http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/20/the-secret-of-obamas-success-and-why-hell-keep-winning-%e2%80%94-he-listens-to-george-lakoff/

Before I respond to the content of your post, can I ask what the substance of those robocalls was? And not their essential meaning, but what exactly was said or done that seemed like her campaign was acting as if she was entitled to your vote?

So you voted for Obama too? The local Clinton Machine Nasty around here considered me a brainless trolip trying to impress my boyfriend or the like. Google Terese Murray for more information.

Does that make it more clear to you? Or did you miss the part about 27 robocalls saying essentially that my vote was owned by Clinton because I was a registered democrat female?

It wouldn’t have been easy for her to win, but she might have; she beat the odds in both New Hampshire and Nevada. In any case, she would have narrowed Obama’s margin of victory, which would have dulled his momentum going into Super Tuesday - and more importantly, she would have been able to improve her tarnished image among black voters.

But she didn’t, and I think it was a fateful decision. Since then, she’s done it again and again, and that’s why she’s in second place. She ceded too much to Obama.

I don’t like her message, and I think the status of her campaign undermines it - if she has so much experience, why is she losing to a rookie? - but I don’t think that’s why she’s losing; clearly, it was a winning message in New Hampshire and Nevada, and plenty of voters still find it appealing.

Pronounced the penultimate candidate by who? Perhaps you were more in tune to what was going on than I was, but I still don’t see how her behavior was somehow different from what any other candidate might have done in her position, or really, from what any candidate ahead in the polls does. Most presidential candidates research their chances before announcing, attempt to stir up a little interest before they announce, and if they know they have strong support in some areas or they suspect the media will present their candidacy as illegitimate in some way, act in a way that discourages anyone from questioning their legitimacy. Which isn’t to say that Clinton’s run a good campaign- clearly she hasn’t- but the inevitability explanation doesn’t explain enough for me.

But thanks for calling me a “brainless trollip trying to impress [my] boyfriend!” It’s little things like that which make me feel all special and womanly inside.

Still, I also have to agree that her campaign has been run as though she felt that the nomination was a given, and an entitlement.

It still grates on me every time she talks about how she speaks about Bill’s campaigns and elections, and term of office, as though they were her own. Certainly, she was intimately involved in those campaigns, but to claim that she has run against stiff opposition, etc. bothers me. Her main claim is that she has experience, but she gets really fuzzy on just whose experience it is.

I think the 27 phone calls and rallies at the local and state level leading up to Feb 5, wherby she was pronounced the penultimate candidate ready for her close-up - unless you were a brainless trollip trying to impress your boyfriend - were far louder than media around here.

Also, can we move this away from the “wagging finger” analysis? Because like JohnL, I didn’t notice Hillary selling herself as the inevitable nominee until I noticed that the media talking about it. Before that, I heard a lot of pundits saying the Hillary needed to sell herself/was going to sell herself as “more of the same” good times from Bill’s time as president and that she’d have a hard time and probably lose to McCain. I’m sure she can be arrogant and cocky, but then, aren’t all presidential candidates? I’m just not so sure that she or her campaign were trying to steamroller over everyone with the “I’m going to win anyway, because I’m owed it” truck- or that their actions are solely responsible for that meme.