"What Happened to the Clinton Juggernaut?"
By: Lowell
Published On: 4/8/2007 7:57:18 AM
Juggernaut: An overwhelming, advancing force that crushes or seems to crush everything in its path
According to the April 16 edition of Newsweek, the Clinton "juggernaut" is pretty much over:
The Clinton campaign denies that it has strong-armed anyone, saying the warnings were made in jest. But whatever tactics Clinton is using, she cannot be happy about how they're working. Clinton operatives had described March 31, the reporting deadline for initial fund-raising, as "the first primary." Their aim was to knock out weaker rivals and reinforce Clinton's aura of invincibility. As it happened, Obama won the money contest with $23.5 million for the primaries, while Clinton raised an estimated $20 million...
What happened to the Clinton juggernaut? The answer lies partly in her go-for-broke strategy. There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance, and for some fund-raisers the Clinton team crossed it...
So, is the Hillary Clinton "juggernaut" over? Did it ever exist in the first place? Or will this simply be, as Joe Trippi pointed out on Blog Talk Radio the other day, a long, drawn-out nominating process which very possibly ends in a brokered convention and even a Gore nomination? We'll see. But for now, it looks like the Clinton "inevitability" argument is gone, and that - according to Newsweek - "once the all-powerful aura is gone, it's hard to get it back."
Comments
Billary illusion is over; Obama ascending. (Bernie Quigley - 4/8/2007 8:23:31 AM)
Billary: Money can't buy you love.
Uhhhhh. Obama dropping in most polls (WillieStark - 4/8/2007 11:07:44 AM)
Obama has been dropping in most polls lately. The rock star no policy ideas speech has been wearing thin. Dude has potential still because of money and a seriously good speaking routine. However, the voters of IA, NH, SC, all have problems with him that are becoming more evident by the day.
Policy? (DukieDem - 4/8/2007 1:13:48 PM)
It's April. Of 2007. Patience.
And citing polls at this point is pretty worthless. You want a poll? Try the 100,000 donors Obama had the 1st quarter. That's worth more than 5 points in any generic poll at this point.
On another 2008 related note (Lowell - 4/8/2007 8:47:32 AM)
See
here for an excellent explanation of "Why Rudy Giuliani Should Never Be President." Hint: "Bernard Kerik, a man to whom Giuliani entrusted the lives of millions of Americans, clearly disqualifies Giuliani for the presidency."
Are people aware of the Kerik "love nest" story? (PM - 4/8/2007 11:28:31 AM)
After the 2001 WTC attacks, Kerik supposedly took control of an apartment donated for the recovery efforts at Ground Zero, using it as a rent-free "love nest" to meet with his girl friends.
http://www.nysun.com...
In my experience, one knows at least the general moral character of one's close friends and associates. I think Rudy had to have known this guy was a real bad egg.
Also, I have been silent on the intra-party squabbles over who the Dem nominee should be. At this juncture I could vote for most of the Dem candidates, and none of the GOP names advanced.
The Bada Bing School of Ethics (Bernie Quigley - 4/8/2007 12:14:18 PM)
The Giuliani interview with Barbara WAlters pretty much sealed his fate.
http://quigleyblog.b...
The Netroots Effect (AnonymousIsAWoman - 4/8/2007 2:57:51 PM)
According to what I read, Hillary raised roughly $25 million from 50,000 donors, while Obama raised close to that from 100,000 contributors. That means Hillary has raised a lot of her funds from the same old pay for play crowd that always influences both sides of the aisle in elections with real loyalty to neither side. Meanwhile, Obama is bringing new people into the process and getting his funds from ordinary people like you or me.
While I still support Edwards over Obama, I think what Obama has done is very, very healthy for our system. And I believe that this kind of successful funraising to challenge the fat cats and party regulars with something new and fresh could only take place because of the campaign's successful use of technology, netroots communiy, blogs, and the Internet presence.
It's created a brand new day.
Netroots, internet presence (Lowell - 4/8/2007 3:04:41 PM)
I'd love to talk to you more about this. Can you e-mail me at lowell@raisingkaine.com? Thanks! - Lowell
And... (KathyinBlacksburg - 4/8/2007 3:16:36 PM)
Agree with Anon. Another possible example of "pay to play" is the fund raiser given for Hillary by Rupert Murodch. Is she nuts? Does she really think Rupert and his attack-dogs at FOX will be nice to her? Perhaps Rupert wants her to be the nominee so he can take her apart, limb by limb, the way his minions did to Bill during impeachment. Sure Hill and Bill are stil standing after all of that. Or perhaps he wants to dominate even more media outlets so that we never have even a semblence of real media left. But trust Murdoch? He wants what he wants. And Hillary should have been smarter than that. She can't be buddies with him and the Democratic grass roots at the same time.
No coronations here... (Kindler - 4/8/2007 4:10:41 PM)
When was the last time the Dems had an "inevitable" candidate (incumbent presidents excluded)? It's just not in our DNA. We are too rebellious, too
democratic for that.
Don't be fooled by the media horse race coverage, though --Hillary still has the best chance to win this nomination. She just has to EARN it.