Maggie Haberman writes this morning that Hillary 2016 would have a lot to learn from...Hillary 2000. This short paragraph gets to the key problem with Hillary 2008 and the main thing, I think, that needs to change assuming she does run:
Said another former adviser: “There was no arrogance [in Clinton’s campaign], there was no presumption that this was hers.”
This was the key thing. She worked really hard in 1999 and 2000, visiting places that had barely ever seen a statewide candidate, let alone one who was a worldwide celebrity. She was knocked in 2007 and 2008 for quite doing that in Iowa. Even that "in it to win it" slogan had a strong odor of arrogance about it, as if it was atempting to foreordain an outcome.
I would imagine she knows all this. But the key thing will be to see how she executes it. She will be a huge front-runner, so arguably she can Rose Garden it if she wants to, but that would be a terrible mistake.
Meanwhile I see 60 Minutes aired new Benghazi interviews. I haven't seen it yet. I was watching sports. I gather from reports that it doesn't necessarily raise any new questions but re-raises some old ones with a degree of urgency. Hot Air, a conservative site, is saying this should lead to a demand for more answers, although it does not say to what precise questions. As far as I can see so far, the questions are the same--what was known in the days leading up to the attack, why didn't military help arrive, did the administration dissemble about what it knew w/r/t the involvement of terrorists. Sounds to me like it didn't hit Clinton's credibility, but of course others will think differently. As long as those "others" are the usual 25 percent of the country, it won't matter.
