I don't always agree with Dick Morris, but I think he's right here, and he knows the Clintons very well:

The conclusion is obvious: neither Hillary nor her staff know how to campaign. After the Clinton re-election in 1996, they have never been tested in a competitive race. When Giuliani dropped out of the New York State Senate race and the young Congressman Rick Lazio had to enter at the last minute to try to stop Hillary’s bid, the conclusion was pre-ordained. Hillary’s re-election was a cakewalk against a totally under funded opponent. She doesn’t know how to win.

Hillary’s experience has been limited to the insider back biting of Washington where she is an expert at using her secret police — a small army of private detectives — to unearth negatives about her or Bill’s opponents. (Even former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young recently admitted that Hillary ran the effort to discredit women who might come forward and accuse Clinton of misconduct.) But, when it comes to campaigning, advertising and winning an election, these folks and this candidate don’t have a clue.

I'm a little disappointed, actually. As much as I don't want another president Clinton, I would have preferred the gamble of having her be the Democrat candidate, because I don't think that she can win a national election.

Why Hillary Is Losing

This is "losing"?

I don't know. I think she could win against a weak Republican. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd rather she be eliminated before the general election. Republicans who want her to be the nominee because they think she would be easy to beat are overconfident, I think. The fact that she was elected to the Senate, even in a liberal state and against weak opposition, means something.

Also, there is still time for her to recover and for other candidates to make mistakes. On Intrade, she still has higher odds of being elected president than does any other candidate. The press and bloggers talk about her as being in a public-opinion freefall yet her market odds have stopped declining. I hope that she gets knocked out of the race early but I am afraid that she won't.

I think Jonathon is right. As much as I prefer Obama, I think Hillary will be the eventual nominee.

And I now don't doubt that if nominated, she will be elected the next President. I think she is capable of fixing her negatives between the primaries and next November. If she is nominated, the Democrats are going to rally round behind her, and on every issue, even immigration, polls show that the electorate trusts the Democrats to do a better job.

There is also the observation of interesting movement among evangelicals. Rick Warren's congregation gave Hillary a standing ovation. This is a major harbinger of change.

Frankly it looks pretty awful for the GOP, especially with regards to control of Congress. Shrieking about illegals is probably the only issue they can run on.

I think she is capable of fixing her negatives between the primaries and next November.

Like that she and her husband are queen and king of a criminal syndicate? There are only so many minds that she can change. But she doesn't need to persuade everyone anyway, she only needs a majority. So I don't think that this idea of fixing her negatives properly describes her situation. What she mainly needs to do is preserve what she has, not fix what she doesn't have.

Which is not to slight Obama. If he were nominated, he'd be in a strong position too.

What I mean is that there is a persona that has been created about her. This persona has been well developed over the years into articles of faith on talk radio etc. or even right here in Rand's obvious CDS. Recently this has been further developed by her competitors for the nomination as well as a host of lefty blogs etc. The latter groups will accept her if she is the nominee. And then this persona will change, as will most of the media reporting which has amplified its devlopment. I don't know any Democrat who supports her right now, and yet if she were the nominee, they will.

I expect that change of attitude to be reflected in nationwide persona, of course excluding the talk radio faithful who will continue to believe that she is Lucifer incarnate.

This persona has been well developed over the years into articles of faith on talk radio etc. or even right here in Rand's obvious CDS.

Yeah, BDS, CDS, it's all the same. Because Bush took a bribe via his commodity trading account, stole FBI files, had an inconvenient employee prosecuted, suborned perjury, had his political opponents' taxes audited, committed rape...

"If she is nominated, the Democrats are going to rally round behind her, and on every issue, even immigration, polls show that the electorate trusts the Democrats to do a better job. "

Thats because no one is making an issue of it yet. 90% of people in general do not know her position. That will change in the general. When Niki Tsongas nearly loses a seat in a heavily democratic district because of the immigration issue, you can go ahead an kid yourself all you want to about who this issue will benefit.

"Frankly it looks pretty awful for the GOP, especially with regards to control of Congress. Shrieking about illegals is probably the only issue they can run on."

Poor Offside, if he keeps whistling past the graveyard, he is going to die of parched lips.

I would not trade my hand for yours right now.

Mike, you simply can't be serious. If you think this is a good hand, you are deluding yourself.

Merry Christmas, Seasons Greetings: Dick Morris (paraphrased) says, "By stressing experience, Hillary is basing her campaign on a fraud. Like her Senate race, which was premised on the obvious lie that she wanted to be a New Yorker, her presidential race is rooted in the fabrication that she was the principal actress in her husband's presidency … She's now positioned in the wrong place in the wrong primary. It's Republicans who vote for experience - Democrats vote for change … Bill Clinton is now running around Iowa trying to sell Hillary as the "agent of change," but he is fighting against the long-term theme of her campaign in making Hillary the candidate of experience. And how can a former president, whose very presence is identified with a bygone era, convince us that his wife is now the candidate of the new age?"

I found this particularly insightful. Or could it be just another example of the Clintons having it both ways? For example, Bill Clinton pronounces Iowa lost, while Hillary issues a statement saying Iowa can be won. Then Bill claims it was a miracle she ran at all. Perhaps they both inhaled. Either way, I keep waiting for Hillary to get to the good part. What experience does she have that makes her the best candidate? Why doesn't she talk about education? I don't get it: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Why Hillary Is Losing

She's not losing. Because Jim Harris says she's not.

"Mike, you simply can't be serious. If you think this is a good hand, you are deluding yourself. "

Considering some of our comments, I know for a fact your are far from rational. I get the impression you are still to young to understand how these things tend to unwind.

Yes, I stand by my statement. You are playing checkers, I am playing chess.

our=your

Considering some of our comments, I know for a fact your are far from rational. I get the impression you are still to young to understand how these things tend to unwind.

Not meaning to wind you up, but what's wrong with Spanish as another national language? That would make three languages for you ! ;-)

Well, you are already fluent in genuine liberal gibberish, so what other language need you learn?

"Not meaning to wind you up, but what's wrong with Spanish as another national language? That would make three languages for you ! ;-)
Posted by Offside at December 16, 2007 04:00 PM"

The U.S. has a national language? That's news to me.