That's one way of ensuring volunteers for Obama.

so she lost because she doesnt understand how to mobilize and energize voters?

The bottom line is that her campaign was never prepared to win Washington. Obama's campaign was organized and educated about the caucus system - OFA distributed caucus rules and campaign materials to caucus volunteers almost 2 weeks before last Saturday. Clinton's campaign started looking for caucus volunteers on Wed night, and distributed a PDF of the caucus rules at 5pm Friday (the night before).

If by 'activist' she means 'concerned and informed person who happens to be available at 1pm on Saturday', I guess she's right.

So, let me see, this gets her more votes how?

Because it lowers expectations before her almost certain loss in Virginia and DC?

Or by making people in Maryland feel like they shouldn't bother voting for her?

(sorry, a bit snarky, but some days are like that, even if most of the pro-Clinton women are hot)

Yeah, those grapes looked pretty sour to me, too.

Is there something that prevents anyone from giving Barack Obama credit for being a good politician? When people voted for Bill Clinton, it was due to his political genius, but if they vote for Obama, we have to explain it away. We need with some special reason why.

It's because they're black. It's the activists. It's because it's a personality cult. It's those wacky young people.

How much does Obama have to win by in order to get his due respect for winning? I don't mean just Hillary. What do the pundits need before they will say Obama is flat out good at winning this game?

what if she loses in the 3 tomorrow? black people? blame blacks?

She is basically saying that she loses in places where you need to energize and organize voters to your cause.

Um, isn't that what someone who is running for president is supposed to do?

What does how her husband did 16 years ago in caucus states have to do with anything?!

Her 'activists' explination can't account for record turnout.

See, she understands that people will only vote for her if they don't have to do it in public.

Or something.

I would tend to agree with her expect for that fact that in Washingon we had unprecented turn out by people, such as myself, who aren't activists.

perhaps she shouldn't go down that road...

whats next? blaming "activist" judges?
she probably would if she thought it might get a few more votes.

I guess her campaign's strategy of targeting the disinterested and dispassionate must be right on track then. Who needs those stupid activists, anyways? All they do is get you delegates.

None of these answers sound good. I would argue that caucuses "represent the electorate" better than the superdelegates she is banking on to deliver the nomination.

Sixteen years ago, Bill Clinton only got 43% of the popular vote in the national election, though with Ross Perot in the race, it was good enough to win a solid majority in the electoral college. In 1996, Bill got 49.2% of the popular vote. Maybe Hillary Clinton is thinking that, like her husband, she doesn't need a majority of votes to become President.

"I'm not winning because no one gets all that excited about me." Interesting take.

So, yeah, exactly how many states can you dismiss with excuses as to how activist-dominated or black or devoid of Clinton organization they are before it starts to seem like you're missing the point of a campaign in the first place?

excuse list by state

iowa - caucus
south carolina - blacks

alabama - blacks
alaska - caucus
colorado - caucus

conneticut - neither caucus or blacks?\
deleware - neither caucus or blacks
georgia - blacks
idaho - caucus
kansas - caucus
minnesota - caucus
missouri - blacks?
north dakota - caucus
utah - neither caucus or blackls
louisiana - blacks
nebraska - caucus
washington - caucus
maine - caucus

the 3 tomorrow are primaries. blacks

I think her statement is true. She obviously has a smaller base of "activist" supporters. I was a huge supporter of Hillary who remained mostly silent until I realized how unqualified Obama is for the job.

I hope that comment #4 doesn't mean to imply that Clinton supporters are not informed. I find that by and large Obama supporters aren't incredibly informed of his previous record, and much less so of Hillary's. And yes, I know this isn't true for every Obama supporter.

I believe that Hillary is lacking support because people are convinced they know her, but in actuality they are not aware of how much she has done. If more people familiarized themselves with her accomplishments she would undoubtedly obtain more supporters ("activists?"). Hillary has been working her ass off for forty years getting things done for this country and now many people choose to dismiss her.

IMO, I also feel that many folks have been so negative about her because she represents the "establishment," which is really just another way of hating Bush. He has really fucked up and he made the whole system look like it could never work. Yes, some changes are needed, but we really need someone who will know how to get it done. Quickly. And someone who has proven they can do it, face opposition, and persevere in a high profile political position (not just give really inspiring speeches that ooze with charisma).

Maybe Obama does well 'cause he's not an angry, old bat. Just sayin'.

@12 --

At my caucus a Hillary backer was livid about the request that each group do a quick raising of hands to prove that enough people from each camp were still there. This seemed like a reasonable request because it was past 2pm by the time we had broken down into precinct and maybe folks would have left after just signing in.

She went off on this big tirade about why we have the ballot process so that people don't get chastised about for whom they vote. Apparently she didn't understand that whole point of the Caucus was to be in public with your neighbors.

So yeah, Hillary supporters want to talk trash and vote anonymously. Sort of like the Internet and Slog crowd at large. We all know there's only 10 real people on this thing and only 1 of them is backing HRC under a variety of pseudonyms.

Big Sven = ECB
elenchos = Dan
Bellevue Ave = Josh
ecce = intoxicated Charles

etc.

Everyone agrees that caucuses are messy and undemocratic but that doesn't matter. The party and both campaigns agreed to participate in caucuses. That's the rule. They count. It doesn't matter who performs better in them. And Clinton fares worse in caucuses not because of the demographics of her supporters, but because winning caucuses takes a major investment of time, money and organization. Obama made that investment and Clinton didn't. It's that simple.

sugamama: please list your resume points that give you the ability to determine Obama's Presidential 'qualifications'. And, if you don't mind, please list those of George W. Asshat-Crackhole, our current 'President'.

Thanks in advance.

Obama is 35 years old, and born in the USA, so yes, he's qualified.

Come on, this "I just don't do caucus victories" line is bullshit. She chose to participate in the primary; she knew it had caucuses. If your campaign can't win them, it's a failed campaign. You're doing it wrong.

LMAO @22's conspiracy theory. Hahaha. I would die laughing if Ecce really truly were Charles Mudede and his bottles of wine! Too bad you're Anonymous -- I'd send you money probably, just for that.

lmao @ 22, i was hoping for the ultimate irony of you thinking i was eli's sockpuppet.

For #24...

I don't mean to imply that Bush is/was/ever will be qualified. I am not endorsing him in any way.

By qualifications, I mean experience - he's technically qualified, yes...but Hillary has more experience. A lot more (and she's qualified, too).

And I don't dislike Obama, I just think Hillary is much more qualified...err...experienced. I think that we need Hillary for eight years and then Obama for the eight years after that. Within that time, he can obtain experience and show us that he is capable of fulfilling his promises.

That would be awesome.

Sure, but take away Obama's race, charisma, ability to motivate voters, ability to raise money, ideas, speaking style, organization, volunteers, and brains and what has he got? Nothing!

She just lost my vote. Dammit.

Hillary, whining about activists and blacks doesn't look very presidential; nor is mentioning that Bill had similar problems.

Remember, you're no Bill Clinton.

What HRC may be getting at is that caucuses are not family friendly. I just waited in line while it was snowing for four hours to cast my vote in a large noisy, crowded under prepared high school. If I hadn't been able to get a relative from out of state as a sitter for my 7 month old, my SO and I could not have both gone (we are new in town and don't know anybody). This seems like a relic from the days when only white men voted.

I believe that Hillary is lacking support because people are convinced they know her, but in actuality they are not aware of how much she has done. If more people familiarized themselves with her accomplishments she would undoubtedly obtain more supporters ("activists?") Hillary has been working her ass off for forty years getting things done for this country and now many people choose to dismiss her.

Okay, but, uh ... what's the purpose of a campaign if not to effectively familiarize the public with a candidate's accomplishments and thus excite people enough to get involved? I mean, is her campaign running on the assumption that it's the duty of people to spontaneously be inspired to act and come to her? And then shrug it off when they don't?

Sugamama, don't waste your time trying to discuss this rationally with these people. They've already drunk the Kool-Aid. Their spaceship will be arriving shortly.

"shrug it off" = "shrugging it off"

Well, I'm not sure if 'activists' is the best term to describe caucus goers, but it is a widely accepted fact that caucuses tend to have a higher percentage of voters who are more involved in parties and campaigns (a bit like superdelegates, no?) however you might take that. Because they take a bit more time and commitment, they are often more heavily swayed by individuals who have more time or are more committed to certain campaigns. This is why candidates who might not do so well generally (ie, Ron Paul), often perform better in caucuses.

Though they don't favor the candidate I favor at the moment, I do like them, as they do require a bit more engagement with the political process than an absentee ballot. They are, though, less representative of how the general election might sway than a typical primary.

LMSW, hillary knows what the rules are and she is lamenting the fact that she cant win within the bounds of the rules. or shes saying black people dont like her.

i'm sorry but this seems like making an excuse for not winning more and it makes her look weak. what will she say if she loses states in the general election? that the electoral system is flawed? thats a bunch of bellyaching loser talk.

I'm still confused about the "Hillary has more experience" arguments that keep getting bandied about.

(a) Does she really? Like, significantly?
(b) So?

Let's not forget about the issues. Yes, becoming president is a popularity contest..but who is going to truly represent ALL americans when elected. For Barack Obama to Make the statement that the word "marriage" connotes a religious meaning and should not be applied to gay people doesn't seem very inclusive to all americans. Hillary Clinton might not have a t-shirt at urban outfitters begging young people to vote for her, but she does have a much more progressive view of health care and various other important issues facing this country.

Let's not forget about the issues. Yes, becoming president is a popularity contest..but who is going to truly represent ALL americans when elected. For Barack Obama to Make the statement that the word "marriage" connotes a religious meaning and should not be applied to gay people doesn't seem very inclusive to all americans. Hillary Clinton might not have a t-shirt at urban outfitters begging young people to vote for her, but she does have a much more progressive view of health care and various other important issues facing this country.

@32: babies are not prohibited at caucuses. My precinct had at least one infant and several under-10 children, witnessing democracy in action.

(Note: all kids were with Obama supporters. Clinton people brought no kids.)

OK, so here's my question about Senator Clinton's 35 year legacy of change.

35 years of change = where we are, right now.

Um, why is that a selling point?

Either Senator Clinton has been ineffective for 35 years, or else the changes she's been making are taking us in the wrong direction. Which is it?

Angela Chase @ 38
(a) Yes, significantly. Not only is she widely versed in domestic and international policy, she has been involved in the political world much longer than Obama and most likely has the specific knowledge and familiarity with the political process to more effectively institute her policy. Also, Bejing.
(b) So? Depends on who you ask. If you think political acumen is some sort of taint, then this is a bad thing. If you think it is an asset in a politician, which is afterall what the president is, (remember, Barack and Hillary's policies are for the most part very similar) than this will be a selling point.

Um 33stylus I didn't know Hillary supported gay marriage? Oh she has the exact same position as Obama but is also married to the man who signed DOMA.

If she is so tough and experienced than why the hell is she losing in a primary. This spells general election disaster if she actually is able to win the nomination.

@36: While there were some veteran caucus goers and/or campaign people at my site, most were first-time, where-the-hell-am-I-and-what's-my-precinct-number people at my location. Newbies, if you will.

@19 wins.

So, am I Charles then?

I can see how this would make current supporters feel better about how things are going but how exactly does she think this argument attracts more people to voter for her.

And kids were definitely allowed at the caucuses. One of my favorite things at my caucus was the little boy who raised his hand to say he wanted Obama to be president and that he was "encouraging" him.

"[the caucuses] don’t represent the electorate, we know that.”

I'm very disappointed to find out I am not part of the electorate.

What does that comment even mean?

@45 That's true. While caucuses don't require a lifetime comitment to political organization, they do still favor those who are more committed to particular campaigns, even if it's for the first time ever. Those who are more passive about their political involvement (they may support a candidate and vote absentee, but not go out to a caucus) or who are not able to caucus for a variety of reasons, are often underrepresented in the caucus system.

Mary, you might be a part of the electorate, but you certainly aren't THE electorate. Very few of us are.

I am so glad this was posted because I am so seething mad about this comment I can't even see straight. This woman needs a serious reality check about exactly who are her desired constituents. Guess what, some of caucus get over your tired self and keep voting for bombing Iran.

Love,
the exclusive caucuser

If Hillary can't fathom the concept of having a campaign staff encouraging civilians to become activists for her, getting the word out about her accomplishments and drumming up excitement, then she shouldn't be running for president. No wonder she fired her campaign manager: apparently her entire staff was sitting on their thumbs. "I was a silent supporter" is excusing Hillary's ineptitude. I just lost all respect for her with this quote, especially her playing a race card.

Did anyone hear Juan Williams on NPR today insisting that Obama's base is blacks, while Clinton's is whites, latinos and asians? And when asked how he explains Nebraska, Idaho, Washington, etc. he totally blew them off and seemed to think that only California and New York results have any real meaning. Grrrrr.

they do still favor those who are more committed to particular campaigns, even if it's for the first time ever.

You'd think someone who wanted to win the Democratic nomination would note the common usage of caucuses and try to get the politically active committed to their campaign, then.

@41: Clinton supporters' kids were at their own precinct caucuses voting for Obama.

tsm, it's not a bad strategy, but it's also generally less cost effective than swaying more passive participants.

Cochran @43

Thanks for the mostly nonsnarky response. Like, fer sure.

I don't think political "experience" necessarily translates to acumen or deftness. If I'm looking for a politician (inspire me!), then I'll go Obama. If I'm going for policy wonk (which, she is), then maybe I'd go for Clinton. However, it's inspiration that seems to be winning here.

wonder how she'll explain away her ge loss to McCain?

33stylus -- if you believe gay marriage and/or civil unions will advance more under a Clinton Presidency than Obama you are fooling yourself bigtime. The Clintons have shown they'll throw gays under the bus when they need to. Meanwhile Obama spent Martin Luther King day trying to engage the African-American community into a re-evaluation of their treatment of gays. In case you missed it he went to Martin Luther King's old church to give this message.
"For most of this country's history we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man," he told the congregation.
"And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays, on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.
"And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean.
"If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.
"We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.
--
I have no doubt that Obama will accomplish more for gays and lesbians than Clinton.
And please, how can Clinton claim experience and judgment if she really believed Bush wasn't planning to go to war once he got Congress' vote.
And could the Clinton supporters please stop suggesting Obama supporters haven't examined the issues as much as they have. On health care for example. Guess what. We understand the differences. But many of us, like Obama, think mandates for adults would kill the bill just as it has in the past and that it's more important to first make health insurance affordable for all.

I second number 10.

Substitute the word ´superdelegates´ for ´activists´.

Translation: I deserve this, and now I am starting to lose.

Imagine after nine more months how her attitude is going to come off to the electorate. Bob Dolesville. I miss how things were in the 90s too, but faced with the prospect of putting the Clintons (and that is what this will be a referendum on: if you don´t want to be judged on your husband´s prestige and record then STOP TALKING ABOUT HIM) back in the White House part of me goes, ´Ehh...´ Imagine the reaction out there in the middle of the country. Let´s wake up and stop the wishful thinking and actually nominate someone who already, according to polls, can beat McCain.

Since Hillary is so dismissive of African Americans, I can assure you that many of us (African Americans) will sit out this election if she is the nominee. She will get trounced by McCain. I am totally offended. My elderly mother voted for her, and said that she will not do so in the general. Most of my large, well-educated, very successful siblings and their families won't support her either.

Experience cuts both ways, and not all of Hillary's experiences have been positive.

The 1990's weren't so long ago, and Hillary got lots of 'experience', from Whitewater investigations to Travelgate to Filegate to Hillarycare, and even more silliness like hiding her senior thesis?

If she's going to count her time as First Lady as "experience", there's lots of unseemly conduct... and that's without mentioning names like Paula Jones (settled out of court), Marc Rich (pardoned after a big donation to the Clintons) and, of course, Monica Lewinsky.

Experience is both bad and good--Cheney and Rumsfeld are both 'experienced'. Want them in the White House on that qualification alone?

And one more thing about experience: she's held elected office for less time than Obama.

Looking at her past experiences, she's damaged goods, and I for one want to move forward and not be mired down in revisiting the scandal tainted 1990s.

Caucuses are EASIER to organize than primaries. If you care and you have any idea how to organize (Call everyone on the lists of previous caucus-goers at least twice before caucus day; mail them ALL at least once; get endorsing organizations to send mail on your behalf) they are a Hell of a lot easier to win. How hard can it be? I like HRC a lot - in many ways she's a better Democrat than BHO - but this is a stretch. She's searching for talking points to dismiss the creeping feeling that hers is a fading effort. I feel bad that she's losing because she's a good person who would probably be a farmore strident progressive Democrat as President than she is as a Senator. At this point, though, we need inspiration to beat McCain - and she ain't got it.

@62, I think you're confusing one Clinton with another. Last I checked, Hillary never diddled with Paula Jones or Monica. Nor did Whitewater or Travelgate, despite millions invested in searching for dirt, ever turn up anything incriminating. I know it's easy to get the two Clinton's confused (and old republican propaganda confused for the truth) but the way I tell them a part - one is a little taller than the other. Gotta look closely

that bitch. what a demeaning comment.

the caucuses rocked. first time caucus goer here.

how would you know whether people are energized if it's a 3+ week process where you can fill in circle for a candidate at home or at the polls? meeting with neighbors was something i've wanted to do for years. the caucus gave me the opportunity.

hope we can keep the neighborhood action going. it was awesome.

people who caucus are way different then the public at large and even still, different from the general voting public...the main reasons i can think of would be:

1) they have the time (less kids, less work)
2) they are savvy about the process (just about everyone i encountered over the last few months had NO idea the caucus was important)
3) they don't mind rubbing elbows (discussing politics with strangers...ughhhh)

It will be interesting to see how our primary turns out...Of course, I will be voting for Hillary.

How to anger a huge chunk of democrats in one fell swoop: Refer to them using Bush language as "activist" in a derogatory sense.

I never had any one particular reason to dislike Hillary until now, until she labelled me and the other regular joes and joannes in our precinct caucus "activists" in that kind of dismissive, derogatory way.

Ire: Raised.

ugggh, while even if there is a whiff of truth in what she said, she basically shit on everyone in washington and other states that turned out for the caucus, and blacks across the nation. she cant win the general without the caucus states nor blacks.

Ugh. I knew the comments on this post would range from inflammatory to dumb to angry to plain stupid and I read them anyway. This is my own fault. But now that I have read them I am compelled to point out that caucuses are alienating -- my best friend couldn't go because she had her kids plus her sister's kids, and her sister is a single mom who had to work. HRC's demographic is working class for the most part -- they are people who don't always have the luxury of taking three hours off on a saturday to have discussions about how we need ambiguous change of some unstated nature.

HRC is the person who is qualified to have the job at hand. Obama supporters, from what I can tell, want the kind of change that no president can pull off, no matter how great their speech writers are. Some of us live in the real world, and that's the world where we have the government we have, and that's the one that she can negotiate and Barack Obama can ... well, we don't have a clue about what he can do. Considering our predicamnet, can we take that risk? The Seattlites I met at my caucus were middle class and out of touch with the poverty and struggle that is affecting so much of this country right now. It was so alarming to hear white middle class people argue on behalf of the poor -- having been poor, growing up in Oakland, my friends from home are supporting HRC.

A word to those who talk about change and call HRC a whiney old bat: when HRC was first lady of Arkansas there was a shortage of childrens hospitals AND SO SHE BUILT ONE. She's negotiated and won over the toughest adversaries. She's been attacked by the fiercest politicos and she's still standing. She's the one we need.

A word to the commenter who complained about the HRC supporter who was difficult in their precinct: that was the exception. There were MANY reports of Obama supporters elbowing out HRC supporters, controlling the math, not answering the questions HRC supporters were asking and more. It went both ways -- there is too much contiousness between the camps.

For the most part, I am sure that people were respectful and well behaved. However, there are a lot of records that need to be set straight --and what I have said here is just the beginning. Can we please stop with the nasty comments, the twisted words, and the constant implication that HRC has a nefarious agenda and focus on the issues? Check out Paul Krugman's articles in the last two weeks of the NYT, just for starters.

daisy, the real world has hillary dead even with mccain and obama beating mccain. the real world has hillary proposing legislation that will be voted down or filibustered because the republicans hate her. the real world has you voting for obama if he wins the nomination because he is a democrat that will fight for the working class.

when two candidates are similar enough in politics and ideas, you go with the one that will carry the base in an election and take as many independents, evangelicals, blacks, republicans, etc as possible voting for them. you go for the one who is likable enough to actually get a slightly watered down version of the most extreme position through because they are well liked.

anyway, when obama is the nominee you are going to vote for him, right?

and daisy, how do you explain her currently losing to an inferior candidate in your eyes. doesnt that basically flip your wig? doesnt that show maybe she cant win against mccain, she cant get people on her side, and that obamatons arent going to settle down and fall in line voting for her either.

also, obama worked on the southside of chicago, where the poor blacks live for 3 years doing community organization. go to obama's site before you start championing the queen of limousine liberal as the hope of the poor.

right, paul krugman - there's an unbiased source of information for you.

hey, i agree that caucuses aren't ideal, for the reasons everyone has described here. but hillary knew this going in ["my husband never did well in caucus states either"], and she's going to whine about it now that she's not winning? tough shit.

and then, for her to take a dump on each and every democrat voter in caucus states - votes she will need to win the general if she gets the nomination - is probably one of the dumbest things she could possibly say at this point. what the fuck is she thinking?

and to top it off, she staffs her campaign with a bunch of sycophants who are afraid to tell her she's running out of money until it's almost gone. all of this doesn't speak very well of her leadership skills if you ask me.

The working class argument doesn't pass that laugh test. I know plenty of working class black folk that took the time to participate in the caucus. Some took a few minutes off work, went to the caucus, signed in with their preferences and left. Others had one of the spouses attend while they stayed home and took care of the kids. By the way, Maine's caucus allowed people to participate by absentee ballot. Maybe WA should figure out how Maine does it.

to follow up with brandon, this is what i can't believe. not only is she excusing herself from any accountability for losing, she isnt even attempting to court these voters that didn't vote for her. she's written them off. shouldnt obamatons return the favor?

Wow. Lot of comments so why bother adding my 2 cents? I caucused, but I'm no activist- I never campaign for anyone. I voted for Obama for one reason alone: Electability. At my table, almost all the Hillary supporters were over 50 and one mentioned her son was pro-Barack. She also mentioned no one she knew in her generation knew the president was lying about WMDs, while her children did.... Could it be the youth have a better finger on the reality of politics and might know better than old folks who is actually capable of winning this thing? And winning IS everything. A vote for Hill is a vote for McCain, kids. The SECB in the end figured out the score, even if half its members are chanting "Sieg Hill!" in here.
-

Okay, I'm going to call bullshit on the "experience argument." Hillary Clinton never held an elected position until her election to the US Senate in 2000. That gives her eight years of experience in elected public office. Prior to that, she was appointed to a board on rural health in Arkansas, which is a point in her favor, but it is not elected office, and is yet another position she received strictly because she was married to Bill Clinton. During that period, she concentrated on her career as a lawyer at the Rose Law Firm, meaning that she was not a full time government employee.

Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996. In 2004, he was elected to the US Senate. So that gives him eleven years as an elected official in two legislative bodies.

So to recap:

HRC: Seven years as an elected official.
Obama: Eleven years as an elected official.

In other words, Obama is more experienced.

We at Team Hillary need none of your volunteerism! Our base is made of real people - the salt-of-the-earth who don't donate or knock on doors or make phone calls or show up to vote or actually show any support in anyway. But I wouldn't expect you silly caucus types, with all your getting involved and caring about things, to understand.

So Hillary is tellling me, much like George Bush did with the Iraq war, that she doesn't give a fuck about the voice of the people? That public opinion and unprecedented participation by the people means shit to her?

And then, then she goes and blames those pesky energized blacks and their vote down in Louisiana?

I don't want to hate Hillary. But she sure is making it difficult.

I agree Gitai...the experience argument boils down to hanging around politicians for the longest time.

Seriously Clinton supporters, name one bill HRC has authored, let alone ushered through the Senate?

Name one bill she co-authored and ushered through?

I looked all over Thomas's roll call votes and could find only one bill with her name on it and it was to allow soldiers and their families free postage. Nice, but not earthshaking.

She does know the issues. She is a great policy wonk.

But that makes her a candidate for Chief of Staff, not President.

The President's main job is to present an agenda to Congress and then convince them to enact it. Obama has shown he can present bold, new concepts (running a hope campaign) and can convince pretty well I'd say.

Obama has built in one year a machine that has out funded, out politiced, out manuevered, out shone the vaunted Clinton machine that was two decades in the making.

I'd say he's shown us what he can do when we get off our couches and get engaged.

She has not put the effort into getting us off the couch let alone engaged.

And I'm a 56 year old low income white woman...the Clintons supposed base.

Didn't Hillary co-sponsor a bill to outlaw flag burning? Who says she hasn't proposed any substantial legislation in her time in office?

Bellevue at #19- the excuse for Iowa at the time [before it was discovered that she's bad with the caucuses] was "sexist".

HRC voted for the war.

HRC keeps voting for the war.

HRC voted against banning cluster bombs.

HRC is a warmonger. I think we're about done with warmongers.

The Dems like to lose elections by honoring this stupid idea of whose turn it is to be the nominee. They screwed the pooch by nominating Gore, despite more charismatic choices at the time who wouldn't be tarnished by their connection to Bill Clinton. They screwed the pooch again by nominating the Kerry statue.

Hopefully this time they learn their lesson and put forward the guy with the charisma to win the election.

And I'd love to know where this idiotic meme of "8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama" comes from. Fuck that. How about NO years of Clinton?

@80, yeah you're right. Forgot to include that in my list of fucked up bullshit that she supported. Or how about the bill she voted for that she was then glad didn't pass?? That's some serious fucking leadership right there!

As a PCO in the 43rd District, I can attest to the fact that there were far more Obama activists running around doing things (and, in many cases, running things) than there were Clinton activists.

However, most of this stuff about caucuses being dominated by activists is dead wrong. The record numbers of attendees were not activists who finally discovered electoral politics. The vast majority were excited voters who had never caucused before and generally were uninvolved in electoral campaigns. Of the over 900 people who attended my area caucus, we had roughly 100 file voter registration forms for changed addresses and new voters. Clinton excites insiders, though her appeal is broader than that. But Obama excites people who have rarely cared about politics before, and they turned out in droves. Having seen that excitement first hand, I am rethinking my reticence about the caucus process, and think perhaps it is valuable to take this kind of excitement seriously rather than simply judge who can get the most votes in a primary (which often relies much more on campaign spending than grassroots organizing).