Spain Wins the 2008 European Championship

For the first time in 44 years, Spain has won a major soccer tournament, defeating Germany 1-0 in the Euro2008 Finals. Fernando Torres scored the only goal of the match in the 33rd minute.

Excerpts from "Spain win Euro 2008!":

Fernando Torres finally lived up to his billing as one of the world's great strikers on Sunday by scoring to make Spain the champions of Europe.

Torres, who had been overshadowed by teammate David Villa all tournament, scored in the 33rd minute of the final to topple the three-time European champions and earn his nation's first major title since 1964.

Touching a sliding pass from Xavi Hernandez past Philipp Lahm, Torres turned and ran past his marker on the opposite side, collected the ball and lifted a shot over sliding goalkeeper Jens Lehmann and into the far corner.

In the end, Spain was a deserved winner of the 13th European Championships, co-hosted by Switzerland and Austria.

Long known as underachievers who peaked between tournaments rather than at them, Spain reached the final at Ernst Happel Stadium with a string of beguiling attacking displays orchestrated by a vibrant midfield – and held true to their values in the highest pressure match.

Xavi, Andres Iniesta and David Silva swapped positions constantly against a midfield marshalled by Michael Ballack and eventually wore out their opponents until it seemed Spain was simply counting down time until the final whistle.

Germany dominated the opening exchanges until a lucky break in the 14th minute gave the Spanish their first chance on goal and a boost that clearly lifted their play.

On a rare foray forward, Iniesta sent a cross into the box from the left and German defender Christoph Metzelder stuck out a boot to send the ball rocketing toward his own goal. Only a diving reaction save by Jens Lehmann kept it out.

Spain never looked back.

With leading tournament scorer Villa absent because of injury, Torres was again the sole outlet in attack. He took Xavi's pass and finished off his chance by flipping the ball over Lehmann and watching it roll softly into the corner for his second goal of Euro 2008.

Germany replaced the struggling Lahm with Marcell Jansen at halftime but Silva still got in a 54th-minute shot that right back Sergio Ramos almost deflected in with a back heel.

Ballack, who had already received treatment for a head wound and was railing against every decision in Spain's favour, shot past the post and almost set up substitute Kevin Kuranyi with a cross that goalkeeper Iker Casillas just tipped away.

But from then on, aside from isolated passages of play, it was all Spain.

After winning their first title in 44 years having beaten Italy and Germany, Spain no longer need to think of themselves as an underachieving football nation.

The "Red Fury" won their second European Championships playing with flair, finesse and a determination that the team had lacked in so many previous competitions.

The Spaniards may not have as many trophies as the Germans or Italians, but the sparkling performance in Euro 2008 finally ended Spain's curse of exiting major tournaments in the quarterfinals.

The 1-0 win over Germany extended Spain's unbeaten streak to 22 matches and allowed embattled coach Luis Aragonés to end his four-year spell with Spain on a high.

Here's a clip of the goal by Torres. The replays show what an amazing effort he made. While watching the match live, I didn't think he had a chance on that one.



You can see more highlights here.

El País has a good slide show of the finals.

Spain became only the second team ever in the European Championship to win every game in their group and then go undefeated in the elimination rounds.

Now, La Furia Roja just has to continue its 22-game unbeaten streak all the way through the 2010 World Cup.

Spain Beats Russia - Advances to Euro2008 Finals

The Spanish national soccer team defeated Russia yesterday 3-0 on a rain-soaked field in Vienna to advance to the 2008 European championship match against Germany.

George Vecesy, in his New York Times article this morning, "Dashing Spain Transcends Its Anguish," explains what the victory means to Spain in context of their longstanding failure in major competitions:

This is something that has not happened in 24 years, most of them frustrating. Spain’s national team — La Selección — has disappointed so often, so graphically, so diversely. But on Thursday came the biggest win in a generation.

All the homegrown talent that is the backbone of La Liga, one of the toughest national leagues in the world, came through in the rain in Vienna. The Spaniards wore down Russia, 3-0, in the semifinals of Euro 2008, with their skill and experience topping the Russians’ earlier exuberance.

This is no small victory for Spain to qualify for Sunday’s championship match against Germany in Vienna. It will be the first final for a Spanish team in a world-level tournament since Spain lost to France in Euro 1984.

In between there have been so many losses way too early in tournaments, often under bizarre circumstances, that made Spanish fans ask exactly why their teams cannot live up to expectations, why their fancy players fold under pressure, why terrible things happen to them.

World soccer fans often get a little crazy when an American like me compares an international situation to our own little local sports. But the best way to describe Spain in American terms is to say that sometimes a hand comes out of nowhere to deflect a ball, the way it happened to the Chicago Cubs in the postseason in 2003. The Cubs have not won a World Series since 1908, and Spain has not won a major tournament since Euro 1964, when it beat the Soviet Union, the spiritual ancestors of Thursday’s losing side.

In between, La Selección has managed to disappoint. Things just happen, and a nation falls silent. I was in Spain in 1982 when La Selección lost. People were indoors watching television — and they never came back out that evening, not even for the traditional stroll or the late dinner. Everything just shut down.

Demonstrably the luck is changing, ever since Spain survived 120 scoreless minutes against its chosen nemesis, Italy, in the quarterfinals of this tournament, and Iker Casillas made enough key saves for the shootout victory.

On Thursday, the Spaniards displayed the meshed talent that has often gone missing in crucial matches. They showed individual flashes in the first half, wearing down the Russians, coached by Guus Hiddink, the Dutch master. In the second half, Luis Aragonés’s squad produced crisp outlet passes, dashing crosses, alert strikes and bing-bing-bing goals by Xavi Hernández in the 50th minute, by Daniel Güiza in the 73rd and by David Silva in the 82nd.

Now La Selección meets Germany, whose defense is more experienced, more purposeful, than the Russian defense. But if Spain can run that offense as it did in the second half on Thursday, then this could truly be La Selección’s year, or even its generation.

Unfortunately, Spain's leading striker, David Villa, the top scorer in the tournament, will miss the finals after a hamstring injury against Russia. On the plus side, the Spanish team has an excellent bench, as they proved yesterday, when two of their three goals were scored by second-half substitutes.

Spain vs. Germany will be broadcast live on ABC this Sunday afternoon, 2:30 pm EST.

Spain Beats Italy!

For the first time in 88 years, since the 1920 Olympics, Spain has defeated Italy in a major soccer competition. The Spaniards won 4-2 on penalty kicks, advancing to the semi-finals of the 2008 European Championship.

Their victory in the penalty round was due in large part to the brilliant performance of goalkeeper Iker Casillas, who guessed right on all 4 kicks by Italy, stopping efforts by Daniel De Rossi and Di Natale.

I was still in Spain when Casillas was suddenly thrust into the soccer spotlight in the 2000 Champions League with Real Madrid. He was only 18 at the time, but he played well. According to Wikipedia, "he became the youngest-ever goalkeeper to ever play in a Champions League final when Real Madrid defeated Valenica C.F. 3-0 four days after his nineteenth birthday." I've always liked him and was glad to see him star in an historic victory by the Spanish national team.

In a ridiculous effort to control video of the tournament for their own profit, UEFA has made it nearly impossible to find simple highlights of the matches. But one blog has the penalty round, at least until the UEFA Nazis bust them.

Up next for the Spanish team is Russia, who they defeated two weeks ago in the first game of the tournament. Germany and Turkey play in the other semi-final match. Spain hasn't won the European Championship, which is held every four years, since the 2nd tournament in 1964.

Cyd Charisse

Cyd Charisse in her favorite musical number, the "Dancing in the Dark" sequence with Fred Astaire in The Band Wagon (1953).

I was saddened to read this morning that Cyd Charisse had passed away on Tuesday at the age of 86. Born Tula Ellice Finklea in Amarillo, Texas, Charisse was one of those rare actresses who combined an erotic, animal physicality with elegance, grace and class. I always imagined her as something of a noble pantheress. She was certainly was one of the greatest dancers in movie musicals.

Luckily for us, she partnered on several occasions with the two greatest male dancers in film, Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly. Her dual animal/elegant nature worked perfectly with the strongest attributes of both of men. And it's notable that the best Astaire and Kelly musicals of the 1950s were the ones featuring Cyd Charisse: The Band Wagon, (1953) Silk Stockings, (1957) and Singin' in the Rain (1952).

As Astaire once famously said, "That Cyd! When you've danced with her you stay danced with."

The New York Times has an obituary (with a slideshow on her career), as well as appreciations by Verlyn Klinkenborg and Manohla Dargis.

Klinkenborg's favorite Charisse number is when she dances with her lingerie in Silk Stockings. She plays a stern Soviet commissar who has come to Paris to retrieve three Soviet emissaries who've gone astray in the city of lights. Ice cold when she arrives, she gradually gives in to Fred Astaire's romantic overtures, the charms of Paris, and the simple delights of captialism, including French lingerie. At one point, alone in her hotel room, she turns the photo of Stalin that she keeps by her bed face down on the nightstand. Furtively and with a feeling of shame at first, she begins to enjoy the silk stockings and then the nightie that she's secretly purchased. It's a beautiful, sensual number.

Part I:


Part II (a better print) is available at YouTube.

Dargis' favorite Charisse sequence is from The Band Wagon, but not the "Dancing in the Dark" scene.

I prefer the film’s “Girl Hunt Ballet,” a spoof of a Mickey Spillane pulp in which Astaire plays a detective who partners with a willowy blonde and a smokin’ brunette, both danced by Ms. Charisse. The blonde has her allure, but not the brunette’s sex appeal — or her dress, a red-hot number with tassels hanging from each torpedolike breast. “She came at me in sections,” the detective says of the brunette, with “more curves than a scenic railway.” Choreographed by Michael Kidd, the athletic number makes the most of her legs, which thrust through the front slit of her dress like a boxer’s jabs.

Here's a clip:


Cyd Charisse's own favorite performance, "Dancing in the Dark," ranks as one of the most beautiful moments ever in a musical. Jeff posted about the scene a few months back. Here's Klinkenborg's description of the sequence:

And if I had to choose only one moment to remember Charisse by, it would be her silent duet with Astaire in “The Band Wagon.” The song is “Dancing in the Dark,” the setting is Central Park, and, as usual, the overlapping illusions are nearly confounding. There they are — two professional dancers, carefully choreographed and rehearsed, playing two professional dancers dancing spontaneously on a soundstage that is meant to be Central Park, and all the while they are feigning an almost reproachful, amorous awareness of each other that conceals the hard-working awareness of two pros on the job. It was Cyd Charisse’s remarkable gift to move through the hall of mirrors that is the American movie musical and never be caught glancing at herself.

"Dancing in the Dark"


Charisse also had several famous dance numbers with Gene Kelly. It was her appearance in Singin' in the Rain that turned her into a starring lady. It's great watching Charisse with the athletic and powerful Kelly. She complimented him well.



And though I didn't really like Brigadoon that much, I did enjoy Charisse and Kelly in the "Heather on the Hill" sequence:


Thanks, Cyd. May you dance forever. . . .

Obama's Got Pander!

Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee for President last Tuesday.

The very next day, as if to prove that he could pander with the best/worst of them . . . . well . . . .

Jon Stewart on Obama, McClain and Hillary Clinton pandering their little hearts out at the annual conference of AIPAC, the leading pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States.

The Obama Nomination

I didn't vote for Obama in the primaries. He wasn't even my second choice among the candidates. But I have to admit that I started getting a little choked up Tuesday night after he finally gained enough delegates to become the nominee of the Democratic Party.

It's been a strange campaign so far. On one hand, I've been appalled by the outright racism expressed by a number of Democratic voters. Watching news clips of scary-looking people saying they would never vote for a black man shouldn't have surprised me, I guess, but it did. And it saddened me deeply. This was supposed to be the party that cared about people of color. It didn't help that the Clinton campaign engaged in race-baiting once it became evident they had a battle on their hands, which certainly contributed to the openly racist remarks flowing so easily towards the end of the primaries in places like West Virginia and Kentucky (and in one frightening woman from New York City screeching nasty remarks about Obama at the DNC Committee vote on Florida and Michigan).

Then, suddenly, after a seemingly endless campaign, an African-American man was standing before me as the Democratic nominee for president. How extraordinary! It was one of those beautiful but rare moments when the America I believe in and long for was able to blossom forth.

His speech last Tuesday night was one of the best of the campaign. "America, this is our moment. This is our time." That was riveting. Here it is if you didn't see it earlier.



The General Election

Obama should be able to defeat McCain in November. But I'm concerned about the way he lost control of the media narrative in the last part of the primaries.

After running such an impressive and well-planned campaign through the end of February, Obama's team was out-campaigned by Hillary Clinton more often than not the rest of the way. The constant battering by the Clinton camp seemed to knock Obama out of his game plan. While his team certainly reacts more quickly to a single attack than Kerry did with the Swiftboaters in 2004, they seem to have trouble with a constant barrage of potentially damaging statements or issues and struggled to maintain momentum after Ohio and Texas.

On the other hand, left to himself, I don't think John McCain could campaign his way out of a paper bag, and his team doesn't seem half as talented or creative as the Clintons. One theory says that if Barack Obama can defeat the Clintons, who many people consider some of the most brilliant politicians of the last 40 years, then he can defeat McCain. I agree with that up to a point. But what if - and I'm thinking of the evidence we have from this campaign - the Clintons actually weren't as brilliant as we made them out to be for so long? Or that they were operating like a once-great heavyweight champion who's now just a flabby, arrogant prima donna long past his prime, and who says stupid things because he's been hit in the head too many times? Then, Obama struggling until the very last primary in June doesn't look so positive.

Luckily, it looks like McCain is going to approach Obama the same way Clinton did - with disdain and disbelief that this young kid thinks it's his turn to be president instead of me, me, me, me me. You'd think McCain and his advisers would've watched the Democratic primaries and realized the mistake in underestimating Barack Obama.

Mark Halperin, at The Page, lists the ways in which John McCain underestimates Obama:

1. The astonishing enthusiasm that Obama inspires in his supporters — and how much it contrasts with the respect, but not passion, McCain enjoys from his own backers. (And the size of Obama’s crowds…)

2. The “Major League vs Little League” difference between Obama’s infrastructure and his own.

3. The inherent difficulty/sensitivity of running against two figures at once. McCain will have to 1) explicitly criticize a sitting Republican president before Republican audiences and 2) prevent the historic event of electing the nation’s first African-American president that many in the country (and the media) desire.

4. The ever-present danger on the trail that he might evoke Bob Dole with a Bob Dole-like misstep (fall off a stage, sound like a Washington fossil, seem angry and out of touch).

5. How little most Americans care about foreign policy (beyond the Iraq War) when the economy is in the tank.

6. How many voters (even Republican stalwarts) dread the idea of a virtual third Bush term.

7. How many members of the media dread the idea of covering a virtual third Bush term (and how much they buy Obama’s argument that McCain is an extension of Bush-Cheney).

8. The extent to which McCain’s lack of an economic message could make Obama (who also is challenged in adequately addressing the economy) seem like Bob Rubin, Bill Clinton, and Lou Dobbs all rolled into one.

9. That many of his party’s wiseguys and wisegals see polling data suggesting his chances of winning are no more than 30% (and how much it infects their cable TV appearances).

10. That in modern America, perception is often reality and style often beats substance.

11. That age is only a number unless it’s a really high number — then it’s a liability.

12. How old he looks when he is acting “presidential” on the stump – and how incongruous it makes his message of change appear.

13. How powerful debates might be when the allegedly inexperienced Obama of allegedly questionable judgment goes toe-to-toe with McCain, even on national security, and is therefore deemed of sufficient strength and stature to be president by many.

14. How valuable Obama makes voters feel (”we are the change we have been waiting for”) – while McCain’s campaign instructs and lectures voters.

15. How forcefully Obama will now move to the center as a mainstream, optimistic candidate celebrating both change and America’s greatness.

(I would add another: 16. A winning smile like Obama's connects with voters more than McCain's snide, arrogant little laugh that sounds like Beavis from Beavis and Butthead.)

Running mates will probably be important for both sides, as each candidate tries to bring together various elements of their respective parties and win some of the crucial swing states.

But I'll take a look at those in the future.

Funny How Time Slips Away

Feeling nostalgia for my youth in Austin . . . .

Here's Willie Nelson singing his beautiful song "Funny How Time Slips Away" at his 2nd Annual Fourth of July Picnic, 1974.

(With a very drunk Leon Russell. From what I've heard and read, there was a wee bit of drinking and toking at those 4th of July Picnics.)

To see just how time slips away, check out Willie singing the same song in the 1960s. It's the second one in the medley.

Al Green does a nice version of the song here.

Elvis Presley, The Supremes and Dave Matthews also do versions.

Giving Peace A Chance?

American Peace Sign

The Global Peace Index has released its 2008 Rankings, and the United States did not do well, coming in 97th place out of 140 countries.

If you go to the rankings and click on each individual country, you can see how it fares in the 59 measures used to determine the index. The U.S., for example, does well in "Political Stability," but terribly in "Number of jailed population per 100,000 people."

From The Guardian:

"The world appears to be a marginally more peaceful place this year," said Steve Killelea, the Australian technology entrepreneur and founder of the Global Peace Index. "This is encouraging, but it takes small steps by individual countries for the world to make greater strides on the road to peace."

The index, which was launched under the auspices of the global thinktank the Institute for Economics and Peace is endorsed by the Nobel laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Professor Joseph Stiglitz and Professor Muhammad Yunus. It also enjoys the support of business leaders such as Sir Richard Branson and Sir Mark Moody Stuart.

His Holliness the Dalai Lama is another supporter. You can see the full list of Global Peace Index endorsers here.

Here are the Top Ten most peaceful countries in the world:

1. Iceland
2. Denmark
3. Norway
4. New Zealand
5. Japan
6. Ireland
7. Portgual
8. Finland
9. Luxembourg
10. Austria

Spain came in 30th. France 34th. The U.K. 49th. Canada 11th.

And the five least peaceful countries:

136. Israel
137. Afghanistan
138. Sudan
139. Somalia
140. Iraq

I guess the U.S. has helped Iraq achieve one clear distinction in the world.

And here's John Lennon, with Eric Clapton on guitar, doing a ragged live version of "Give Peace a Chance" from Live Peace in Toronto 1969.

How Hillary Can Still Win

Forget the number of pledged delegates.

Forget the number of Super-Duper delegates.

Forget the popular vote.

(With or without Florida and Michigan.)

There are a few other scenarios we haven't considered in which Hillary can still win.

What Went Wrong? The Clinton Campaign Dissects Itself

The process to choose a Democratic presidential nominee hasn't finished yet, though it seems highly likely that Barack Obama will be the candidate.

I'll believe it's over when Obama actually has 2,025 delegates. Until then, I feel like I'm watching the last few minutes of a horror film, when the dumbass on the screen thinks he's killed the monster, whereas you know the beast is about to spring forth for one last attack.

Actually, observing a lot of Democrats, pundits, and bloggers (myself included), I'm reminded of another film analogy - the "Bring out your dead" routine in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Hillary: I'm not dead.
The Media: What?
The DNC: Nothing. Look, Edwards endorsed Obama.
Hillary: I'm not dead.
The Media: 'Ere, she says she's not dead.
DNC: Yes she is.
Hillary: I'm not.
The Media: She isn't.
The DNC: Well, she will be soon, she's very ill.
Hillary: I'm getting better. Look at West Virginia.
The DNC: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
The Media: Well, I can't take her like that. It's against regulations.
Hillary: I don't want to go on the cart.
The DNC: Oh, don't be such a baby.
The Media: I can't take her.
Hillary: Obama won't get any white votes!
The DNC: Oh, do me a favor.
The Media: I can't.
The DNC: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? She won't be long.
The Media: I promised I'd cover McCain's campaign.
The DNC: Well, when's your next round?
The Media: May 20, the Kentucky and Oregon primaries.
Hillary: I think I'll go for a walk. I'm inevitable!
The DNC: [To Hillary] You're not fooling anyone, you know.
[To the Media] Isn't there anything you could do?
Hillary: I feel happy. I feel happy. I'm going all the way to the convention!
[The Media glances up and down the street furtively, then silences Hillary with a whack of his club]
The DNC: Ah, thank you very much.
The Media: Not at all. See you in the General.
The DNC: Right.

Evidently, though, several people in Hillary's own campaign know the end is near, and they've started dissecting the corpse of their losing effort before the breath has even left the body.

Michelle Cottle, at the New Republic has a fascinating article called (surprise) "What Went Wrong," which pulls together statements from more than a dozen members of Hillary's staff, "from high-level advisors to grunt-level assistants, from money men to on-the-ground organizers."

Here's a good chunk of the article - I suggest, however, reading the whole thing:

One respondent sent in a list of Top 25 screw ups, the first three being:

1. Patti
2. Solis
3. Doyle

Patti Solis Doyle

While from another corner came another list, reading:

1. Mark Penn
2. Mark Penn
3. Mark Penn

PROBLEMS AT THE OUTSET

"Bottom line: I just don't think she was hungry enough for it in the beginning. It wasn't really until the ten-in-a-row loss that she started doing stuff like Saturday Night Live and Jon Stewart. In the beginning, it was hard to get her to do those things. Early in the campaign, she spent much more time in the Senate than the campaign would have liked. It took the threat of a real loss to get her hungry enough for it. But time was lost. If you ask the Iowa folks, I'm sure they would tell you she wasn't there enough."

"Clearly [Obama] was a phenomenon. He was tapping something really different than anyone had ever seen before. ... Months and months before Iowa, he was getting record crowds. I just think they should have really gone after him back in the summer and in the fall. I know it would have been a difficult decision to make back then. She's the leader of the party, the standard bearer, the big dog. Everyone thinks she's gonna win and walk away with it. Why go picking on Barack Obama? But that's just something the campaign should have done sooner."

"We didn't lay a serious glove on him until the fall. We tried to a little bit, but we weren't successful. We did silly stuff, like talk about David Geffen. It wasn't the substantive contrast we needed to make."

"Devastating vulnerabilities such as Obama's associations with Wright and Ayers were not unearthed by the campaign's vaunted research team in time to be fully taken advantage of--despite being readily available in the public domain."

"Running as an incumbent, as the inevitable candidate, was probably our biggest mistake, particularly in a time when the country is really hungry for change."

"There was not any plan in place from beginning to end on how to win the nomination. It was, 'Win Iowa.' There was not the experience level, and, frankly, the management ability, to create a whole plan to get to the magical delegate number. That to me is the number one thing. It's starting from that point that every subsequent decision resulted. The decision to spend x amount in Iowa versus be prepared for February 5 and beyond. Or how much money to spend in South Carolina--where it was highly unlikely we were going to win--versus the decision not to fund certain other states. ... It was not as simple as, 'Oh, that's a caucus state, we're not going to play there.' That suggests a more serious thought process. It suggests a meeting where we went through all that."

"Harold Ickes's encyclopedic understanding of the proportional delegate system was never operationalized into a field plan. The campaign inexplicably wrote off many states entirely, allowing Obama to create the lead of 100+ delegates that he has today. Most notably, we claimed the race would be over by February 5, but didn't devote any resources to the smaller states that day and in the weeks that followed, allowing Obama to easily run up margins and delegate counts on the cheap--the delegate margin he will win by."

PROBLEMS WITH THE PERSONNEL

"Hillary assembled a team thin on presidential campaign experience that confused discipline with insularity; they didn't know what they didn't know and were too arrogant to ask at a time early enough in the process when it could have made a difference, effectively shutting out even some long-time Hillaryland loyalists. Her innermost circle of [Patti Solis] Doyle, [Mark] Penn, [Mandy] Grunwald, [Neera] Tanden and [Howard] Wolfson formed a Board of Directors with no single Chairman or CEO; nobody was truly in charge, nobody held truly accountable."

"[Original campaign manager] Patti and [her deputy] Mike [Henry] sat up there in their offices and no one knew what they did all day. Patti's a nice person who was put in a job way over head. She was out of her element. Mike Henry was hired because he was the flavor of day, the catch everyone wanted. I'm sure he was really great, but presidential politics require a unique skill set and knowledge."

"[Policy Director] Tanden and [Communications Director] Wolfson, the HQ's most senior department heads, had no real presidential campaign experience, and no primary experience whatsoever. Notoriously bad managers, they filled key posts with newcomers loyal to them but unknown to and unfamiliar with the candidate, her style, her history, her preferences."

Mark Penn

"Probably our second biggest mistake was much more operational: Making our chief strategist our one and only pollster. It is impossible to disagree and have a counter view on message when the person creating the message is also the person testing the message."

"She never embraced the mantle from the beginning of being a different kind of candidate. Why did the campaign not do that? Because Mark Penn wanted to do it a different way. Read his book. He thought that you have a list of policy prescriptions. Voters are into that, and that's how you win. This came at the expense of--and it's a decision he really pushed for--saying to folks, 'Yes, she's a pretty inspiring figure herself.' ... There's no reason why she's not a change agent also. But once the CW is set, it just doesn't change."

"There were so many consultants, instead of full-time staff who would have spent their entire time focusing on this. . . . There were too many people that had too much else going on on the side."

"[Bill's] behavior that started off in Iowa, carried on in New Hampshire, and culminated in South Carolina really was the beginning of the end. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, he just kind of imploded. I think, if I had to look back on it, it became more about him than about her. It really was destructive overall."

PROBLEMS WITH EXECUTION

"There were more themes in this campaign than anything I've ever seen."

"Our message in fact was working very well through September. What we failed to do is pivot when we needed to. We stuck on the same thing. ... We didn't say, 'OK, everybody gets that she can do this job.' We never pivoted to what kind of change she could bring. We repackaged the old message and sent it back out. Instead of 'Ready on Day One,' we changed to 'Solutions.' It was a very IBM approach."

"Keeping the same team in place [after New Hampshire] meant that pre-Iowa planning and strategic errors continued nearly unabated, were not corrected. ... Too much damage had been done by the time Maggie Williams took the helm."

"There were a number of people who advised the Clinton campaign back in the spring of '07 that this could easily become a longer battle--a war of attrition. She needed to build a broad base of supporters beyond the virtually limitless number of Clinton friends and supporters who they counted on to not only max out, but to use their not inconsiderable Rolodexes to help her. That would have been fine if this thing had ended Super Tuesday. It didn't, and she ran out of money."

"There was financial mismanagement bordering on fraud. A candidate who raised more than a quarter of a billion dollars over the years had to pump in millions more of her own money to stave off bankruptcy."

"If you have no cash because you totally mismanaged the budget, you have no money to go up on TV; you're getting crushed on TV and in direct mail because Obama has so much more money--that is a huge problem. Who was looking at the money? The financial situation was a disaster. That's the reason [Howard] Paster had to come in and clean shit up."

PROBLEMS WITH THE CANDIDATE

"If you look at this campaign as a 15- or 16-month gambit, the public turning point was the Philadelphia debate. Her non-answer on the driver's license issue. Again, it spoke to the character issue: The sense that she will say anything and do anything to get elected. It drove the Obama narrative of her home."

"The Senator is as loyal as she is smart. And I think that removing Patti is where those two things came into conflict. She knew the right thing to do. At same time, she was very loyal to Patti, who had been very loyal to her."

PROBLEMS IN IOWA

"We placed a huge financial bet on Iowa and raised its importance by sending senior staff there. And because we didn't plan for a national campaign, we couldn't point to an operation that could withstand an Iowa blow the way Obama could after New Hampshire."

"It was obvious talking to people on the ground there that they simply did not get the Iowa caucus from a field perspective. That's where the thing was lost. They didn't have a good idea of the horse-trading that makes caucuses work for you."

"Mark Penn and Mandy Grunwald dismissed the possibility of youth turning out heavily in Iowa for Obama, saying on the record after the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, 'They don't look like caucus-goers.'"

"Penn was preoccupied with the national polls. We were up in the national polls, but Iowa was always a challenging thing for us. Early, early on, our internals showed us a significant number of points behind. ... In Iowa, Penn consistently would show polls that were of the eight-way. That was basically meaningless because it wasn't going to be an eight-way race. The candidates that were the second-tier candidates were not going to reach the threshold [of 15%]. The real race was the three-way. But he always focused on the eight-way when we'd start going over the numbers in Iowa. It was frustrating to the state staff and other people as well. It just showed a lack of understanding and a disconnect."

PROBLEMS WITH THE PRESS

"We ran a press operation that lost all credibility with the press through endless and pointless memos like, 'Where's the Bounce?' and polling memos that cherry-picked only positive polls when we were up and ignored polling when we were down."

AND, FINALLY...

"Her people spent all of 2008 making lists blaming each other (but never themselves) rather than lists of solutions."

Actually, I can tell you "what went wrong" with Hillary's campaign in one word - IRAQ.

She supported (and supported and supported) Bush, Cheney & Co. and their sickening war loooong after the vast majority of people in her own party had turned against it. I remember the absolute fury my liberal friends felt towards Clinton because of the war, and I wondered at the time how she was going to win in the primaries when die-hard Democrats were lumping her in the Axis of Evil with Bush and Cheney.

Important groups like MoveOn and CodePink weren't going to support her. Most of the increasingly powerful blogosphere, like DailyKos and Huffington Post, hated her. The grassroots of the Democratic Party, who had organized themselves protesting the war, abandoned her. (One of the reasons the Clintons had such a hard time at the field level and in caucuses.)

As David Halberstam discusses in The Best and the Brightest, the classic Democratic presidential campaign strategy is to run to the Left in the primaries and move to the Center in the general election.

But Hillary couldn't run to the Left, because she betrayed them.

So she ran to the Right - giving us race baiting and reactionaries in a completely Republican-style campaign.

"I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House," Hillary claimed. "I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. . . .

And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002."

Yeah, well . . . with all due respect, Mrs. Clinton, if you had made a similar speech in 2002, you'd be the nominee right now.

If you had done what was right, if you had done what was just, if you had stood up against a war that the majority of the people in the world and in your own party tried to stop, we'd have our first woman president of the United States in 2008.

And maybe we would've prevented that catastrophic invasion.