What do you think?

I'll never think that she lost because of being a woman.

Her campaign, which did very well in the beginning, sort of 'fell apart'....and a lot of that was due to Hillary's own attitude and words.

If indeed, she DID lose because she IS a woman, it would be only because, as a woman, she began to act like a woman, after telling everyone she was just 'one of the guys'.

Also, like the rest of us 'women' she resorted to being a woman...alternately whining, and crying....neither of which 'impress men' at all, but rather make men feel confused, and cause them to say 'Oh shit...NOW what did I do?!'

Men are simple creatures...women complex, and full of surprises, so maybe in that sense, she did lose because she was a woman, but her loss was NOT 'at the hands of a man,' butrrather her acting like a woman.:-)

the fact that Dean GAVE Obama his lists of donors and supporters from Iowa. So, it's easy to argue that the fix was in.

Note this article from 2006

<link>

by the DNC and the media. I think certain comments were made that were derogatory towards women (meaning Hillary), on signs too at rallies, but the media did not cover it. And what about the nutcracker? The media said she cried, but in reality, her voice cracked. If she was tougn, she was considered a bitch, and if she showed a softer side, she was weak. She had to walk a tight wire. Obama didn't.

No, I don't think so. Rather I think it was strategy. All last year she seemed inevitable, hard to beat and the advantage of name recognition. Unfortunately, Hillary's campaign didn't plan for beyond Feb. 5th and that confirmed by her own campaign advisors. Money was spent lavishly on trappings rather than thinking "what if"? Then there were the internal strifes which became public, the quandry whether or not to shake up the campaign, including firings. Her campaign plotted a strategy of going for the big states and Obama went for the smaller states and as a result, wracked up delegate counts vs. popular vote.

As for data bases are concerned, every Democratic conact goes in to a common Democratic data base, whether acquired by Dean, Kerry, Edwards or others. I know this because our daughter was doing data entry during the Obama Ind. campaign and all went into the shared data base, not just Obama's.

The other problem I saw was Hillary's change from Experience to a series of others including Solutions, looking for the right one to reach voters while Obama's never changed. Had Hillary been allowed to be herself as portrayed in the last few primaries, I really think things could have turned out differently. More than anyone else, I blame Mark Penn for not letting Hillary be herself.

I don't think so. I think her undoing was amassing a huge campaign debt, not paying her top people, and having them leave. I think Penn had a lot to do with her demise, also - - his advice seemed to make her look phony, whereas I had felt in the past that she was a "real" person. In the last few months, she seemed to project a feeling that she was due the presidency...and just couldn't let go of the fact that the "young whippersnapper" (as McCain, I think, called Obama) was getting so many votes.

we should all be ashamed of how poorly she was treated.

As for data bases are concerned, every Democratic conact goes in to a common Democratic data base, whether acquired by Dean, Kerry, Edwards or others. I know this because our daughter was doing data entry during the Obama Ind. campaign and all went into the shared data base, not just Obama's.

That simply is not true. Dean gave Obama all his internet fundraising tools at the beginning.

We are not talking about what was being done when your daughter was working.We are talking about at the very beginning. Do not try to shade the truth. It is disingenuous.

Not for one moment were the two candidates giving each other vital information.

Hillary lost because the DNC apparatus and the MSM were against her all the way. Every trick in the book was used against her.

Never,in all my years as a strong Democrat have I seen so many dirty tricks used against one of our own. That is why I have left the party and am now without anyone to vote for. It will not be McCain, but I have no intention of wasting my vote on a man who came from the corrupt Cook County system. He is now trying to shed them,but look at his choice of Johnson,Holder.Proof positive he does not make wise choices. Wright, Rezko and all the rest.

Now,we are beginning to find out where his big money is coming from. From the beginning I have said there is no way that big money is coming from small doners.

she tried to play politics instead of using her womanliness properly. It's a mistake that a lot of women make in their zeal to move up in the world. In the past I have trained a number of women in sales and there are several things that I point out to them.

First, when you are dealing with men you find the best way to tell them what to do. From the time they are itty bitty boys they are being told what to do by women. There's grandma, mom, sisters, girlfriends, wives and mistresses. Oftimes you do this by letting them think that things are their own idea and they're so clever for thinking of it.

If things are not going your way, bitchiness can be used quite effectively. Men are very much attracted to bitchy women as long as a woman learns how to use it. Many men find bitchy women sexy.

When dealing with women, you go for the sisterhood. We're in this together so we need to work together to get the men to do what we want them to do. They think they are so superior, but we know better.

You never, never use sex (at least in sales) to get what you want. You use the possibility of it as a carrot. For instance, if things were different, he's just the kind of guy that you would find attractive. That gives him hope and keeps him on his best behavior so he won't screw it up. If he comes on too strong, you put him in his place in no uncertain terms. That's where some of the bitchiness comes into play. Mild, meek "oh please don't do that" doesn't usually work.

In short, Hillary should have been authoritative but with some warmth to indicate that she cares what happens to you. Think mother hen.

OK, there's some of my trade secrets. Remember that throughout history, even though women seemed to often hold lower positions, they were the power behind what went on. In other cases women were very successful leaders of their countries.

MA, no one is being disengenuouss nor shading the truth, Your hatred of Obama is so palpable that you prefer to believe your version rather than any facts presenteed and that hatred extends to anyone who supports Obama.

I never said that the two candidates traded information. That Democratic data base is available to both candidates as are voter rolls and that data base is being constantly updated as is the Republican data base.

Dean did not give him the tools. Obama's campaign copied the Dean 50-state strategy and use of the interent. Beyond, that he expanded into new areas and built a strong grass roots organization.

No, the topic of this post was not centered on the beginning but merely asked whether Hillary lost because she's a woman. Both cadidates faced offs that never existed before--Hillary a woman and Obama a black. When in our history did that ever happen? Each entered this race with a handicap. Yes, Hillary was often treated unfairly but so was Obama.

Yes, you can cling to the version you choose to believe but you can't change the facts.

Success for women depends on knowing those facts. At one point, I managed an office of 15 women and four men in a highly comptetive field. Women can often be their own worst enemy unless they learn that strategy.

No, not this time. In the Democrat Party she lost because of Howard Dean and Co.

Plus she isn't a "Black Woman"

I screwed up lists with fundraising tools. But that proves that Dean was already in Obama's court and had annointed him as the next candidate. So, with the power of the DNC behind him, there was no even playing field for Clinton.

I too,know a thing about data entry,and there is no way two candidates would share funding, or anything close to that.

Those lists would be totally separate from other info going to the DNC.

Data entry simply means putting information into the computer.It is a very limited chore that volunteers would do.