I was coming to this conclusion also, reading the comments on TPM about HRC NOT running for VP.

The Conclusion on the thread was that the Clintons showed very poor political acumen throughout the whole race. Yes there were surges in votes for her but I chalk it up to mostly Name Recognition, the Victim Card, Rush LimpBow, Race, and a Woman-At-All-Costs mindset by the largest block of voters out there....women. Heck, it doesn't take Rush to convince a wily Republican white racist male that if he votes fer the hated woman, at least a darky ain't going to be tellin' him a-what to do. On the Dem side I think we saw that in the more race sensitive states, a white dem who treats women as second class citizens would still vote for a dem woman before he would vote for a dem afro-american. Let that sink in. Men who are nominally dems (unionized coal workers, auto workers, teamsters etc) but you know they are not flaming liberals. They don't really want women driving their trucks, women fighting in battle, women taking their jobs....but they would pull the lever for the white woman rather than a black man. I can't exactly explain it, but I think it says race trumps gender in a Bias/Prejudice Cage Match.

Yes, HRC played the race card plenty. She hardly needed to. A huge chunk of Texas and Ohio and PA and WVA and KY etc....heck a lot of americans are just not programmed to be able to pull the lever for a black man. It is a huge credit to the populace in general that BHO won.
.
Tonedeaf, HamHanded, Rude, Condescending, Entitled, Out Of Touch....are the Clintons Liberals? I think they were once. Like most in their shoes (successful progs) they are prone to being seduced by the money and power. I don't think it is idealism that grew into desperation nor miscalculations guided by Legacy Panic....I believe it is idealism subsumed by money and power and ego.
She is no longer a dem, a progressive, or a liberal.
And she no longer is even just a plain, fine person.
She is in bed with all the corporations, corp. media, and insurance companies, weapons-defense types, etc. And still a Liberal?
I never understood how at least half of the Dem party seemed to think she was still on our team.
And Bill is basically swinging Ch eney-like deals
all over the globe...the global "drain-america" economy he helped forge.

So, I think we have two big questions. Maybe they will be rendered moot if the Clintons just fade away and she loses her CarpetBag Senate seat which she only used as a launching pad for the Prez.....since the only thing she accomplished there was to thwart dems and slide over to the bu-ush/LIEberman staging camp.
1: are the Clintons Liberals
2: were they really ever Master Politicians?

#1 I don't think even needs much analysis or ruminating. What is stunning is how little is is mentioned, in fact the opposite...she is touted for being the Quintessential Dem, Liberal beyond compare, and Tireless Fighter for the poor and disposessed.

#2, I was not as politically aware in 1992....but it seems to me Perot had a huge hand in Wiley Willy's dash to the finish line. And nobody wanted any more Reagan/Bu-usch.
Sure, Bill is smart, HRC is smart, they made a forceful pair. But once in office, were they brilliant? Their choices, their strategies? They were just hanging on by their nails, thanks in no small part to a Republican bench which was constantly sawing on the Achilles Heel of our leader.

Their campaign this time around was a historical farce.

When you think of the massive Load of money spewed out (wasted in
Clinton's case) on this primary....good money just to prove what boors
the C's have become, apparently......what a waste.

Here's the deal....BHO gives HRC 17Mil, $1 for every vote she got and she turns over her complete database for him to use in the General. That way our money isn't wasted on bailing out the Clinon Lunacy. I have my doubts that she will "chip in" to help in the General as much as she could and may hold her lists hostage. Get them now, get them upfront.