they just quietly fade and disappear altogether. Obama owes the Clintons nothing and the Clintons owe Obama nothing. There's no There there.

Shinobi Shaw

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:30:49 -0500

Why are so many of the sheep rooting for Hillary and basically threatening to vote for McCain if Obama wins? The Clintons have many skeletons in the close, the sheep don't even know of them being involve in the Opium trade during the Iran-Contra fiasco.

babyhitler

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:27:38 -0500

There is only one reason why Hilary lost and Obama won. OPRAH! Obama must get on his hands and knees and kiss Oprah's backside until his nose is brown, I mean browner, everytime they meet.

bklynd

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:25:06 -0500

Eh, moonbeam, this post-game analysis strikes me as very healthy. It may help all of those Clinton supporters who were so emotionally invested in her run to understand why it didn't happen, instead of relying on crude charges of sexism, conspiracy, political correctness, mass stupidity, etc. The Times coverage of all the infighting in her campaign was very revealing, for instance. It also makes her look somewhat less like a monster and like just another unfortunate politician/CEO-type who lives in an echo-chamber of self-interested staff members.

moonbeam

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:11:20 -0500

So WHY does the media insist on keeping her in the news, constantly rehashing her campaign? She lost. She's out of the race. She *should* have bowed out gracefully a long time ago. Let it go already!

matty

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:01:44 -0500

Great post, Jen.