Why Does Hillary Continue? Because It Strengthens Her Emotional Grip On Her Supporters
Ben Smith of The Politico has written an astute piece on why Hillary keeps going, and going, and going, against insurmountable odds.
As Smith writes, "winning, for Clinton, has been surviving." Smith continues that Hillary's stalwart refusal to give up has created some confusion among her advisers and has in some ways muddled her message, concluding that the "last believers in the mythology of Clintonian invincibility appear to be the Clintons themselves." You should read the whole thing -- but there are many more levels beneath the surface here that are worth exploring.
Here's my stab at trying to answer the question of why this controversial and in some ways enigmatic figure has refused to quit the race. One key reason she has stayed in, I believe, is that it strengthens the inspirational power of Hillary's political narrative and persona, and, ultimately, strengthens her emotional grip on her supporters.
It's no accident that Hillary has compared herself to Rocky on occasion. Just as Rocky emerged as an iconic figure for blue collar whites disoriented and displaced by the wrenching demographic changes of the late 1960s and early 1970s, Hillary has presented herself as a kind of feminist Rocky, a heroine who refuses to lay down on behalf of millions and millions of women who have felt defeated or voiceless, or who have felt as if they quit too early, or who have felt that the odds have always been stacked against them.
Judging by her public statements, and her frequent claim that women all over the country urge her to continue hurdling forward against all odds, this has emerged as central to her political persona. Her political energy flows from it.
Before you start yelling at me, please understand that this is not intended at a defense of her decision to stay in the race. It's merely an effort to explain it. And the question of how sincere Hillary is about her role is not one I'm taking up here.
To be sure, the Hillary-as-feminist-Rocky is a note that she sounded before she ever recorded that now-distant YouTube that launched her campaign. The fact that Hillary endured severe and protracted public humiliation at the hands of the GOP and the media in the late 1990s, only to bounce back and launch her own political career by winning a Senate seat in New York, has been central to her political identity since the start of this millennium.
But this presidential campaign -- and Hillary's repeated come-backs after being written off as dead -- have elevated and strengthened this narrative for her enthralled supporters and invested it with a whole new level of emotional import and intensity.
It's not easy to speculate about the motives of politicians. And it's often not desirable. Did Hillary also stay in because she hoped Obama would somehow implode? Undoubtedly. Is she unable to accept defeat? Probably. Is she holding out to give herself leverage over Obama? Almost certainly.
Nonetheless, I think more is going on here. Politics is, emotionally, a high-stakes, high-risk venture. And I think it's a fair guess that Hillary also believes that seeing this campaign through to the end can only strengthen the emotional and inspirational hold her story has on her masses of supporters.
The supreme irony of this race may be that this fact is precisely why her staying in to the end actually benefits Obama more than her getting out early would have. There's no question that the legions of Hillary supporters who see her in these terms would have been far more embittered had her story been brought to an abrupt and premature end -- particularly if that conclusion were perceived, rightly or wrongly, to have been engineered by forces hostile to the historic dimensions of her candidacy.
Instead, in a topsy-turvy conclusion that befits this crazy race, Obama may paradoxically find it easier to unite the party if Hillary -- and Hillary alone -- is seen to be deciding on the terms and timing of her concession. Why? Because it is perhaps the only way to bring her supporters emotional closure -- or, at least, the closest thing to closure that that they will be able to obtain from this wrenching narrative.
Late Update: One potential objection to this piece is that Hillary continues simply because Obama hasn't won yet. Let me state for the record that I agree that she had an outside shot at winning for much longer than many pundits said. I was trying to probe another aspect of what drives her here.
Late Late Update: I see from some comments that I wasn't clear enough on one point. I'm not at all saying that Hillary's support derives only from emotion and not from a reasoned appreciation of her talents as a public servant. I don't believe this at all. I think she's a genuine leader in many ways and has truly inspired her millions of followers. My point here is simply that good politicians, like good actors and artists, have an instinctual feel for what drives the emotional bond they have with their fans, and that feel partly drives them. And there's inherently nothing wrong with that -- indeed, Hillary's performance in the race is genuinely inspiring to her followers.
Comments (44)
Greg, I think the reason she has stayed in is simply because she desperately wants to win, and continues to believe she can win. Even now, I suspect, she believes Obama will ultimately trip up, or that her constant hectoring of superdelegates with her spurious electablity arguments will generate a sudden panicked wave of buyer's remorse, and provoke a hysterical Obama selloff among both pledged delegates and superdelegates, giving her the nomination in the end.
Based on the stories in the press today, she plans to make some sort of tactical admission tonight that Obama is the apparent nominee, based on present numbers, but then plans to hang around for some time without suspending her campaign. I expect that during that time she and Bill will continue her work to undermine Obama among party insiders and power brokers, which will force him to waste valuable personal and staff time, and resources, on maintaining his rearguard defenses.
This is why I have argued for weeks that it is a mistake for superdelegates to wait patiently for Clinton to "get it", make her peace with reality, and withdraw gracefully with an unequivocal endorsement of Obama. Unfortunately, it seems not to be in her nature to let go. They have to make this happen themselves.
June 3, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest problem with the Smith piece is that it is an oversimplification. It tends to view Hillary and her supporters as pawns of their emotions, which is surprisingly sexist coming from someone as respectable as Ben Smith. Reread the piece and substitute Obama and his supporters with a few different examples, and you will see that the same accusation could be made of Obama supporters. It overlooks the very real support Hillary has because of who she is, what she stands for, and what she is capable of doing. It also overlooks legitimate concerns about Obama and his chances of winning in November.
Speaking of which, a rumored "bombshell" is expected to be dropped about Michelle Obama tomorrow by GOP surrogates. Supposedly it is worse than the things she wrote in her college thesis. I have seen what were reported to be quotes from her thesis, and they are very damaging. But supposedly tomorrow's revelations will be significantly worse. My hunch - more doubts are about to be raised about the Obama's real attitudes concerning race.
June 3, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The long rumored "whitey" video I would assume. Where she is really saying "why'd he" in relation to questioning President Bush?
June 3, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until Obama has a majority of delegates, he has not clinched the nomination. Maybe, just maybe, she's not a power hungry sociopath trying to strengthen "her emotional grip on her supporters" but is only finishing the race, which has been close enough to win throughout the campaign.
June 3, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't intend this as a criticism, which should be obvious from the fact that I said her continuing strengthens the "emotional power" of her story and persona. I'm not sure how you would read this piece as not complimentary of her in some ways.
June 3, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You’re right, Greg, and I used that quote unfairly. Smith’s piece seems to say that she has only stayed in “since January” to play Rocky, still standing. The “CW” has prodded Clinton to quit for months. She has told her supporters she’d stay in until it’s over, and that’s what she needs to do. Those who support her because she has fought for women and families or for whatever reason, are not going to abandon her regardless of when or how she concedes. But there is no need for a psychological post-mortem on Clinton. Why did Edwards quit when he did? Does it show him to be weak and a quitter who doesn’t fight for his supporters? You have not been derogatory of the candidates despite taking a lot of flak from starry-eyed Obama supporters and I commend you for that (though the spin always leans Obama here). What is troublesome has been the media drive to end a campaign before it was over.
June 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it is not close enough to win now, Don, nor has it been for a few weeks. Once the victory was assured Obama pulled his starters, began making daily unity speeches, started campaigning in crucial general election states like Florida and Michigan, and turned his attentions to John McCain. Why hasn't she done the same? Why has she instead unleashed Lanny Davis, Terry McCauilffe, Harold Ickes, Bill Clinton and an army of frenzied and angry supporters to continue to insult and ridicule Obama, and try to draw blood. This goes beyond being a "fighter". It's bush league. Part of learning how to compete is learning how to win and lose graciously. She's bombing in the sportsmanship department.
June 3, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don’t think it’s true that it has been over for weeks, Dan. I believe the RBC decision ended it this weekend, though. And I imagine Obama will get his majority this week and she’ll concede. It was only over weeks ago because the press went along with the line that it was over that party leaders were pushing before they had to deal with FLA and MI.
I don’t see a lot of personal attacks on Obama lately (things like the Pfleger video can’t be laid at Clinton’s feet), and I think if you look at the coverage and blogging of both camps during this race, Clinton was ridiculed and demeaned more than anyone. I don’t blame Clinton’s supporters for being angry. They have been told for months that, despite winning big important swing states (30 point wins being dismissed out of hand), having the most electable candidate, and still being in the running because Obama could never put it away, their candidate had already lost.
I’m tired of the corporate media picking our candidates or destroying them at the opportune moment. There should be no way for the Dems to lose this one, but I thought that four years ago. The first draft of this campaign’s history is being written right now, and if Clinton is still demonized it’s not going to help bring the camps together. Clinton and Obama will look like long lost friends next week as they try to reconcile and calm their supporters.
June 3, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm tired of some states getting the designation "important". Thank you Iowa - the most important of all the unimportant states!
June 3, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, Bluebell. I meant large swing states that will be important in the general (taking a couple out of PA, OH, MI, FLA is crucial). I only added the emphasis because these wins were pretty much being ignored. Maybe the more interconnected we become, the less geographic-based our thinking and the less tribal fighting results. If this primary season doesn’t spur reform of the nominating system, nothing will. Anyway, everyone knows Texas is the most important state :)
June 3, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two words: solipsism, narcissism.
June 3, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never seen you at the cafe before. Did you get a new gig? Good for you.
Her staying in might help Obama is a new one on me. You make a good case. Thanks.
June 3, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for that -- I'll hopefully be posting more stuff here in future...
June 3, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the whole argument here is wrong. she was not the champion of any of these "oppressed" groups when her campaign began.
She ran on her ability to beat the Republicans by being more hawkish then them; this is in no way whatsoever a populist argument.
Hell, she probably wouldn't have even trotted out her health care plan if Edwards hadn't gained traction with his.
The only reason she stayed in this race to the end is because she is so blinded by her conviction that the Clintons, and only the Clintons, know how to win a presidential election, that she was sure the rest of the country would come to agree with her and reject Obama's candidacy whether he beat her in the pledged delegate race or not.
She simply does not care about the rank-and-file supporting her now; if she did, she would never heve ramped up the disenfranchisement and popular vote arguments to the level she has, whereby enough conservative Democrats may consider Obama's nomination illegitimate, and thereby sabotage his election. Because if she really cared about working people, she would do everything in her power to make sure we have a Democratic president in 2009, whether it's her or not.
I know it's almost cliche at this point, but you're wasting your time looking for hidden explanations to her increasingly quixotic run for the nomination. This is about Hillary Clinton and her conviction of her own sense of entitlement and moral and intellectual superiority, not about Bill, Chelsea, or the millions or voters who still blindly support her.
June 3, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with that, but these aren't mutually exclusive. She is the hawk who will grind up the republicans and simultaneously the woman who won't quit, and hence inspires women. The messages in some ways reinforce each other...
June 3, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do tell, If you were in her spot. Would you have stopped your campaign?
June 3, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the fact that she does NOT inspire all women. She doesn't inspire any that I know.
June 3, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate this piece. I think you hit the nail on the head in many ways.
It saddens me that Clinton has chosen to embrace some rather racist talking points, and that once again, a wedge has been thrust between African Americans and women with black women living in a kind of no-man's-land in between. (I can't help but have sympathy for Michelle Obama, who doesn't seem to get much sympathy from white feminists who claim they support women under attack.)
However, as the first female candidate for president, I think it may have sent the wrong message to women and girls if the Senator had left too early. Women traditionally have been asked to do that constantly. (My mother told me that it was best if I cede all the games I played to boys. I dutifully lost for a long time.)
I think that some of us (particularly Obama supporters like me) may have forgotten that key historical point.
June 3, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton: The Thing That Wouldn't Leave.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/d0a842c3d2
June 3, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Greg, Could it be she looked around and said "Geez, I've won NY,NJ,MA,Ohio,PA,CA,Texas...and he won't either debate me or have a re-run of Mi or Fla......won't the smart folks that make up the Democratic party see that is a recipe for disaster if he is the Nominee?" Not sure if you are old enough to remember but Teddy stayed in till the Convention for a lot less in 1980 and we still revere him....
June 3, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
She lost Texas. Sorry.
June 3, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not the popular vote. I remember when that once mattered to Democrats.
June 3, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have wondered how long a man would have lasted as a viable candidate had he run his campaign the way Hillary has so obviously mis-managed her campaign - given what she had going for her - inevitable winner, huge super-delegate support, a media shoo-in, mega-bucks, huge name recognition...
Hillary's built-in female constituency, in seeing her as one of theirs reminds me of G. Bush's once built-in constituency of evangelicals who saw Bush as one of theirs. (I call it identity politics when platforms or platitudes or promises are really beside the point.)
I have to agree with brewmn61 that Hillary's ambition is all about Hillary. She didn't realize her ambition in this election year because too many of us women realized that we were in the end beside her point.
June 3, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
She runs because she is a pro and the tournament is 18 holes. Tiger Woods doesn't walk off the course on the 13th hole when he is losing, when he still has a chance to birdie every hole on the way in.
And all of you who attribute other motives to her and have wanted her to quit for some time - before Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and West Virginia etc. ain't pros and don't understand the game. This is the Open championship, not the Des Moines Classic.
She is a a true champion and really doesn't deserve the crap from the Obama/MoveOn/Dean Democrats that now control the party. Thanks but include me now out.
June 3, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great analogy, if you were talking about something that depended on HRC's individual skill and individual effort.
Unfortunately, you're not, so it not great, or even good.
June 3, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny that this is such a question in people's minds. Why does she stay in? She has millions of supporters is why. I've even seen very ardent Obama supporters on this site saying things like "it's pretty much 50/50" in terms of popular support.
So if you have as many supporters (give or take) as your opponent why shouldn't you go represent your supporters at the convention?
June 3, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I know you aren't referring to me specifically, I also get tired of this idea that the Obamanauts have been "pushing her out" of the race since super Tuesday or whatever. I, personally, agree that there was no compelling reason for her to drop out until the primaries are over.
What I have had a problem with is her using such questionable tactics to maintain her viability. When she was at a point where only a massive turnaround in the delegate race would have saved her (probably after the Potomac primaries), she would have been much better served by going positive with her message.
Sure, she could have compared herself to Obama on the experience question and legitimate policy issues, but by calling into question his basic fitness for the office, by making a marked appeal to specific demographics that have traditionally not been strong supporters of national Dem tickets, and by claiming that Obama and the Democratic Party have disenfrachised these people with a weak connection to the party to begin with, not to mention her claims that the rules were intentionally rigged against her, she crossed several lines.
Her message to women and the disenfranchised would have been much stronger, and have a much more beneficial legacy, if she had avoided the "us poor white trash was robbed once agin by the eggheads and n**!*#s."
Instead, the legacy she has left is one of bitterness, division and bogus claims of unfairness. I think that fact is, to put it midly, unfortunate.
June 3, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I won't defend her campaign choices or tactics. It was pretty embarassing watching her trying to court the under-educated vote.
I'm just acknowledging her support as the main reason she hasn't quit. And that's a pretty good reason.
June 3, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right - that white trash stuff doesn't sell further west.
June 3, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
A real life (rather than Rocky) analogy would be Frank Sinatra.
His signature songs became "New York, New York" and "I Did it My Way," which meant that his whole late career was about a guy whose career is over but he refuses to leave the stage. People loved him for it, however grudgingly. Even mired in scandal, soaked in alcohol and with his voice trashed, he could still wow 'em in Vegas, baby.
It's hard to say what Hillary will do with this but I think for the first time she has a story about herself (after being all about Bill for so many years). It's unfortunate that she discovered her personal narrative in a way that has made the Dem nomination process so ugly.
June 3, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Frank could also sing "My kind of town, Chicago...'
June 3, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
More and more I have come to absolutely despise this kind of journalism. Not the journalist, but the journalism. You're establishing a narrative based on nothing more than speculation and mind reading and is so unfair to the subject and the reader that I often wonder why anyone would choose to write such an article - and it is becoming more and more prevalent as the years go by.
It must be because it is so easy to write - you don't have to do any research, you don't have to source any quotes and you don't have to produce any evidence whatsoever to support the claims made. There is no responsibility and no ethical and professional standards that have to met, not even an informed opinion is necessary - the writer simply writes whatever strikes him as he sits in front of the keyboard and then calls it "opinion" as though that excuses it.
Invariably, it is a hit piece that allows the journalist to claim it as truth without the mechanics needed to prove it is true. It always offers some insight into the very motivation of the subject as though the journalist might have some sort of inside knowledge or superior judgement that others lack because they're not in the business or they aren't paying attention or they might not be intelligent enough or in the know, to divine the motivation and true character of the subject.
What is truly puzzling in this kind of speculation, is that seldom if ever does the speculator ever find any motivation that might possibly be good. It is almost always negative, always selfish, always bad and always the wrong motivation for the subject to have. It would be interesting to speculate as why that is, but not being a mind reader, I have no way of knowing what the journalist is thinking or what his motivation is - not to mention how unfair and cruel it would be to do such a thing.
The only person who knows why Clinton has stayed in this race is Clinton and she has stated her motivation over and over and over again, but for some reason the person who actually knows why she has stayed in this race is completely ignored, not believed or generally thought not to know herself - only those speculating can tell the readers why she is staying in the race and of course, they know better than Clinton.
This kind of journalism is so destructive to a good public political discourse - it is presented as truth and it becomes a kind of truth that is all perception without facts or knowledge and is accepted as truth because the journalist is trusted by the reader as having some sort of esoteric insight or hidden knowledge of the subject because of the talent the writer has for writing. To what should be the great shame of journalism, this kind of speculation and mind reading has become so common place and so often wrong, that the people no longer have a press corp they can trust to give them the facts along with the good judgement needed to inform the public.
June 3, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've just come to hate the word "narrative."
June 3, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do to. That is why I wish they would stop it.
June 3, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is good.
June 3, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get what you're saying. A competent and honest journalist will write what the candidate has said and what she has done. Beyond that and the journalist becomes an essayist.
Problems arise when, among other things the candidate's actions don't bear out her words or when she relates as a truth a verifiable untruth. She in essence has let the journalist off the hook, given him free rein to speculate. And he will with glee.
If politicians are unhappy with how they appear in print or spoken word, they've got to come to grips with the fact that their fondness for exaggeration, hyperbole and truth shading is what opens those flood gates of speculation.
June 3, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD, what you have described (accurately) is punditry, not journalism. Pundits have been around for a long time, but there is no question that the ratio of punditry to journalism continues to increase. (I think it has something to do with all the hours of airtime the cable news outfits have to fill -- along with the advantages you noted, ie. that punditry is cheaper and easier than real reporting.)
Having said all that, I think it is appropriate for Greg to post over here on the Cafe' as a pundit, if that's what he wants to do. This is the venue for opinion rather than news. This is the place in the TPM world for punditry.
Now, does the world need another pundit? Maybe not. But I am by no means offended at Greg's post here.
I often find the Cafe' posts more interesting than the "just-the-facts-ma'am" news threads. And usually the comments are more thoughtful and worthwhile. So it's all good in my book.
-- ARG
June 3, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Journalism has become punditry and punditry has become journalism. Opinion has no place in journalism, especially uninformed opinion. Unfortunately, what Greg and Ben Smith have offered is not opinion, it is speculation and mind reading. Quite frankly, no one but Clinton knows why she is in this race and I shall take her at her word - she has a political vision she would like to implement. Even if you characterize it as opinion, you still need to provide evidence and facts to uphold that opinion. Opinion is quite often wrong, it is quite often based on incomplete or missing evidence or incorrect facts. How many people who read this site have said that pundits such as Bill Kristol, David Brooks, Tom Friedman, et.al, were wrong about the Iraq war? Now they may say it was their opinion, but it is obvious that the opinion was wrong. Look at the general attitude of the press corp during the last two elections - their opinion was that Gore was a pompous, stuffy guy and Bush was a regular ole beer buddy and that made Bush a better candidate. I think we can all see now how that judgemental opinion panned out. We suffered through endless speculation about Gore's statements, his wardrobe, his makeup, his debate behavior and what it all meant according to the press corp. Look at what happened because the public relied on their speculation and opinion rather than good reportage.
It reminds me very much of the speculation and mind reading that went on after 9-11. "Why do they hate us?" was asked over and over about the Middle Easterners. The answer was very simple - because we were there. I know that because that is what they said. I tend to take people at their word - when Bush said he would turn the welfare of the people over to faith based initiatives I took him at his word, when Katrina happened his behavior was no surprise to me, when he said during the debates that he would finish Iraq, it was no surprise to me that he would invade. All the endless speculation after Katrina about Bush's failure to act - why should that have been a surprise or a subject for speculation? He told us he would not. Bush told us he was going to finish Iraq and all the speculation in the world isn't going to change the fact that he told us that was what he was going to do.
So when a politician tells why he's running for president, I take him at his word - and then I listen to his other words instead of trying to mind read and speculate as to what he "really meant" by what he said. No, it's not all good in my book, in fact it is becoming more and more dangerous.
June 3, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but that's why I took Hillary's Iraq vote and her Kyl-Lieberman vote seriously. I figured she meant them. And when she decided to write off the "unimportant" caucus states like mine, I figured she meant that too. And when the Clintons enabled the racists, I figured they were serious about that.
I don't care why she stayed in the race. I'm just so glad she lost it.
June 3, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think I really disagree with you, BevD. I also feel that the line between journalism and punditry is too often blurred, especially in what is normally called the mainstream media (MSM).
Many times I have been heard yelling at my TV over the mis-placed editorial comment or the simple lack of any substantive "news" content in a given story (and the enormous waste of air time that implies).
I read Eric Alterman and get e-mail from Media Matters. I'm by no means an expert, but I am painfully aware of the gradual decline in standards (and responsibility) among the "press" (the health of which is critical to the survival of our democracy).
My only point was that here at TPM, there seems to be a pretty clear divide between the "news" venue and the "pundit" (or "opinion") venue. And Greg posted his punditry in the right place (here, rather than at ElectionCentral).
I appreciate good journalism. But I also am a consumer of punditry. I can tell the difference, and that's why I said "it's all good". (And I've certainly seen more objectionable punditry than Greg's.)
-- ARG
June 3, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not the popular vote. I remember when that once mattered to Democrats.
June 3, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Figures -- again this thing made me post in the wrong place.
June 3, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent critique, well, maybe not,, but no, actually piss-poor.
June 3, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post is a reply to wigsomething and is in the wrong place.
The TPM staff is so euphoric about Obama's victory that they have left their posts - not those posts - but, you know, posts. Or maybe now that Obama's the nominee, the country is falling apart. I hope not.
June 3, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink