According to Richard Adams, Hillary lost the nomination on Feb. 6. Here’s his reasoning behind his opinion:

We didn’t know it at the time, but February 6 was the day when there began a big blank gap on the Clinton campaign calendar. Because her team of battle-tested veterans failed to plan for much of anything after Super Tuesday. We now know that the Clinton campaign blew so much of its cash on the February 5 multi-state primary that it had little left in the tank for what was to follow, forcing the candidate to loan herself $5m and spend valuable time last night on television trying to raise more.

Mr. Adams makes several valid points, one being that they blew alot of their “cash on the February 5 multi-state primary.” I suspect that they initially thought that she’d wrap up the nomination that night.

I’d argue, however, that Hillary lost the nomination before the first ballot was cast. I’d submit that she lost the nomination at the debate debacle at Drexel. That’s the night Hillary went from inevitable to roadkill. Yes, she won primaries after that but those were more islands of hope in a turbulent sea than anything else. Here’s the Politico’s account of that fateful night:

It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued drivers’ licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.

It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.

And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.

Asked whether she still agrees with New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.

But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: “I did not say that it should be done.”

NBC’s Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: “You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?”

”You know, Tim,” Clinton replied, “this is where everybody plays ‘gotcha.’”

John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”

Barack Obama added: “I was confused (by) Senator Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.”

That was the night that the entire nation got to see her avoiding saying anything substantive to the point that she painted herself into a corner. That’s the night that America got to see that she’d try to be all things to all people, at least verbally. That’s the night that we got proof that her words mean nothing, that she’ll say whatever she needed to but that she’d do whatever she pleased when it came time to implement her agenda.

Here’s another of Mr. Adams’ observations that are worth considering:

So strongly did the Clinton campaign assume that Super Tuesday, with its 1,000-plus pledged delegates up for election in more than 20 states, would be the effective end of the nomination campaign, that it failed to have a Plan B. Organising for the string of caucuses that followed Super Tuesday? Opening field offices in the smaller states? Drumming up the extra fundraising needed to pay for it? None of it, or not enough of it, got done. And as a result, when Super Tuesday failed to deliver the knock-out blow that Hillary Clinton expected, her campaign was exposed to a series of rapid jabs in places like Maine, Virginia and now Wisconsin - states the Clinton campaign should have competed in strongly, not lost by double digits.

The time-tested cliche that “Pride goeth the fall” fits pretty good here. Hillary spent so much time thinking that she was the prohibitive frontrunner that she got sloppy. On the other hand, Obama spent so much time as the underdog that he was used to fighting for every delegate. It isn’t that dissimilar to the 1980 Olympic hockey teams of the Soviets and our “Miracle on Ice” team.

It’s still not certain what she’ll do if she doesn’t win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania but it’s certain that she won’t go down without a fight. The simple truth is that the Democratic nomination is more about personalities than about substance.

That’s a dynamic that’s just too difficult for her to win even if she didn’t implode in Philadelphia.

Technorati Tags: Obama, Hillary, Democratic Nomination, Drexel, Debates, John McCain, Commander-In-Chief, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. Best analysis of the current situation that I’ve seen. I would add that her cackles and shrillness haven’t helped her cause either.

   Comment by Frank — February 20, 2008 @ 3:42 pm

2. Nonetheless, the Clintons will not go peacefully into the night. This is supposed to be Hillary’s time, not Obama’s.

   I bet thats why they allowed Kerry to implode all over himself in 04, so she’d have a clear shot in 08.

   If Hill wins or comes close in either of Pennsylvania, Texas & Ohio (sounds like an old railroad doesn’t it?) stand by for something we haven’t seen in a while: a real Convention.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — February 20, 2008 @ 11:47 pm