On Jun 18, 2009, at 10:33 AM, TurquoiseB 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.
Indeed...she did so because she arrogantly,
and totally unrealistically, felt she *had*
no opponent, at least none worthy of the name.
And Obama represented her home state, for
crying out loud! If anything should have taught
her that politics is unpredictable and anything
can happen, you'd think it would have been growing
up in the state that produced an unexpected
victory for the Dems in 60 and one for the
Repugs 8 years later. But, no. She was looking
so far ahead into the future she didn't she
the looming challenge right in front of her
in the present.
Her campaign will be presented for generations
to come as a textbook example of what not to
do, I predict.
Sal
