About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

WHY CLINTON LOST

by: IrregardlessNH

Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:37:54 AM EDT


From its kickoff TH meeting in Berlin, NH in February, 2007 to the present day, HRC's campaign has been, apparently by design, informed by its sizzle, not its steak, process over policy, script and pandering over leadership. I made this specific point to Gen. Wes Clark during a small gathering of local activists in North Conway, NH in December, 2007 in which he was pitching Senator Clinton's candidacy. He agreed with my observation but defended her "cautious" approach as necessary to avoid providing the "right-wing propaganda machine" with material.
IrregardlessNH :: WHY CLINTON LOST
This fundamental defect of her campaign struck me from Day One when during the aforementioned 02.07 TH meeting, she opened with remarks and then took questions. In front of a impressive contingient of regional, national and international media, she answered a few softball questions about health care and tuition assistance with numbing generalities. Disgusted, I raised my hand and asked her: "We all know that the Bush Administration are congenital liars. In the interest of demonstrating that your administration would be more honest and transparent than the Bush administration: What is the true reason(s) the US invaded Iraq? We know it wasn't because of WMD or Al Qaeda, so take this opportunity right now to set the tone of your campaign and future administration by telling us the truth." Her reply, as reported by Patrick Healy of the NYT was:

She responded by asserting that President Bush and his advisers came into power in 2001 with an "obsession" to oust Saddam Hussein and resolve the "unfinished business" of the first Gulf War of Mr. Bush's father. "From almost the first day they got into office, they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein," Mrs. Clinton said. "I'm not a psychiatrist - I don't know all of the reasons behind their concern, some might say their obsession." "I guess they must have seen it as unfinished business, for want of a better term," she added. Mrs. Clinton then turned to criticizing the administration's handling of the war, saying: "If you had been obsessed with doing this, as they apparently were, why were you so incompetent?"

Now, of course, with her security clearances, and those of her husband, she certainly knows at least as much of the truth as we moderately-informed little people. She chose instead an answer that translates as either: 1) No my administration is not going to be any more transparent or honest than the Bush Administration, or 2) Condescending circuitous bullshit.

My question was followed by one from Roger Tilton, subsequently reported ubiquitously, who asked her if she was ready to apologize for her Iraq war vote. She answered no, based on a false claim of ignorance.

I and many other activists and citizens attended innumerable campaign events throughout the early months of the NH Primary, and one of the most common refrains was that most glaringly she, but also most of the other "top-tier" candidates WERE NOT ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS.

This ultimately led to my founding in October 2007 (along with Roger Tilton and other activists who felt that citizens deserved a responsive and substantive dialogue with candidates for public office) a non-profit, non-partisan organization called NH Asks to ask all the presidential candidates in NH provocative and tough questions in newspaper ads throughout the state. Their answers would then be rated for truthfulness, straightforwardness and responsiveness (STR) and published in subsequent newspapaper ads. As Executive Director of NH Asks, Inc., I can state with some authority that Senator Clinton rarely, if ever, supplied genuinely responsive answers to substantive questions, certainly at least when she campaigned in NH. Neither she nor her campaign ever answered NH Asks's questions.

The meeting with General Clark in North Conway, NH in December, 2007 was, for me, one of the most enjoyable and truly informative of the primary season. His candor and honesty was refreshing, and his respect for the intelligence of his audience was genuine. He stated that Hillary shared his progressive policy views, and that we could be confident of her similarly competent and progressive leadership.

I pointed out that whereas that might be true, she had given us no basis to know that. Her public interaction seemed all scripted and/or manipulative, as well as devoid of demonstrative leadership, citing examples including her support of the Kyle-Leiberman Amendment, and her failure to stand with Senator Dodd to defend the Constitution.

I suspect that the other side of the same coin that also doomed her candidacy was an excessive reliance on professional political advisors, rather than trusting her own instincts. However, my suspicion in this regard is largely circumstantial.

Nothwithstanding, her campaign's most monumental blunder was a failure to demonstrate her ability to lead the nation with both her words and deeds. And she squandered numerous golden opportunities to do so.

The real shame is that she could have run an inspiring and historic campaign, and if she had shed all this baggage, she might have been a great president.

Poll
Why Did Clinton Lose
Her failure to demostrate leadership
Excessive reliance on political advisors
She was a mediocre candidate
Mistakes by the "Big Dog"
Dependence on old politics
Missed the real political mood of the nation
She was stabbed in the back by the media
She was betrayed by the Democratic Party
Other reasons

Results

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
WHY CLINTON LOST | 10 comments
Irregardless? (0.00 / 0)
Why use that non-word?? Please explain the choice. Thanks.

NOTWITHSTANDING & IRREGARDLESS (0.00 / 0)
My wife & I recently started a blog by the same name.

I chose this blogger name as evocative and ironic on several levels.

It evokes the "logical absurdity" of much of what passes for political and social discourse nowadays. It subtlely evokes those who use "big words" or try to comment with (false) authority on matters of some substance or importance, but are poorly or insufficiently informed, or just plain wrong.  It's a "wink-and-a-nod" to those educated souls who know better, and intended as a subtle, insider joke on those who "don't get it", and probably never will. It's probably also faintly elitist from a person who values truth and honesty over slogans, talking points, half-truths and name-calling. Et. al.

Or what I just said is BS, and the name just continues to deliciously amuse me, and I'm quite fond of it.  In fact, I'm thinking of legally changing my middle name to Irregardless.


[ Parent ]
Thumb down (0.00 / 0)
I do not think what you're saying has much to do with why she lost.  You mention things which can be criticized, yes - but nothing that adds up to your conclusion "doomed".  I think it's a simple matter of Obama being an equally strong candidate and having a slightly better mix of messaging and in particular the fact that Republican behavior during the last eight years made his anti-establishment message really resonate in this election year.

(These election years, that is - Clinton can probably cross off the "2008" from all the campaign literature and signage and write in "2012", it's just about to start that up.  Check it out, some guy named Cory has already registered the domain name "clinton2012.com".)

You say "she might have been a great president" as though she's out of that game entirely but I think it's quite likely she will be the President at some point in the future, probably the first Woman president - just not in 2009.

And Burt is right, "irregardless" is not a word.

I am an Obama supporter, BTW.


http://www.nh-asks.org/ (0.00 / 0)
But let me also say that your NH Asks seems like a worthy project in conception at least, though I haven't read through the entire site.  It reminds me of Project Vote Smart which I like and find to be a good resource.  They experience a similar difficulty in getting candidates to answer questions - perhaps joining forces with them in the future would be productive?

What's next for NH Asks (0.00 / 0)
From our Jan 10, 2008 Press Release:

So what's next for NH Asks? Mr. Gurien replies, "We're planning to produce an ongoing series of TV programs where Federal, State & County elected officials take an hour or two to report to their constituents on the pending business and issues before their legislatures or boards. These moderated reports will be broadcast on the public-access (PEG) TV stations in those officials' specific districts, and we will encourage and facilitate citizen feedback and participation via NH Asks's website together with coordinated advertising. We hope to strengthen democracy in NH, and look forward to the enthusiastic participation of both our elected officials and the NH citizens they serve."

We also intend to ask provocative, but fair questions of many candidates in NH this year. Based upon what we learned of the process from last year, we expect to be effective in encouraging much more candidate participation across the board, as well as more cost-effective and wider media distribution of the questions and their answers than last year.

Stay tuned.


[ Parent ]
FYI: From dictionary.com (0.00 / 0)
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

http://dictionary.reference.co...

"He who loves correction, loves knowledge.  He who hates reproof is stupid." - Proverbs 12:1



regardless (0.00 / 0)
some will still usify it.

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

[ Parent ]
Department of Redundancy Department, please hold for one of our Redundant Redundancy representatives. (0.00 / 0)
And enjoy the redundant repeating of this message over and over and over again and again.

[ Parent ]
Holy mackerel there (0.00 / 0)
Safire !

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

[ Parent ]
William Safire (4.00 / 1)
he named the Squad Squad, and the Dept. of Rendundancy Department

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

WHY CLINTON LOST | 10 comments
Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox