Iowa.
Specifically, the prognostication of advisors like Harold Ickes that she had an excellent chance of winning Iowa, combined with the orchestrated outrage that she might skip it.
She should have said “screw it” to the faux outrage, and like Bill in 1992, skipped it.
But, the decision to “cave” to Iowa Dems’ outrage and get back into full campaign mode there at a late stage showed, even before Dodd nailed her in the debate, that she was vulnerable.
It also showed her campaign still wasn’t organized. She didn’t have a series of talking points about WHY to stay out of Iowa.
Other possible factors? Dodd exposing her vulnerability to attack, not inevitability, specifically over then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give illegal immigrants drivers’ licenses.
As for the caucus vs. primary issue, the story linked above notes that she actually won the Nevada caucuses, so that’s a myth as much as reality.
Meanwhile, the New York Times has a round-up of pundits with their takes on her demise’s causes. Worth a read.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are appreciated, as is at least a modicum of politeness.
Comments are moderated, so yours may not appear immediately.
Due to various forms of spamming, comments with professional websites, not your personal website or blog, may be rejected.