Thing is, she probably weighed that very scenario. I don't doubt for a moment that she had no qualms about going either way on Wright. It wasn't about beliefs or convictions or to right and wrong - it boiled down to strategy. In the end she decided she could do herself more political good by hitting Obama hard on it, so she did.

I'm sure she's already destroyed the sheet of legal paper where she drew a line down the middle and wrote "Magnanimous" on one side and "Critical" on the other and made lists.

Does anyone know why Oregon, a reliable blue state and home to many of the most progressive people (and beards) in the country, has *so few* delegates and plays such a late and insignificant role in choosing the nominee? Is it state population, # of registered dems, or something else? I'm lost. This system seems maddeningly ad hoc.

WoodyBombay: As a Clinton supporter, I must say that you are right. She could have gone either way. She piiled on because she had been going increasingly negative to try pull Obama down so that she could pull herself up. Hillary plays to win and wants to win, no matter the cost. In any event, it's all over now but the shouting.

Hillary would have won this election if the Wright stuff had come out in early February, rather than early April.  The fact that she didn't push this material then, or didn't forward it to Drudge or someone else to push it, belies every claim that she has waged a racially divisive campaign against Obama.  She's pulled her punches with The Kid, just like everyone else.    

I say this as a staunch Obama supporter, gurdjieff66 is 100% right.

Obama was absurdly lucky with this timing, in December? maybe costs him the nomination... This September? might've cost him the general election. Absurdly great timing. Timing so great that it's almost like I could believe the Obama side THEMSELVES leaked it after the Feb. caucuses.

HRC was practically begging the media to 'vet this guy' in December and January, all the Wright signs were already there (the rolling stone piece, the reneged invocation).

Personally, I'm glad Obama got so lucky, luck isn't the worst thing for a presidential candidate to have. Look at GWB.

That gurdie, or they were so full of their sense of entitlement they never really did their oppo research, and then have spent the last 6 months yelling at the media to "vet" the guy because they didn't do their own job.

The fact that anyone even contemplates what Hillary should or should not have done - rather than her simply doing what was right - says everything about who this woman is and how normal her calculating sociopathology has come to appear to people.  

Her "instincts?"  What instincts?  Hillary is incapable of graciousness or the high road or anything resembling those things and her "instinct" is to justify these unseemly personaity defects by bragging that it makes her a winner.  

The fact is - this "playing to win" thing is a loser.  Obama has proven there is a market for magnamity, and clearly integrity sells at this stage in our history.  

She lost the respect of the country by being so loathsome.  Not sure it will make any difference, but there's a movement building in NY to work hard at throwing her ass out of the Senate.  After her right wing voting record, the final straw has been this racial tag team, ignorant red neck "not that I'm aware of" act.

Let her move to one of her beloved white people havens, run for Senate there, buy some guns and coons and have at it, that isn't us and we're tired of being used by this nut case.

It's simply not allowed in Billary's world or mental makeup to let anything simply pass by.  They are first and foremost, attack dogs.  I do believe Crock1701 could be right about they simply never considered Obama to be a serious contender in the beginning, and had to play catch-up.

I've been saying this for a while now.  This is pretty basic politics.  Attacks from "independent" sources like the mainstream media carry far more weight than attacks from a political rival.  Moreover, whenever possible, you want to avoid having your fingerprints on negative attacks (this is why, in attack ads, it is generally somebody other than the candidate doing the attacking).  When your opponent is getting pounded by a third party, you don't pile on yourself.  You actually weaken the attack and make yourself look petty in the process.  Even Bush could figure this out.  Hillary's strategy is akin to Bush publicly saying "Ya know, those Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are really onto something."

I'm not sure whether magnanimous or neutral would have been the best play for her.  I personally would have liked to see her be magnanimous, and frankly Clinton comes across very well when she's acting magnanimous (see, e.g. the California and Texas debates).  By the time the Wright story broke though, she may have really needed it to really sink in in order for her to have even a remote chance of catching up, and the best way to make that happen is to remain neutral.  Regardless, either approach is far better politically than the one she took.

I think Heilemann is absolutely right. I was struck at the time, watching Huckabee's generous and sympathetic response on the Wright issue, that that should have been Bill Clinton.  He or Hillary could have then given the "race speech" and regained the high ground and credibility that was lost in SC. And I thought, too, that if she were the kind of candidate who could have been that generous and authentic, I'd have been happy to support her if he lost and so would a lot of other Obama folks.

It's not the only reason she lost -- there is a lot of truth in Heilemann's piece and Tumulty's too -- but a real showing of her true colors.

mmathog, every successful presidential candidate, and even more to the point, every successful president, is extremely lucky, especially with regard to timing. Some of this is blind luck, some of it is the result of good preparation -- one can amend the old maxim about "sufficiently advanced technology" and magic to say, "Sufficiently advanced preparation is indistinguishable from good luck" -- but the point is it's something that candidates and presidents depend on. You want to see a man with astoundingly lucky timing? Read a biography of Abraham Lincoln. Or Grover Cleveland. Or either Roosevelt. Or Harry Truman. Or Bill Clinton. Or, hell, Ronald Reagan, who managed to be a popular president for about 16 months of his 8-year term, but half of those months came in 1984.

If a Democratic candidate once again seems to have preternaturally good luck, be thankful, not derisive!

Perfect score again rhubarbs.  Really, I think you and vacentrist should be writing for TNR.  What do you do for a living?

Rhub: Right on.

There is also the Oscar Wilde aphorism: "One can never be too careful in the choice of one's enemies."  In one respect, the Clintons were absolutely right: she is a well-known character.  This allowed Obama to calibrate his campaign with her in mind.  She did not know him well; this meant that she could not react to the changing climate of the campaign.

Says something - a lot - about him as a potential President; says something about her as the recipient of the 3 am call ...

Hindsight is 20-20.  

Ralphnelle, I can't say why Oregon doesn't have more delegates, but I'd bet I know why their primary is so late.  My state, North Carolina, had it's primary late since both Dems and GOP'ers in the legislature didn't want to have the state-wide primaries too early.  They didn't want their campaigning to start too early in the election cycle.  This spilled over in when they would hold the primaries for presidential candidates.  (actually they didn't care about the prez primary since it's always decided by the time they get to NC).  The OR parties may be thinking the same way.

lymon, Hindsight on whose part? Honestly, people like VAcentrist and Roid accurately predicted most of the outcomes beginning from Supertuesday onwards (with Wisconsin being the only surprise). I honestly think you or I could have run Hillary's campaign better, at least with me there is no way I would let her lose Idaho by 50%. It is like they went out of their way to do as badly as possible there.

gurdjieff66, thank you for speaking the truth as an Obama supporter.  It's good to see someone neutral or pro-Obama sticking up for Hillary against the slanders that she's been a Dem-basher or race-baiter.  

I have no doubt that there are a variety of ways in which Hillary could have won the race and moves she could have made that would have given Obama no chance.  She did start out in the controlling position.  He was never inevitable, at least not until after Super-Tuesday.  Her loss is a combination of her mistakes, of which there were many, and the brilliance of his campaign.  

In my opinion, her biggest single mistake was in making her campaign theme about her rather than about America and its future.  This is always a mistake, but for her, with her already high negatives, it was an especially bad idea.

Perhaps it is also true that HIllary's many mistakes were inevitable in that they are all in some way an expression of who she is.  We can say in the abstract that different tactics would probably have led to a different outcome.  But then, to adopt different tactics might have required Hillary to be a different person, far more supple, far less brittle than she is.

I for one am so relieved that this has turned out the way it did.  Until the morning after Iowa, I was simply depressed thinking about the prospects of either a Republican or a Republican.

her campaign is repleat with over-reach, letting this and many things go would have been ... Obama-like

"If a Democratic candidate once again seems to have preternaturally good luck, be thankful, not derisive!"

I typed this:

"Personally, I'm glad Obama got so lucky, luck isn't the worst thing for a presidential candidate to have. Look at GWB."

How the FUCK was I derisive?

I think maybe you rhubarbs and roi are so in the tank for Obama you can't even see straight. I was merely pointing out how lucky Obama was and how luck is a good thing.

Jesus, I've given Obama a zillion dollars and got out the fucking vote for him, what the hell is wrong with you guys?

mmathog,

I didn't even comment about your post or indeed make any reference to it.  What are you getting all mad at me about?

Roid and Mmathog: the primary has officially gotten waaaay too long ...

Roid: I think mmathog is referring to the post where you begin with "mmathog".  Under the circumstances, it was natural for mmat to think you were commenting on his/her post ...

mmathog: to be fair to Roid, he DID put his comment on being derisive in a separate paragraph.  It could mean good grammar, because a new thought; it could also mean good manners, because a new object of comment.

The Internet, despite its many wonders, is not always a perfect medium of communication ... now, play nice boys - there's six months left to the GE, seven months to the bombing of Iran, just under eight months to Hillary bolting the Democractic Party for the Republicans when she does not become Majority Leader; and eight months to Hillary and Bill divorcing, citing irreconcilable differences, as Bill accepts an appointment as Ambassador to Paris from Barack. ...

It's not just Wright. EVERYTIME..

Every single time...

When there was a CHOICE for HRC to take the HIGH ROAD..

She refused.

In the debate when Russert brought up Farrakhan..

In the 60 Minutes interview about whether Obama was a Muslim..

The Patriotism thing

The Commander-in-Chief thing..

And finally, the Wright issue.

Everry single time she could have gone high road. But, her nasty core wouldn't let her.

Contrast that to Obama...

When Biden got into trouble in that debate about race...Obama rescued him.

What story did Richardson tell when he made his endorsement? About Obama rescuing him during one of the debates...

It's not just that she didn't go the high road with Wright, but that, SHE KNEW Wright had been IN BILL'S WHITE HOUSE. SHE KNEW that he was a well-respected theologian. But, most of all, having lived in the South for nearly 15 years, she understood completely the importance and function of the Black Church within the Black Community, and she crapped on it. I don't think a lot of Northern Whites understand it. But Southern Whites? Yes, they understand the context of the Black church to the Black community.

icarus,

You have me confused with rhubarbs who addressed a post to matthog. This has gone on way too long.