--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunsh...@...> wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2009, at 7:06 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > This should not be a hard task. I can think of five such > > points just off the top of my head. > > I'll take a gander: > 1) Iowa > 2) Iowa > 3) Iowa > 4) Iraq war vote > 5) "I'll be the nominee." > > (Not necessarily in that order, BTW...)
Your points 1, 2 and 3 are IMO directly related to your point 5, which would be at the top of my list. She could not keep herself from emanating a sense of *entitlement* about "deserving" the nomination. I feel that the reaction to that was the biggest factor in her not getting it. Believing that she was such a lock for the nom- ination that she didn't have to show up in Iowa was the effect. The sense of entitlement was the cause. I'd certainly agree with your point 4, but I would place it further down the list. Higher would be her (and her staff's) almost *complete* misreading of the capabilities and the intelli- gence of Obama and his staffers. Again, IMO this is related to the "entitlement" thang in that at the start she didn't consider them worthy of tak- ing seriously as opponents because she couldn't conceive of anyone *being* a real opponent. She really felt she had it "locked" and that made her sloppy. The first rule of combat -- hand-to- hand or political -- is to *never* underestimate your opponent. She broke that rule.
