Mark Penn still thinks there was nothing wrong with her message?   Really?  How about her Iraq vote, which was a hurdle over which she never got, and which she compounded with other votes

How about the incompetence of her campaign.  The headline on Penn's piece is about money - but she started with much more, and wasted most of it - far too much on Mark Penn

How about that the election of 2006 showed that the American people, Democrats in particular (as seen in Senate primaries in MT and VA) were hungry for something different, and Clinton ran a totally old-fashioned campaign

And reading Swift and Whitman was ridiculous - sexism?  Hell, Clinton played the gender card to her advantage, and I defy you to find Obama playing a race card.

Clinton lost for lots of reasons.  Most of all her campaign was about her - we constantly heard "i" from her.  Obama made it much more about the American people, and that approach appealed to a far broader coalition that was drawn in by hope and aspiration.

Hillary should have studied that 2006 democratic senate  primary, took notes and paid heed. She made all the same mistakes that Harris Miller (the high tech lobbyist)did. The Democratic party trying to be Republicanism-Lite won't fly anymore. The country is in big trouble and the middle class knows it more than Hillary will ever know. I think were moving towards a Rooseveltian type of populism. Webb  and Obama know this and have known it for some time. Unfortunately, for Hillary ,I think she's just starting to come around.  

Perhaps this: "If you hire an idiot to run your campaign, your odds aren't as good".

I like Doug Wilder's assessment: Hillary Clinton's campaign was done in by a sense of entitlement and hubris.

I am seeing something interesting in a couple of places.  Republicans are already trying to paint Obama as the "Most liberal Senator".  Hardly surprising that they would make this claim - they would be saying that no matter who we picked.

"liberal liberal liberal" and "tax tax tax." That's all the Republicans have going for them, the same tired old lines they've been using for decades.  In other words, if people want no change and a continued assault on the middle and working classes, vote Republican!  If people want change and real help to working people, vote Democratic.  It's very simple.

that you could train a parrot to say "Tax cut".  You could then use said parrot in some very funny TV ads.

Back in the somewhat easier days before W Bush came into power, many in the middle-class, did have a tendency to vote on the hot button issues,emotionally, and subsequently against their best interests.

This is not working near as well as it used to. The "Reagan Democrats" are coming home in droves. When people ask why this is happening, I sum it up by a blogger's signature byline comment I read on Daily Kos a while back, that I think says it all:

You're Republican until it happens to you!!

What did she say, what did she do that would give you any confidence that she wouldn't just go to the Whitehouse and build coalition with the very people that have allowed an illegal, wrongheaded war, and other criminal acts to continue?

Other than her peevish dismissal of any group, any state that didn't fit into her calculus for winning, how was Hillary Clinton going to permanently change the way Washington works? A tall order you say? The only way to prevent future Iraqs, future compromise of intelligence and judicial assets for political purposes is to prosecute criminals and put them in jail.  Criminal prosecution and sanction will be a critical step to Change I Can Believe In. Otherwise we will be renaming Dulles to GWBush Airport as the record is rewritten.  

I was given no indication that Hillary had the stomach for that fight.  When she took a lick, she got up whining about poor me, and went into angry woman mode.  Contrast that with Barack Obama's "more perfect union" speech, or his parting with Rev. Wright - that smooth hidden strength, the focused rational oratory.  The first American woman President is going to have to be a much better/smarter fighter than Hillary Clinton, and she is going to have to have a bold vision for a much improved Washington culture.    

... because I'm through with pointing out Hillary's short comings which really have more to do with unbridled Clintonian careerism and how they went about campaigning in general.

Soccerdem seems to be on board and I suspect other Clinton supporters are as well (Aznew?)..... or at least fairly rationalizing these turn of events.

Obama won fair and square (per the rules everyone agreed to) and now he has to pick a great Vice President running mate. With that done and a refreshment of his message and governing themes ... I think he'll be in great shape ... Maybe even Landslide victory shape.

Hillary lost mainly because of the people she surrounded herself with .... who just didn't understand what changed in 2006 (per Teacherken's comment). They lost on the internet in several key ways (messaging and funding). Thus they lost a new and important base.

I think somebody is going to write a book about it .... some time.

NETROOTS RISING anyone??

and all that it entails.  

Clinton relied on Washington insiders in a change election while Obama was able to pull some talented folks from outside of the bubble.  I think those choices were as much a reflection of the candidate as they were of the advisers -- so I don't think anyone gets a free pass on this.  It wasn't just Mark Penn, Patty Solis Doyle, or Harold Ickes -- although they were factors.

The war vote too was a big obstacle in the context of a Democratic primary -- as was Clinton's slow pivot on the issue.  

Obama's viewpoint probably benefited from the fact he was essentially an unknown nationally 5 years ago -- that probably helped him connect more easily with voters and adapt to the realities of 2008 rather than the realities of 2000.

That's just sort of scratching the surface, but those are some thoughts off the top of my head.  

Mark Penn says it was about money.  He claims the lack of funds put the campaign at a disadvantage because it couldn't set up organizations in many states.

Let's be clear, though.  It was a complete lack of planning for the possibility that Hillary Clinton's campaign would need money after Super Tuesday.  The sense of entitlement and inevitability led Penn and others to make stupid choices.  Clinton raises buckets of money on '07 leading up to the first caucuses and primaries.  Her campaign burned through it up-front because they truly believed this was not a nominating process but rather a coronation.  When that didn't happen, her campaign was caught flat-footed and was doomed.

Maybe Penn should focus a little more on the very last line of his piece or listen to the words of Teddy KGB in Rounders:

"He beat me... Straight up... Pay him... Pay that man his money."

After all, he's the campaign's biggest creditor (something like $4-5 million).