Reply #75: That goes to both sides - [View All]

[karynnj]

It is also true that HRC started with the advantages - It was her campaign that was endlessly called "flawless". For 8 years, he Senate work has been summarized in a way to fit the narrative needed - that she was humble, took a back role, worked well with others and gradually became a leader. She started with the name recognition and benefited from holding the position, that by tradition, is treated very favorably by everyone in the President's party. Look at Laura's popularity among Republicans, Independents and even many non- DU Democrats. (She was attacked by the far right) The huge numbers of states on February 5 benefited her - not just because she had the name recognition and was expected to have far more money, but the big states included all the best Clinton ones. The narrative the media was prepared for was an easy HRC nomination victory.

Her team, and possibly HRC herself, are angry that VOTERS have chosen Obama over her. The expressed anger over Richardson is likely what both Kennedy and Kerry faced. Nobody referred to Bradley being "thrown under the bus" when virtually all official Democrats endorsed Gore before NH - including the MA Senators, who were closer ideologically to Bradley and Gore won all the primaries. Even in 2004, there were fewer comments at the time that anyone was "thrown under the bus" (Dean had far more endorsements and superdelegates going into Iowa)

The "historical" thing bothers me - if HRC were losing because people were rejecting her because she is a woman or if Obama was losing because he was black, I could see it - but that is NOT what is happening. Nor do I think that the candidates have a deeper connection with their supporters than is usual. I think the Dean supporters in 2004 were every bit as committed to him. I think the bigger difference is the greater nastiness in this long drawn out primary that has pushed people in to warring camps!