I watched the Nevada Town Hall Forum tonight with my best friend, Terry McGinty, a Bernie supporter, and WOW !
We were BOTH blown away by Hillary. She was strong, articulate, passionate and so knowledgeable on the issues raised by folks at the meeting. She was cheered and mobbed by an enthusiastic crowd when she finished.
We both got choked up watching her new TV ad running in Nevada. It showed a 10 year old girl telling Hillary that she was scared her immigrant parents were going to be deported. Hillary asked her to come up on stage where she held her close and told her that she was going to do everything she could do so she wouldn’t be scared anymore. She told her how brave she was and that she shouldn’t worry so much. That her parents wanted her to be happy and safe. She said : ” Let me do the worrying, ok ? Is that a deal ? ” And the girl hugged her. That’s when Terry and I and everyone in the audience lost it.
This is the real Hillary that I know. She is a warm , caring, and compassionate leader. And tonight she found her voice.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Dad started this race thinking he was going to stay home, since he’s had a long antipathy toward her since the war and even from her time as First Lady. But, starting with Benghazi and continuing with these debates he keeps going back to the fact that she is the only one in the field who knows what she is doing.
is because I seriously question that she knows what she is doing. She was a okay Senator, a failed pres candidate, a sec. of state that watched the middle east catch fire and burn, and back to a pres candidate. She SOUNDS incredibly competent but I don’t see it translating in her actions.
I’m not saying some other these other folks are walking avatars of competency, but I wouldn’t use her as the example of knowing what you’re doing.
She did underestimate Bernie, after all. Big fail.
Why do you say that. Did she say it? Do you have any idea what her estimation of Sanders was then, or is now? Nothing thus far in the HRC/BS race is surprising. The polls and the history predicted close in Iowa, big Sanders win in NH. They also suggest win by HRC in NV and big HRC win in SC. They then suggest HRC will win about 10 of the Super Tuesday contests, and be in securely in the pole position.
The goal is to win the majority of delegates. Not to win them all. HRC is playing to win the majority of delegates, not to make sure she beats Sanders in every single primary or caucus. That would be a foolish allocation of resources.
In a two person race, where the front-runner is more well known than the opponent, it is expected that the opponent surges toward 40, at some expense of the front-runner. It’s not that the front-runner underestimates the opponent, it’s just the natural dynamics of a two person race.
This NYT article drills down into what many of her allies view as underestimation of Sanders – especially his strength with millennials, women, and in fundraising.
I agree. It’s not surprising . . . it’s downright shocking that a little known, old, socialist from Vermont with essentially zero party support is making a close race with the most well-known and most qualified candidate to ever run for the office (and also incredibly well-liked within the party), keeping pace and in many ways outpacing her in individual fundraising, and closing the colossal gap nationally.
The fundraising is particularly shocking. Even in a two-person race, if the challenger is expected to get some large boost by being the only alternative, there really isn’t much they can do in a national race if they can’t bring in the dollars needed to wage a modern campaign. He’s doing better than Obama in many ways on fundraising. That’s bonkers.
I expect her to win, and maybe in hindsight it will not look close, but this race was never expected to be like this.
will be an excellent president. Her last campaign was roundly criticized as inept, and this one seems only moderately better.
So she appears to be stumbling towards a win. If she wins the general election I hope that doesn’t portend anything about her administration.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Might mean that she’s desperate and implored him to endorse.
Note that this is after Bill called him after the 2008 primary and ripped him a new one.
today because she is a “fighter” and I couldn’t agree more.
We are so honored to have this civil rights champion on Team Hillary !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Last I recall, “leader” typically meant “in the front.”
Maybe he’s one of those draws attention by coming late people.
Secretary Clinton was endorsed by the Black Caucus PAC
not the Black Caucus.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
The National Nurses Union.
Also, Obama’s Press Secretary has undercut Clinton’s assertions that Sanders is attacking the President like a Republican:
Clinton’s staff plays dirty in Nevada, and nobody cares. Is it because she won? That makes it OK? Or what is the reason?
(shrugs)
Long ago, when the Dems were a 6ish person race, I expected the last two to be HRC and O’Malley. So is it surprising that it’s Sanders instead of O’Malley? To some, including me, sure.
But given that Sanders got traction and other non-HRCs didn’t, nothing that has happened afterwards has been surprising from the perspective of two-person race dynamics. Not the outcomes, not the fundraising, not the polling. That’s my view.
who goes against the grain of the establishment in every single way. the race shouldn’t have had two-person dynamics. It should have been a smooshing as if I ran against DeLeo for a state rep seat.
But it wasn’t and isn’t! so far.
This is only so if you accept at face value the manufactured media narrative. She was inevitable, the most sure thing bet ever in the history of sure things. She is the best candidate ever and has a natural born campaigner at her side. There is no chance that anyone will ever even muster a challenge at all. She will win the nomination after winning every state. There’s a crap “national” poll that predicts nothing but says she is up by 80 points. She is unstoppable. A bit like a monarch, really. Hey, we don’t like monarchs. Is she complacent? Are the ghosts of Hillarycare and Whitewater going to cost her? Republicans hate her, she can’t unite the country. Presidents have to unite, because David Brooks says so every time he opens his mouth. She hasn’t won a national election. What about Biden? He won a national election. Hey, everyone droppedout but one. Hey, that guy did better than expected– since we expected him to be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail, and to get 0.000% of the vote, in a state with a quirky process. Hey, that guy made a commercial like Obama’s. Obama won a national election. Hillary hasn’t won a national election. Hey, that guy did really well in next door to his own that is demographically right in his wheelhouse. Hillary’s campaign is in disarray. A panic. A sinking ship. She’s lost her touch. She got paid to give a speech. It’s all over now, she can’t recover. She lost a state. Will there be a brokered convention?
It is only shocking because dipshit pundits have to pretend to be shocked when they, as usual, are clueless. There are two candidates, and people have a preference, and the two are competing.
A close primary is a good thing, and is making both of them a better candidate, which they need, because whomever the GOP nominates, November will come down to a few small groups of people in 2-3 states, and it is going to be a battle.
I don’t think Hillary Clinton underestimated Bernie Sanders or anyone else.
I think that nobody expected the wealth concentration issue to matter.
In my view, the strength of Mr. Sanders is a direct reflection of how immediate and real our wealth and income concentration issue is. I think his weakness is a similarly direct reflection of how little experience he has in actually ACCOMPLISHING change like this.
I think EVERY GOP candidate will work to worsen, rather than solve, this issue.
I therefore don’t see this as a matter of personal surprises, campaign successes or failures, honesty or dishonesty of either candidate, or any of the similar rubbish that’s being bandied about.
I think instead that there is a HUGE grassroots uprising to reject the economic policies that have created today’s wealth and income concentration problem. I think the challenge for Ms. Clinton is to persuade voters that she “gets it” and will actually work to do something about it. I think the challenge for Mr. Sanders is to persuade voters that he possesses the political chops to accomplish anything at all beyond cheerleading, even though cheerleading helps.
I think the mainstream media (owned by the 1%) knows EXACTLY what’s going on and hopes to keep our collective focus distracted from the real issue, so that we continue to argue about fluff instead of insisting that our nominee and then President make substantive progress on this issue.
I think that the sudden death of Mr. Scalia may well prove to be the catalyst that transforms this election and perhaps our culture. I think that the GOP will be the GOP, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders will hammer on the wealth and income concentration issue, and we will triumph in the end.
This is exactly how I’ve been viewing the race and why I’ve been torn. Dad actually said he might vote for her in the primary, which is shocking to me since he’s been a longtime critic. He is actually beggining to dislike Sanders which is amusing since my mother, a blue collar Italian who’s never worn Birkenstocks in her life, is wicked excited about him along with my Baker voting brother and sister in law upstairs. It’s a very bizarre race, and I find myself oddly defending her policy vision as more workable even as I feel the Bern on a more personal level.