Article, makes one ponder a little about the "why" of HRC mistakes.

[Mother Of Four]

(DISCLAIMER...My thoughts here are the pondering of a political addicts mind. Thought I do not support Hillary, there are aspects about her that I've respected. This is my attempt as fixing some of MY confusion as far as the mistakes made during this campaign. I seriously want a discussion on this please.)

This article was posted Dec 17, 2007...

I don't recall reading it here, if it's a dupe please forgive me.

http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2007/12/17/diagnosis_clinton_fatigue/ Keep in mind, it is the BG, so read with a candid eye.

This interesting part here

(clip)
Hillary's campaign clearly views husband Bill as an asset. Others, including the Globe's Joan Vennochi, aren't so sure. But here is a more intriguing angle, suggested by Herald columnist Margery Eagan: Is Bill "The Underminer," as defined by the hilarious book of the same name by Mike Albo and Virginia Heffernan? The underminer is your "friend" who waxes enthusiastic about your fabulous trip to New Zealand, and then lets slip that he was hang-gliding there in the early 1980s, you know, before all the American tourists arrived.
(clip)

I've actually been thinking this myself for a little over a month, but haven't wanted to say anything.

Bill is very charismatic, and as of "Right now" he's still popular, and people have forgotten alot of the fatigue they had in the late 90's

By what he has done to Hillary during their marriage, it's obvious he doesn't respect her. I used to hold to the theory that if HRC hadn't been married to him, then she wouldn't be running for president. I don't believe that anymore.

When Hillary stands on HER OWN accomplishments, and doesn't try to stay connected at the hip with Bill...
She actually makes a good case on her experience, and philosophy.

The "Clinton Machine" was never this chaotic when Bill was running for office. It has proven time and time again to be able to overcome much more difficult situations both in and out of the white house. The fiasco's that have been happening, don't remind me of a "Clinton" anything.

Now, before people shoot me...

I don't like Hillary...so this is VERY hard for me to admit.

Could it be, that Bill..somewhere...doesn't want Hillary to actually make the white house? That by being the first female president, with a history of fighting for women and children...she will end up changing this nation much more than he did, and making a ten times larger mark?

Hillary has had aspirations to be "Something more" before she ever MET Bill...I think it was only her gender that kept her from gaining many of them.

Could it be that Bill rode HER "tactical coat-tails" and not the other way around...simply because the world wasn't ready for women to do what Hillary had aspirations to do?

If this is the case, it would DRAMATICALLY change my view of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[rucky]

1. There have been a couple of "insider" reports that suggest the same thing.

About Hillary's "tactical role" in the WH, as you put it.

Interesting take.

[DangerDave921]

3. me too

I've wondered whether Bill secretly has no desire to be the First Husband, so he doesn't really want Hillary to get elected. Might he see that as demeaning to be the husband? Might he not want all the media attention again when now he's kind of a free agent?

Who knows what goes on in a marriage.

[DefenseLawyer]

2. I think the Clinton Machine is a myth

unless Ross Perot was part of the Clinton Machine, although I realize there are plenty here that disagree.

[karynnj]

4. their thesis is built on myth - that Clinton had the best run campaign ever

This likely is because the book the "War Room", which became a movie was written air brushing out anything that did not flatter Begala and Carville. In fact, Clinton was running against a President who in late 1991 - very early 1992 imploded and was already at 40%, to become 33% by November. There has never been an easier time for a Democrat since 1964. Whoever won the nomination would have very likely become President. Bush was losing and there were not enough people in the US that thought Perot was anything but weird.

What is forgotten was that each Republican attack may have been met in the same cycle with a response - it usually required a few days of responses to get to the final one. The source says; "The "Clinton Machine" was never this chaotic when Bill was running for office. It has proven time and time again to be able to overcome much more difficult situations both in and out of the white house. The fiasco's that have been happening, don't remind me of a "Clinton" anything."

The fact is that the problem now is that the current chaotic episodes are reminding many of what the Clinton campaigns really were like. The biggest lie of the last several years was that the Clintons were the best at fighting the RW machine.

[Mother Of Four]

5. Hmmmm...good point.

I put in my original post which part came from the source article...

The part you quoted was directly from me, I'll have to go back and clarify the original post a lil I suppose.

Do you think perhaps they WANTED to foster the belief by rewriting history a little, that they were a "Well oiled machine"?

Besides a Hillary bid for the presidency, what possible use could it have after Bill was elected for a second term?


At the core, one of the biggest issues is NEVER knowing what (If anything) to believe is true with the campaign. I just presented one angle.

/sigh

It's really bugging me. :think:

(edited...BAH...it wouldn't let me clarify my original post)

[karynnj]

6. sorry for the mistake

I think it was more innocent - done back in the 1990s. It is normal to rewrite history to have thinks make sense. Thus if you win, you ran a good campaign - if you lost, you made many mistakes. The book was I think written by those who ran the campaign - and just as All the President's men made heroes of investigative reporters, it made the campaign operatives and consultants the key players.

So, the War Room was written to glorify the campaign. I seriously think that a campaign as troubled as the 1992 campaign would have lost 2000 and definitely 2004.