You know, the biggest myth of this campaign was that somehow the Clintons controlled the apparatus.  They didn't.  And, and, you know, I look back and I think that the, the two moments before the campaign even started were clues as to how difficult this was going to be for them.  One was the election of Howard Dean as DNC chair, and the other was Democrats winning control of Congress in 2006 and the ascension of Nancy Pelosi as one of the leaders.  Here they had two of the sort of three cogs of the Democratic leadership, in Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, who were waiting for there to be a crack in this inevitability armor of, of the Clintons.  And once there was, it's as if they were just waiting.  And it wouldn't have mattered if it was Barack Obama, Mark Warner, had he run, or John Edwards.  Whoever ended up filling the vacuum of the anti-Clinton, they were going to rush to them.  And I think that that's something the Clinton campaign never appreciated.  I think they thought that it was sheer will they would get those superdelegates with them.  They would get whatever rulings they needed, whatever primary calendar they wanted.  But every step of the way, nothing went their way on process in the inside, and I think that shocks a lot of us today that they lost the inside game.  It's one thing to lose the outside game, votes and all that stuff, but they lost the inside game.

I watched the speech not for what she would say, but for what she would NOT say.  I wondered to what extent she would say things I suspected she did not believe.

Other than Obama's "determination" and "grit," she did not talk about Obama's character and integrity.  She did not talk about his experience.  She did not talk about "hope" or "change."  She didn't talk about "the new politics."  She concentrated on policy -- HER policies and hot buttons.  For the most part, she could have made the same speech about any of the other candidates if it had been one of them instead of Obama to beat her.

It was a very good speech.  My conclusion:  In the whole race, nothing became her more than her leaving it.

Gordon Suber posed a serious question over at ms in la's diary which got me to thinking of the political cycles we go through repeatedly in the USA. There seems to be a generation cycle, and there's also a momentum cycle that is strategically very important. I touched on both of these in the answer I gave to Gordon.

Don't spill anything on the sofa. Have some popcorn and talk about whatever relating to the debate on MTV.

Just after the Democrats stunning 2006 victory, which General Clark worked ceaselessly for, I urged him to announce himself as a candidate for President, before the media could annoint anyone. Unfortunately, and I can understand that he may have had his reasons, he chose not to do so. Now however, from my perspective, he has strayed from his support of progresive candidates to announce his support for a candidate who is so much a corporatist that she might as well be running as a republican.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09

"We should replay that interview as often as possible," chortled Republican strategist Nelson Warfield on Tuesday. "In this election there's been a lot of worry among Republicans about whether our base is motivated and is going to turn out to vote," Warfield said. "Nothing motivates the Republican base more than some puffy pontification from Bill Clinton. When he has a little fit on TV, it reminds us of the future that awaits if the Democrats should ever win another national election."

***
They wouldn't try to blame Clinton for 9/11 just to piss him off? This guy is openly ringing pavlov's bell, so confident is he that his "base" is so well trained to hate Clinton (that's right, to HATE a U.S. President) that they will turn out to vote Republican no matter how utterly terrible the current Administration...the executive, the senate and the congress ... all Republican controlled for six years .... turn out to be.