Wishes and horses, but assuming Clinton ran a different campaign also assumes Obama doesn't adapt, and he would have.  One thing you CAN say, his campaign has been very smart.  And the groundwork they did the in caucus states would not have been overcome simply by HRC staying on wonkish message.

yeah, and Hillary pissed away money way too fast leaving her with no money after super tuesday. So lets recap, if she ran a more intelligent campaign, didn't spend money foolishly, campaigned aggressively in caucus states than she would be much better off, and that would be especially true if she were a black man and an inspiring speaker. In other words, if Hillary Clinton were Barack Obama she would have won the nomination.

This is the thing you learn in law school [among other things] - lots of people belong in a back room poring over documents. They do not enter the negotiation competition or the client counseling competition, because they - as someone said on another thread - bring guns to knife fights. They freak people out. And/or bore them. There are lots and lots of jobs for them. The very last thing they should be is a politician. Most of these people have at least the self knowledge to figure this out, but where H went wrong is in marrying Bill, then thinking she should/could do this too. It's just not a good fit.

And I don't mean it's not a good fit because she's not slick enough to get people ga ga over her and vote for her - these "people skills" - they are crucial in working with colleages and opponents, which is a huge part of the work of a politician.

Perhaps, but it still would have left the party with the weaker candidate. Just because a plurality of Democrats are drawn to a populist policy wonk is not to say that Independents and Republicans would have been, too.

Well, OK, the New Hampshire thing did give her the Mojo back - short term - and the "surprise" popular vote win in Nevada (although prior to Iowa she'd been a cinch there) kept the narrative alive. So people can point to the race card thing getting them off message and losing the wonk thing. But I agree with dbhuff.

The Clinton campaigns fatal flaw was tha arrogance that said the whole thing would be wrapped up on Super Tuesday - they were saying this openly - which meant they never thought the "caucus states" as they pejoratively put it, mattered a damn. Also why Michigan and Florida didn't matter to them then either. There is a word for this. It is called "Hubris" and it has brought down much bigger men (and women" than Billary.

After Obama gets the nomination, here's hoping McCain picks Clinton to be his running mate.

Sure, it's a scenario best conjured from desperate, Sterno-fueled dreams, but I'd love to see it happen just to watch the hardcore conservatives start buzzing and vibrating in circles like the condemned bees in Bee Hell doing the Sad Bee Dance when the scout bees return to the hive and report that every blossom within a hundred miles is dripping with poison.

"... when she'd made that stunning post-Iowa comeback and had re-established her identiy as an earnest, hard-working Democrat focussed heavily on bread-and-butter issues."

The problem with this statement is that it relies on the assumption that the earnest, hard-working Clinton we sometimes see on the campaign trail is the real Hillary, and the vicious, dishonest Rovian attack-dog Clinton we have more often seen on the campaign trail is merely a tactical pose. The reverse seems more likely to be the case.

Sort of like how people try to believe that the spare, hard-rocking music of his early career represents the "real" Elvis, whereas the bloated, lazy music of his last 20-plus years represents some kind of inexplicable departure. In reality, the reverse is true -- young Elvis made the music he had to make, and old Elvis made the music he wanted to make. (Which I say as an Elvis fan.)

Rhubarbs, or its sort of like how people try to believe that the reach across the aisle, bring folks together  Obama represents the 'real' Obama, whereas the calculating politican of his sitting in Rev. Wright's church for twenty years and being named National Journal's most liberal senator represents some kind of inexplicable departure.

Rhubarbs, re Elvis: no no no no NO! [Jeremiah Wright voice there] Yes, he wanted to make some of that late stuff, but he was not happy with the movies or the crap that Parker had him doing in the sixties, with very few exceptions. He flouted Parker when he made that Vegas special, using the old Sun gang, and singing "In the Ghetto" - and the music he "had" to make in the 50s? You think he wasn't enjoying himself? Are you deaf and blind?

Ahem, ok. About HRC - I think the wonk and the bludgeon are BOTH the real her. The bludgeon lacks subtlety and tone. Think of the flatfooted attempt to put the SNL skit on the table at the last debate, for a small and telling example. Also think of her misplaced triumph in the "mean" debate, when Obama called her out on mischaracterizing his Reagan comments and she chirped, twice, "I didn't say Reagan". Sigh. This is someone who dissects leaves and completely ignores the tree, the birds in the tree, the people on the ground sawing at the trunk of the tree, etc. never mind the forest. And that quality, taken to an extreme, can also be a liability in wonkishness, when it creates unintended consequences in policy. You need a long view and an imagination for that part.

So -  did she vote for the bankruptcy bill because she was corrupt or because she was blind? Why not both!

Yes both blind and corrupt and tin earned and policy wonk and attack dog and narcissistic and....

All we need in a great President, no?  All we need at this moment in time.

Poor old Bill - he's known for months Hillary is toast, it's written all over his face.  He's just so whooped.

Poor old Bill is sitting exactly where he has wanted to be all the time -- as the only president in that family.  He's been sabotaging her from day one and as people say, "If you can't control your spouse, can you control anything?"

You know, speaking of Bill, I really think Hillary's support would largely evaporate if people realized that they'd have to start saying "Clinton 42" and "Clinton 44" like "Bush 41" and "Bush 43."

peter1943 said:

"Rhubarbs, or its sort of like how people try to believe that the reach across the aisle, bring folks together  Obama represents the 'real' Obama, whereas the calculating politician of his sitting in Rev. Wright's church for twenty years and being named National Journal's most liberal senator represents some kind of inexplicable departure."

Peter, what does the National Journal ranking have to do with being a calculating politician or contravene his demonstrated ability to reach across the aisle?   This is an illogical argument... it's almost as if you are just attacking Obama for the heck of it!  Say it ain't so!

Also, Obama's explanation of how he sat in Wright's church explains why it wasn't politically expedient.  Were he to have 'thrown wright under a bus' then I can see that being slimy... but again, it's as if this is meant as just a 'kitchen sink' attack on Obama without much substance to it.  A shame, really.  Is this the best people can do?

Oh, and I checked out that National Journal thing.  See here, nationaljournal.com/.../lib_cons.htm.    

It's a weird ranking.  Sure enough, Obama is the most liberal.  Number 2 is Whitehouse And number three is... Joe Biden!   Biden?!  Third most liberal?  And where's good ol' Ted Kennedy?  28th!  This is one screwy list!  Harry 'Pro-Life' Reid is #9.  

Maybe someone who knows a little about this journal can explain how the numbers are completely wacko.  

"And I think that may have something to do with why, even after the Reverend Wright controversy, she and not Obama is the one whose poll numbers have taken the hit."

The Clinton campaign said not a peep about the Wright controversy.  They stayed with the issues.  So what's your point, Asshole?

You inadvertabtly (like the twit who's inadvertantly funny) betray the, yet again, monstrous fecklessness of the Obama constiituency.  

Somebody's losing it...

jm, she broke her silence on Wright a couple of days ago, in the wake of sniper-gate, or whatever it's called.

Sniper-gate -- that's good.  Barrack tries to lie himself out of an awkward situation, and suddenly it's all about Hillary.  Yeah, figures.

I don't think Jonathan is remembering quite right. While Clinton did go negative for a bit between New Hampshire and South Carolina, the backlash at that point muted her and Bill for a crucial six weeks, when she did go wonko.  It was only in the last week prior to Texas and Ohio, around the time of the 3 a.m. ad, that Hillary went back to slash-and-burn. Unfortunately, attack seems to have kept her campaign alive in the run-up to Texas. It may be backfiring now - but the damage to the party has been done.

awwww poor poor Hillary - victimized AGAIN, bring out the violins (not that she lied yet again about her "experience" on live TV, nope she's just been victimized by cruel Obama and meanies in the press).

It is interesting to speculate how the campaign might have been different if Hillary had continued to focus more on "bread-and-butter issues" instead of going negative.  However, here on planet Earth, that was not really an option.  The press coverage of her campaign, including most of the blogs at TNR, has always been overwhelmingly tilted toward Obama.  Even when she was in wonk mode, every speech and every pronouncement was treated by the press as the cynical spin of weasels.  On the other hand, every utterance from the Obama campaign was treated as uplifting received wisdom.  It is little wonder that Hillary's campaign felt the need to move away from wonk mode.  It wasn't working because it wasn't being heard.

Hillary's campaign is over and it is a shame that she cannot admit it.  However, it is interersting to speculate how things might have been different in some alternate universe where we don't need SNL to remind us how ridiculously subjective the media has been.