I get it, if Senator Clinton had run a different campaign, against a different opponent, she might have had a different outcome! Incredible! Tell me again why Mark Penn was hired? I think I could have given the same advice for a lot less money. Here is the key peroration:
Are there a lot of other things the campaign could have done differently? Of course.
no points for stating the obvious.
More...We should have taken on Mr. Obama more directly and much earlier, and we needed a different kind of operation to win caucuses and to retain the support of superdelegates.
Oh, I get it, you should have *run a campaign* instead of a coronation.
From more aggressively courting young people earlier to mobilizing the full power of women, there are things that could have been done differently.
I'm so 'umble, 'umble, 'umble and I wasn't even really there.
While everyone loves to talk about the message, campaigns are equally about money and organization.
you *don't* say!
Having raised more than $100 million in 2007, the Clinton campaign found itself without adequate money at the beginning of 2008,
found itself? found itself? How does a campaign "find itself" without money?
and without organizations
without organizations? you mean, without voter support? without activists? without ground troops?
in a lot of states as a result.
which states again? how about most of them.
Given her successes in high-turnout primary elections and defeats in low-turnout caucuses, that simple fact may just have had a lot more to do with who won than anyone imagines.
that she won some states and lost others actually doesn't have "a lot more to do with who won than anyone imagines" it actually is exactly what everyone imagines.
|