Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary Campaign Post-Mortem
Where did Hillary's campaign go wrong?
She had every advantage going in: a lead in the polls, name recognition, the backing of the most popular Democratic presient in the past 40 years, fund raising, an heir of inevitability. S, how could she lose?
Hillary never gave the voters a reason to vote for her.
With George H. Bush, his problem was "the vision thing." Well, that's been Hillary's problem too. I'm sure that you can come up with the rationale for the Obama, Edwards, or McCain candidacies in a heart beat. In 25 words or less - probably in just a word or two. Ask yourself the rationale for Bill Clinton's campaign: "It's the economy, stupid."
If you had to state the rationale for Hillary's campaign in a nutshell, it would be: "Ready on day one." Unfortunately, that's not a reason to run for president. It may be a fine qualification, but it doesn't tell anyone in the electorate what you want to do on day one. It doesn't say what your vision for the future of America is.
For Reagan, it was: "Morning in America." For Hillary, it has been a laundry list of positions that she has on a variety of issues. Position papers are not a direction in which you want to take the country. They are policy positions for the wonks who want the details to analyze.
The most basic question that any candidate must answer is: "Why do you want to be president?" Hillary never answered that question satisfactorily.
Talking about "35 years of experience" is talk about yourself, not about the country. The electorate doesn't want to know how you see yourself. We want to know how you see us. We want to know where you're going to lead us.
Without any rationale for it to continue, this campaign is quickly dying.
Comments (53)
Candidates generally spell out why they're running and where they want to take America when they give their formal announcement that they are running. Hillary never formally announced she was running for president. She announced her exploratory filing that allowed her to start raising money, but she never properly announced like every other candidate did. She just began raising money and started showing up to debates. In retrospect it would be nice if she had an original thesis for her candidacy. The fact that she doesn't supports the idea that her reason for running is entitlement.
March 31, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. She did have those conversations on the web. But I agree with the basic premise: she didn't create a platform to communicate the big picture of why she was running.
And who knows? Maybe had she done that, she might have been able to explain the vote for the AUMF a little better. Probably not, but we'll never know.
March 31, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is really an interesting point!
People used to talk about Bush being the "resume" president and the executive office should be his a result. Of course, it never did fly, but at least he was Director of the CIA, Ambassador to China, head of the RNC (not to mention a stint in Congress) when he ran in 1980... and a VP by 1988.
Hillary, of course, has... first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the US, and (finally!) Senator from NY.
For being a wonk, it sounds like she never did her homework!
March 31, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do remember something, namely that she wanted to be the first woman president.
I don't remember any other rationale.
March 31, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's kind of like one of the flashback episodes on the West Wing where Josh tells Sen. Hoynes - "I don't know what we're for and I don't know what we're against. Except, we're for winning and against someone else winning."
Sums up how she operates, don't you think?
April 1, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary never gave the voters a reason to vote for her."
I couldn't agree more. She never did provide a compelling rationale for her candidacy other than I deserve it.
Then she compounded her error -- actually, it was a natural outgrowth of this problem -- by constantly changing messages.
Then she made it even worse by going into the gutter and trying to undermine Obama's ability to win the election, showing that for Hillary, this was only about her, not about the Democratic Party or any larger cause.
Then she made it even worse still by lying about Northern Ireland and Bosnia, proving you can't trust her.
And throughout this hideous process of self-immolation -- not only of her candidacy but her reputation and historical legacy -- she stuck loyally to its architect, the millionaire union-busting charlatan, Mark Penn. Proving her judgment of competence and her ability to hold people accountable ain't a whole lot different from George W. Bush's.
March 31, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Then she made it even worse by going into the gutter and trying to undermine Obama's ability to win the election, showing that for Hillary, this was only about her, not about the Democratic Party or any larger cause."
Her whole doomed campaign in a nutshell
March 31, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a decent theory... but in my opinion, it all comes down to the Iraq War vote.
March 31, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of it does come down to the Iraq vote, not only because it enabled the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam and led to the deaths of more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers, but for what it says about her willingness to do whatever Mark Penn tells her is the politically safe thing to do, regardless of what her principles actually are (assuming, perhaps erroneously, that she has any in the first place). Since then, her refusal to apologize for the vote -- to truly own up to it -- also speaks volumes about her lack of forthrightness and trustworthiness.
March 31, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but that vote is reflection of all her flaws as a politician. She didn't do what was right, she did what she thought would be safe. For her. Politically. From a safe seat and with a national platform, she never showed any leadership, any "vision", any "audacity". As Bill says, she never gave us a reason to vote for her.
I used to say she had all of her husband's flaws (as a politician) and none of his gifts. She's been a somewhat better retail politician than I thought she would be, but she still has all those Clintonian flaws. Bringing Dick Morris in to the second term was her idea, wasn't it? Kinda says it all.
March 31, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Carl Bernstein, she brought Dick Morris in way back in Arkansas for Bill's second run at the governorship after losing it. It was at her urging that Bill took Morris' advice to go negative.
I heard about this on an MSNBC puff piece biography about her (they did all three candidates). It caught my attention because it seemed a pretty negative story in a puff piece.
April 1, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! That was a plot point in Primary Colors, too :)
April 1, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even given all this, she still would have won if Barack Obama were not in the race. He is an incredible campaigner, very smart strategically, able to mobilize an amazing base of supporters. This is not Clinton's fault. She was caught off guard, underestimated him. Still does, apparently, thinking that he can't win in the fall and wouldn't be able to govern (cited as a major reason she doesn't get out of the race). Never knew what hit her...
March 31, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've thought about this. I suspect Edwards would've been the non-Clinton candidate, but would've lost. Precisely because he doesn't have those gifts Clinton keeps dismissing as meaningless. You know, the ones her husband owes his political career to. And to which she, in turn.....
March 31, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue,
"I suspect Edwards would've been the non-Clinton candidate, but would've lost."
I agree, and I think this is a really astute observation. (I'm a former Edwards supporter in 2004 *and* 2007, and am now a delegate for Obama)
Sen. Clinton strikes me as being a lot like Kerry in 2004... the 'electable one' with the 'experience.'
Unlike 2004, I think Clinton could/can seal the deal and get elected-- but I feel a lot better about our chances with Sen. Obama.
April 1, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill,
Yes; what you said.
March 31, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Even given all this, she still would have won if Barack Obama were not in the race. He is an incredible campaigner, very smart strategically, able to mobilize an amazing base of supporters. This is not Clinton's fault. She was caught off guard, underestimated him."
Well, but it is. Perhaps her campaign staff failed her, but it wasn't like she/they didn't see early on what he and his campaign were capable of. I've wondered how much she was actually running her campaign because I always thought of her as very smart and politically savvy, but her campaign's response to Obama has been all over the place. This didn't seem to me to be the Hillary Clinton I expected. Then she just got plain nasty and did make it clear that this campaign seems to be about her and not the country. Honestly, during this process she hasn't shown leadership that I would respect. Obama has. Multiple times.
March 31, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary did not think she needed to be concerned about Obama. Everyone in the Democratic party thought Obama was crazy to challenge the Clintons. The reason Obama was able to effectively challenge Hillary is because he had the money to do so.
Hillary beleived that with the frontloaded primaries all stack right on top of one another, no one would be able to withstand their powerfully funded political juggernaut and that she would steam roll to the nomination as there was not time between primaries for candidates to raise money if they got behind.
Billary beleive they had a stranglehold on the fat cats and big money donors. Who could challenge her without money was the thinking. Look at what happened to Dodd, Biden and Edwards in terms of political funding..they were starving for cash and had no way to launch an effective campaign against her. All the candidates who were politically viable like Bayh and Warner had been bullied out of the race by the Clinton machine being too well funded and powerful to go up against.
The problem was that the front loaded primary strategy was set up to be a domino for whomever won the first primary in IA. After that, as the Clintons had correctly calculated, there would be no time to build up a lead, catch up in delegates or fundraise to overtake the leader.
Hillary never calculated that she would be the third place finisher in IA.
That is what happened to her campaign. NO PLAN B.
March 31, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smartly and concisely written.
Here is an article, over two years old, that someone pointed out on another thread.
The article doesn't make predictions, but you can read it with 20/20 hindsight and it's obvious she didn't get the Internet from the start:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/magazine/02hillary.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin
Obama was able to complete the political reformation via the Internet started by Bradley and Dean. Just as television was available to Eisenhower... and used effectively by Nixon ("Checkers"), it's not until the 1960 campaign that things start getting sophisticated (which were, to be sure, tied to JKF's good looks for TV).
All of a sudden, the Clintons were not fresh. They were still doing the equivalent of whistle-stop tours and here is Obama accessing everyone at all times. They were blown away by the Internet (new media) and Obama's charisma (which allowed him to level the playing field in terms of money).
All of a sudden, to pull in $100K at a dinner of rich donors, isn't all that impressive.
And, more importantly, you better believe that those donors will be showing up to the polls... because they already gave Obama cash. Which will mean that we may well see the first significant youth vote since lowering the voting age.
And why not? The youth will be dealing with the decisions of this administration for a long, long time.
April 1, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO PLAN B
This is the nail. And when you think about it and tie it to her AUMF vote, it is pretty disasterous.
GWB toppled Saddam. But then what? NO PLAN B.
No clue, no plan. Hillary didn't even think to ask what would happen beyond removing Saddam from power.
She's doing the same in this campaign. Judgement, the ability to look ahead and say "what if" and make a contigency plan.
That is what is essential in a CIC. She has proven time and time again that she does not possess that trait.
April 1, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, it wasn't the Iraq war vote. If she'd owned up to that as the mistake it was and not try to weasel her way around it, that wouldn't have been a huge problem. But her very approach to that vote was emblematic of her larger problem - telling a simple truth simply isn't something she knows how to do. A lot of the details of politics are complex and sophisticated and don't lend themselves to soundbites. But most fundamental issues are ultimately pretty simple and can be explained pretty simply. The war is one. The theme of "change" and a "new kind of politics" is too, whether you think its legit or not. Even if its a fairy tale, its one even a kid can understand.
She was ultimately a pretty competent candidate but not an inspiring one. So was the rest of the field with the exceptions of Obama and possibly Edwards. I'd put Edwards' communication skills above Hillary's, but not by that much - not enough to overcome her institutional advantages. But Obama's an incredible talent. And also proved to be a damn good manager, which Hillary proved not to be, based on the campaigns. His talent gives me hope for the general election and, more importantly, gives me hope that he MIGHT be able to get some things done if elected.
March 31, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I always thought of her as very smart and politically savvy"
What was this based on?
Her previous public policy experience was her disastrous health care initiative.
I haven't seen concrete evidence of "smart" and "savvy". It seems like a brand not a reality.
March 31, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. IMHO, she's opportunistic and politically ham-fisted. As for the Clinton brand, it seems to be all about triangulating in order to enhance their own political fortunes while at the same time externalizing the long-term political costs to their own Democratic base.
Her departure from this race can't come soon enough.
April 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Choosing from the inception of her campaign to run on experience over change in an obvious "throw the bums out" climate lead voters to search for a change candidate.
It the past that might have sent them to an unelectable candidate like Dennis Kucinich (and then back to her by default), but this time the very electable Barack Obama was right there.
The Clinton campaign got off on the wrong foot and and continues to hop down the trail on it.
March 31, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds like a strategic decision, frankly. Hillary was running an incumbant's or favorite's campaign, aiming for a slam-dunk before anyone really noticed. In such a situation, the received wisdom is to play peek-a-boo with the candidate, script everything tightly, minimize possiblities for disaster, and give no one a reason to vote against the candidate.
Because every reason FOR any candidate contains--call this S1m0n's second law of politics--an equal and opposite reason AGAINST. The politician who can get by without doing either retains maximum freedom to move later.
That's what Hillary tried but as always, she has grossly overestimated her own appeal, abilities, and political talent.
Hillary once sneered that running for the office of president isn't a qualification for becoming one; it seems characteristic that she was impervious to the thought that she herself had less in the way of qualifications than the man she was sneering at.
March 31, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a strong possibility based on the inherent racism within America that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Hillary is using race as the reason Obama is unelectable and that argument will be persuasive to the vast majority of SD's.
So, even though she may still be the nominee, the question is why was she unable to effectively compete for the nomination against Obama with all the advances she had?
I submit that it is the same as why healthcare did not pass when she was the one expected to lead and drive the legislation. Hillary, again had all the advantages, a sitting President supporting the legislation and a Democratic majority in both houses, yet she managed to fail and fail abysmally.
For the same reason that her campaign is failing. Hillary is not a leader, she is not a visionary. Hillary is a fighter and a brawler who thinks that as long as she has power she can weld it to force folks to do her bidding. She never tries to lead because she simply does not know how.
Hillary is not even the leader of her campaign. She is punitive, petulant, vicious and spiteful but she is not a leader. We saw this exact same behavior pattern with her healthcare proposal where she tried to ram her views down the Senators throats and told folks, 'my way or the highway' any articles you read on how she went about it all point to her insufferable arrogance of should anyone deign to not agree.
She had the same attitude about her campaign. She was entitled. She made certain to rigg the process by having the primary season front loaded so that she would be the unquestionable nominee by Super Tuesday. As usually, when things did not go as planned...Hillary did not have a plan B.
This is the woman who claims she will be ready to lead on day one. No she will not. She will be ready to pounce on day one and call in favors like she is a mafia don. She however will not be ready on day one. Just like Dubya, she will take us to war without a plan to secure the peace and without a plan to end the war. Just as we are seeing her fight all the way to Denver, she will 'stay the course' and take us to war with China and Korea.
Hillary is a ball buster, she does not know how to compromise and she lacks vision to think strategically.
That is why she is losing this campaign and why our nation will suffer if she is the Democratic nominee and President.
It will not be the first time that Americans vote against their own interests on the basis of race. Unfortunately with ' I never back down" Hillary in charge we just may not have a nuclear meltdown.
March 31, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she started this race as the Iron Lady, thinking she could be a younger, more populist Margaret Thatcher. Hence, her hawkish votes. She thought her wonkishness and smarts would win everyone over the disaffected Republicans who were tired of Bush's stupidity. And of course, having Bill as her husband was certainly a bonus with Democrats.
She just never saw Obama coming....and when she finally did, it was too late to change her platform from "Experience" to "Change".
March 31, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I feel the decision to run on experience indicates just how out of touch the leadership of the Clinton campaign is with so much of the electorate.
Washington's approval ratings, including her own legislative body, were right there in black and white.
This just feeds into her "judgment" problems.
March 31, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really wanted to vote for Hillary at first. I am a 52 year old woman and I was excited to see if having a woman president would make any difference to America. Unfortunately, I find myself completely unable to support her and I will tell you from a middle class, middle-aged, white blue collar American woman why. Its because she reminds me of being scolded by my mother while I was growing up. When she talks....she starts out in this normal voice and then starts to escalate in pitch and volume and I wanna plug my ears and run away because I hear my MOM getting after me for some dumb thing I did as a kid. Isn't that a weird reason for not voting for someone? Oh yeah and one other thing....I really trust Barack Obama a lot more to lead us to a better place. Moses...lead the children of Israel to the promised land. Just kidding :) I don't ever blog so I am kind of a goof about it. If you look at him when he speaks, you can see kindness there. Not a raging maniac that you think you are gonna get a whippin from.
April 1, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I found your post refreshing and I don't think there's anything weird about your reasons at all. I've heard that "angry mom" complaint regarding Hillery Clinton's tone (and manner) quite a few times.
And considering that some might see sexism in the "angry mom" comparison, I don't think an "angry dad" (or angry granddad, as in the case of John McCain;) would be any better received.
Jimmy Carter's "*disappointed* father" didn't fly very well, either. :)
April 1, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not weird at all: it's called charisma. As someone noted here, it wasn't a bad thing to have when Bill Clinton was selling *his* candidacy on it...
For what it's worth, a woman is currently 2nd in line for POTUS (Pelosi). This was extraordinary for about a day... and now it's ho-hum. I would say that's real progress for a gender blind society.
And, to be sure, HRC ran a credible campaign. It's true she may lose... just like so many men. Again, that's real progress. Men, women running, most losing, one winning.
But it's about character. Not gender or race.
That's real progress.
April 1, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with your emotional response here. I would add, to build on your Moses analogy, that we all know there's tough work ahead. To me, Obama seems like someone who will pick up a shovel and dig with us. Hillary seems like someone who'd stand under the umbrella, sipping lemonade and tell you where you should dig the next hole.
April 1, 2008 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haha!!
Yes, thats it! You hit my nail right on its head. Thanks for putting my feelings into such perfect words!
April 1, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sirius, I agree. If you listen to the language they use, this is very clear. Hillary says "this is all about you" and Barack says "yes we can". In the actual usage in speeches, it tends to be slightly more subtle than that, but consistent. Hillary addresses crowds in a way that suggests she is standing to the side (and a bit above) and Barack addresses crowds as if he is suggesting we will all boost each other on our shoulders until we get there together.
This is straight out of community organizing language by the way, and I think it goes very deep in the attitude of the candidate towards the voters-- ie, it is well beyond mere language. Obama knows that change can be inspired and led, but that it fundamentally comes from the bottom up. Hillary expects to get in and use her expertise to rescue us all.
Actually, Obama's way of looking at power is fairly revolutionary for a US President, I think (I'd love to hear from any history buffs if you think I am right on this or not). He expects to mobilize his base to make change after he is elected, and not in the crass, manipulative way of the right wing fear machine. Hillary, like most presidents, expects to go back to DC as the queen who will demand what she wants (again, I'm not sure this is criticism of her, since I think this is how the system has mostly worked).
This whole dynamic is one of the reasons I am very excited about Obama. (Okay, now that I have written that, let me say that I am sure it will only be part of how he acts as president, I'm not completely a starry eyed idealist; but just imagine how he oculd mobilize the American people to pass health care reform-- imagine a speech parallel in quality to the race speech, only about why America needs universal health care -- it would knock the socks off of Harry and Louise...)
April 1, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary never thought she needed a "reason to run." Her presidency was promised to her by her husband. In all of this we see the inner workings of a marriage that we all had enough of seven years ago. The soap-opera quality to the whole thing is because it is a sopa-opera. She put up with Bill all of these years so that she could do what she wanted. Her sense of entitlement has come from years of paying dues. This is the essense of the inevitability that seemingly, to Hillary, needed no explaining. The problem with manifestation however, is that it requires intent.
April 1, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I haven't seen concrete evidence of "smart" and "savvy". It seems like a brand not a reality."
Yes, Observer2, and I freely admit that I don't base that on any concrete thing. It was an impression only. I was buying the brand, though I never liked her much to be honest. I like her
a lot less now, and I'm not sure I can vote for her if she is the nominee. She's a bad choice to lead this country.
April 1, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another vote for the Iraq vote here.
Not so much the fact that she voted yes way back when, but that her campaign needed to give people a reason to elect her in spite of it.
John McCain did this, which is why he was the last Republican standing. The (unspoken) slogan of his campaign is "Iraq: the way it should have been fought." His message is that he supported the war out of a belief that it would be handled better and the only way to see it done right is to do it himself.
Clinton could have done something similar, and in fact joked once that "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush". But she's never really explained how her support of the war at the time morphed into opposition in a way that makes electing her seem plausible. Does she believe it's a mistake or not? And how would she have avoided it?
Maybe it's an insoluble problem. McCain dealt with a lot of his problems by lying about them. Clinton didn't really do that and it cost her. (Worth remembering when we're having a chuckle about Bosnia.)
April 1, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to make an analogy here - bear with me. A significant number of top rappers and hip hop artists started out in groups and the groups agreed that the first one to make it out as a solo artist would bring the rest of them along and that is what has happened with a lot of them.
I think Hillary really always planned to be president. I don't think she planned for Bill to be. I think she decided that if she couldn't run the first time, they'd run Bill. But I'll bet you anything you want to bet, the idea was always that Hillary would be president, whether Bill was or not.
I'd hate like hell to Bill Clinton right now. He's going to have at least a year of utter fury out of her.
Her entire reason to be president is just summed up this way:
I'm Hillary Clinton, and I deserve to be president because it's my turn.
April 1, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
minee. Hillary is using race as the reason Obama is unelectable and that argument will be persuasive to the vast majority of SD'
One reason I will be so very glad when this is over is that people will quit thinking for the SDs. I've read I don't know how many comments that say: "This is what the SDs are thinking."
How the hell do you know? It's always the same - they are secretly thinking he's too black.
It's silly - you can't think for someone else.
April 1, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tena,
You can be optimistic and a realist. Sorry, if reality rains on your parade to the extent that you feel the need to go into denial.
However, it is quite easy to predict how messages make individuals feel and how they will respond. Most of us learn this as children. We learn that if we scream, taunt, or berate an individual it makes them angry, anxious and they feel small. If we speak kindly, carefully and thoughtful to people it makes them feel warm, supportive and caring.
So, it is a no brainer in racist America to know that racist messages are persuasive to the Superdelegates given that they are human beings who like most Americans have been subjected to centuries of racist messages and many of their responses have been programmed by their own families at their dinner tables.
Which is a long way of saying. No one needs to know how the SD's think to predict with reasonable accuracy how they will RESPOND to Hillary's message of Obama being unelectable on the basis of race.
Nothing silly about that at all.
What we can also do is be hope that they will find the strength of character and moral courage to rise above their racial fears and vote in the best interest of the nations.
We have to hope they will vote their HOPES and not their FEARS.
Nothing silly about that either.
My problem is that unless this HUGE elephant in the middle of the room is confronted and brought out to the light and not allowed to continue as a whisper campaign we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past as the 'southern strategy' has NEVER failed in the history of American politics. Racial divisiveness works or losing politicians would not have used it so effectively for decades.
Your charge then Tena, is to spread the work and not put your head in the sand and thinking it is silly.
We need to be PRO-ACTIVE and say not this time!
We need to speak out against racially polarizing the American people along with the SD's.
Ed Rendell has been fanning these racial flames for months now in PA...who is standing up to him?
Who is willing to address the issue in the interest of the nation and moving this country forward. Children and grandchildren are sitting at dinner tables all over PA and IN and having arguments with their parents because they are AFRAID to vote for the 'black militant' that Rev Wrights image frightens them into believing is what Obama believes.
There needs to be a recognition of the problem and it has to be effectively disarmed or we will be condemned to repeat the same ol racial politics that keeps Americans apart and divide on the most important issues all because of race.
April 1, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
A post mortem on Hilary's campaign is premature. However, it is time to ask her to give a stirring speech that explains how she will unite the party and the country to make our lives better - a speech inspiring people to rally to her cause. In other words, a great unifying speech.
There has been nothing to prevent Hilary from giving such a speech. If she had to cut off Obama at the knees, she could have done it by showing how she was the one who really had the capacity to unify the party, extend the Democratic tent, and bind up the country's wounds.
There is no speech writer Hilary could not hire to provide the missing eloquence around a theme of bipartisan cooperation for the good of the nation. There is no rhetorical coach who would decline the opportunity to teach her the art of projecting the good will so painfully lacking in her public appearances.
Although there would be skepticism in many quarters now, Hilary could *still* give a great unifying speech that makes Obama supporters say, "Maybe she wouldn't be the ultra-divisive figure we've seen throughout this campaign. Maybe she could hold onto working class, union, lower income and women voters, and do a better job of attracting blacks, young people and upscale voters to give us a better chance to win."
Hilary can't be as young and cool as Obama, but being young and cool is not what makes Obama a unifier; if anything, those attributes are a detriment in attracting some groups. It should be easier to unify the country as an older, wiser, more experienced woman who understands the problems of youth because she has raised a child and kept a family together despite great strains, who understands the problems of minorities because she knows from the heart the problems minority parents face in seeking good healthcare and education and equal opportunity for their children, who knows how awful it would be to sit by the bedside of a sick child and lack the health-insurance card that is a passport to prompt treatment in a doctor's office instead of a long humiliating wait for charity in an emergency room that would rather turn you away.
Hilary could reach out to the affluent by showing she understands few people can now afford to pay the full cost of four years of college for their children - even the children of many upper-middle-class parents graduate from college to start life with a crushing burden of debt. No parent likes to see that, either.
Hilary could invite people of all kinds to join her in a quest for social justice, greater opportunity and greater comity in political discourse. Sadly, Hilary seems to have no interest in unifying anybody. It just doesn't seem to be in her nature.
The most apt slogan for the Clinton campaign would be "Democrats have no alternative but to nominate Hilary!" Trouble is, it's hard to get people to rush in and shout, "Yes! I'm here because Hilary left me no alternative! I want to do my part in the great crusade to prevent other people from having any alternative to Hilary!"
The "no alternative" slogan is a bit awkward for chanting at rallies. The same concept can be condensed to three words: "Resistance is futile!" That still won't bring crowds rushing from every quarter to lend their support.
Hilary would do much better with an approach that says, "It's time we had a woman president. Hilary is the only woman in the race. Therefore, you must vote for Hilary." That will probably rally a substantial portion of a generation of feminists scarred by the battle for women's rights, even without a catchy slogan. Women are half the population, so the approach has some breadth of appeal. However, most people, including most women, will probably still want to know why a Hilary Clinton presidency would make their lives better. That's different from being told your vote is required because you are a woman, it's time for a woman to be president, and Hilary is the only woman on the ballot. That's another way of saying there is no alternative to Hilary.
April 1, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
and I'm not sure I can vote for her if she is the nominee. She's a bad choice to lead this country.
You have to follow your own conscience, but personally, I'd vote for roadkill in this election, if it had a D after its name.
But just this time - if we don't nominate Obama, what that says to me is that the progressives got shut out again and I will seriously question my commitment to the Democratic party after I vote.
April 1, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
A commendable, temperate reaction, Tena. I wish I could be as calm more often.
It's very disturbing that we have to think seriously about whether Hilary's campaign has proved she would be so bad for the country that we shouldn't vote for her even though we're loyal Dems. Even though, in most cases, we started out liking Hilary and planning to vote for her, or at least being quite willing to vote for her if, as we expected, she got the nomination.
Do you see any way Hilary could pull a surprise and suddenly wake up to the political necessity of becoming a great unifier?
Many of us would be skeptical, but I don't think we could resist listening to a message we've been longing to hear from Hilary all these bitter months. I keep hoping she will undergo a deathbed conversion to a more decent approach. (But then I'm one of those naive people who fell for Obama's speeches.)
If Hilary dared to "go positive", if she was tough enough, so to speak, she would be doing it because she realizes, in political terms, it is her only hope. Her attempts to destroy Obama and command the party to vote for her have been counterproductive, as her rising poll negatives show. She has offended an awful lot of Democrats, not for petty reasons, but because we and the country can't afford another Republican in the White House at this juncture and Hilary is making that possible.
Surely one of those political geniuses advising Hilary will realize that her only hope, now and for the future, is to forsake the dark side. She could even fire her coterie of Dr. Evils and blame them to show she's mending her ways.
"I was wrong to follow their advice. It was the conventional wisdom, I thought I had no choice if we Democrats were to win this election, and truly that was so important in this year for our country that I was willing to go along. All I wanted was to ensure that our party wins this election. But I was wrong to follow the advice I got about how to go about it. I apologize from the bottom of my heart. From this day forward, etc."
Many of us, even the skeptical, would sigh and say, "Thank God!" The calls for her to withdraw would end instantly.
If Nixon could get away with the Checkers speech, couldn't Hilary try this?
April 1, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to be open minded about her candidacy. I kept waiting for her to give reasons to vote for her. She never did.
April 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
LifeLongDem, I disagree that it's premature to write a post-mortem on Hillary's campaign. It's over. The fat lady is singing.
Short of a Spitzer-like scandal destroying Obama, there is no way that Obama can lose - which is what makes Hillary's Quixotic quest so aggravating to any voter vested in a Democratic win this fall.
This is obvious to anyone who can do basic arithmetic:
* Obama leads by 161 pledged delegates.
* Giving Hillary landslide victories (10 points or more)in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, & Montana, she still picks up only 36 delegates - leaving Obama's lead at 125.
* Even if you throw in another landslide for her in Indiana, she only picks up another 8 delegates - leaving Obama's lead at 117.
* Even if you seat the Florida & Michigan delegations, she only picks up another 50 delegates - leaving the Obama lead at 67.
* So, Hillary has to count on the super delegates, but Hillary's problem is that the super delegates are flocking to Obama little by little, day by day.
* Compounding Hillary's problems are that state caucuses will be adding delegates to Obama's lead. Just today, it was announced that Obama has picked up 5 more delegates from Texas.
* There are 70 "add on" super delegates who will be determnined at state caucuses. Based on the states that he has already won, Obama will net 14 more delegates from this process.
* The addition of the new Texas delegates & the add-on supers brings Obama's worst case lead up to 86. (And that's counting Florida & Michigan without a re-vote.) Realistically the final tally of pledged delegates will favor Obama by around 140 (including add-on supers, who will perform like pledged delegates.)
Whether Obama's lead is 86 or 140, the super delegates will not overturn that, barring a scandal. There is no evidence that they will. The evidence is just the opposite. It is Obama who is gaining super delegates, not Hillary.
Leahy was right. Since there is no way that she can win, Hillary should get out now to let the party come together. She should save everyone some money - especially the campaigns that will be running in the fall. She should end the rancor & stop destroying her party's nominee. She is becoming a cancer on the Democratic Party.
April 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, your numbers and the logic of your argument are unassailable. But if Democrats want to win this election, we can't alienate Hilary's supporters. Many of them vehemently disagree with your analysis. I don't think that disagreement is based on sound data and argument, but the feeling behind it is powerful.
The best thing for the party would be for Hilary to face facts and see that staying in and trying to destroy Obama to leave the party no choice but her is doing the party and likely the country great harm. Then, of her own volition, she should do the right thing and withdraw graciously. But she won't do that.
If she won't, we make things even worse by calling on her to withdraw, especially if we're Obama supporters. Clinton loyalists just think we're pulling a political stunt that favors our candidate. They can't see it any other way. Clinton's campaign propaganda has been supremely successful at convincing her followers that Hilary has been cheated out of a fair chance at what is rightfully hers. That's the only way I can interpret many of the pro-Clinton messages on this site.
I think we're better off asking her to explain how she is going to unite the party and win this election. She keeps saying Obama can't win, therefore we must nominate her even if she's done things that make our skin crawl. Surely Clinton's supporters will not think it outrageous to ask their candidate to explain how she's going to do something good for the party. Besides, the polls show every sign that Hilary's negative strategy is backfiring - even, this morning, in Pennsylvania. When your candidate's strategy isn't working, you should be receptive to suggestions of a different strategy. That's less threatening by far than asking that Clinton withdraw because she's pushing the party off a cliff.
April 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
What hurts most candidates, and Hillary is no exception, is lack of: Charisma, Likability, and or Credibility. Her negatives were always sky high, and just lurking below the surface like a mine waiting to be steped on, and Hillary did just that with the Fairy Tale about her heroism at Tuzla airport in Bosnia.
April 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
All true, Liam. Charisma, likability, credibility.
Oddly enough, when the campaign started, I thought Hilary's negatives were the result of the long and unfair attacks by the rightwing attack machine. I kept explaining that to my children. I told them to judge Hilary on her actual behavior in this campaign and keep an open mind deciding between her, Edwards and Obama.
Thanks to Hilary's campaign, my children don't think much of my political judgment.
April 1, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
LifeLongDem, I disagree that it's premature to wrote a post-mortem on Hillary's campaign. The fat lady is singing. It's over.
Short of a Spitzer-like scandal destroying Obama, there is no way that he can lose - which is what makes Hillary's Quixotic quest so aggravating to any voter vessted in a Democratic victory this fall.
This is obvious to anyone who can do basic arithmetic:
* Obama leads by 161 pledged delegates
* Giving Hillary landslide victories (10 points or more) in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, & Montana, she still picks up only 36 delegates, leaving Obama with a lead of 125.
* Even if you throw in another landslide for her in Indiana, she only picks up another 8 delegates, leaving Obama's lead at 117.
* Even if you seat the Florida & Michigan delegations as already voted, she only nets another 50 delegates - leaving Obama's lead at 67.
* So, Hillary has to count on the super delegates, but her problem is that they are flocking to Obama - little by little, day by day. They can do the math. They are politicians. Politicians don't back loseing candidates.
* Compounding Hillary's problems are that the state caucuses will be adding delegates to Obama's lead. Just today, for example, it was announced that Obama has picked up a net of 5 more delegates from Texas.
* There are 70 "add on" super delegates who will be determined at state conventions. Based on the states that he has already won, Obama will net 14 more delgates from this process.
* The addition of the new Texas delegates & the add-on supers brings Obama's "worst case" scenario to a lead of 86 - counting Florida & Michigan! More likely is that the final tally of p;edged delegates will give Obama a lead of about 140 (including add-on supers who will perform like pledged delegates).
Whether Obama's lead is 86 or 140, the super delegates will not overturn this result, barring a scandal. There is no evidence for Hillary's hope that the super delegates will do this. To the contrary, it is Obama who is gaining super delegates, not Hillary.
Leahy was right. Since ther is no way that she can win, Hillary should get out now so that the Party can come together.
I don't know if her campaign staff is so inept that they don't know this or if she & they are living in denial. But the simple fact is that this election is over.
Hillary should let everyone save their money - especially the sampaigns who will be running this fall & the states with strapped budgets who have to pay for these meaningless primaries - because the result will be the same whether they are held or not. She should end the rancor and stop destroying the obvious nominee. She is becoming a cancer on the Democratic Party.
April 1, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, again you make perfect sense. I wish for the sake of the party and the country Hilary would withdraw.
But she won't. Calls for her to do so are deepening party divisions. That may be by design - wreck Obama, this year's nominee, and bring Hilary back in 2012 as the party savior. It's pretty horrifying.
For me, as you say, it's inevitable at this point that Obama gets the nomination. The remaining question is how he can have any hope of winning the general election.
The best hope, in my view, is for Obama and all his supporters to stop calling for her to give up. We can't be silent in the face of her attacks, but we can respond by trying to put the burden on her to show how she's going to do something good for somebody. We need to keep feeding her the old JFK line: it's time for her to stop asking what her country and party can do for her, and ask what she can do for her country and party. To stop explaining why we have no alternative but to give her the nomination, and explain why we should actually want her to get it.
If she stays in, fine, but let it be on her positives. That's about as far as we can go and hope for Clinton supporters to back Obama.
If Hilary just keeps focusing on destroying Obama and stays in through the convention, then we'll witness quite a destructive spectacle. At this point, you have to worry that Hilary will try to lead a walkout of all her supporters proclaiming that she won fair and square and was cheated of the nomination. Probably nothing could save the party if she does that.
The best hope is that her followers start to recognize that what she's doing is destructive for everybody, even her, and that there's something wrong with a politician who will go to such extremes to get personal power. But as long as her supporters see her as a victim of unfair and undemocratic processes, the rightful nominee, robbed by caucuses, throwing out her grand victories in Florida and Michigan, media bias, party bigwigs who demand that she withdraw, those supporters won't see Hilary's tactics as extreme. They'll just thing she's fighting to overcome an injustice. And thank God we have such a great fighter in Hilary!
April 1, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
LifeLongDem, for all the reasons that you state, I say that the Party leaders should seat the Florida & Michigan dlegations as already constituted. Barack himslef should come forward & suggest this with the only condition being that the "uncommitted" delegates from Michigan be assigned to him as pledged delegates since there is no other candidate still in ther race for them to go to.
Such a move would defuse the issue & would make it eminently clear to all concerned that even with these delgations included, Hillary still can't win. The idea that these states would tip the balance is a myth being perpetrated solely to keep the Hillary campaign on life support.
The real agenda of the Clinton campaign is to drive up her totals in the popular vote with the additional votes from Florida & Michigan. They want to use this argument to sway super delegates. But that won't work. Nominations are won with delegates, not by the popular vote. Not only is her argument an attempt to supercede the rules, but it would be inherently unfair because caucuses do not ingage as many voters as primaries do, so caucus states are underrepresented in the popular vote tally. The legitimacy of caucuses vs primaries is a debate for another time & one which is too late for this election.
Hillary's argument to use the popular vote instead of the delegate count would be like Al Gore conceding Florida but then arguing that he should be declared the winner anyway despite failing to lead in the Electoral college because he won the popular vote. It's an argument that just has nowhere to go.
April 1, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, I support your idea of Barack's comming forward to support seating the Florida and Michigan delegates as is.
It's unfair to Barack, but he will win the nomination anyway, and it will enable him to show the lengths he will go to address even unfounded grievances. It is a mistake for the Obama campaign to do anything coy about the Michigan and Florida situation. Letting things hang just allows Hilary's false argument that she's been cheated out of victories to blossom and spread through endless repetition.
True, those states broke the rules, the candidates agreed to those rules, and now Hilary wants to break the rules. What favors allowing Michigan and Florida back into the process is that it was idiotic in political terms for the Democratic National Committee, Hilary's pal Harold Ickes included, to set up rules that could disenfranchise major states in the Democratic Primary. I'd rather have had new, fair primaries with campaigning and the candidates' names on the ballots, but that doesn't seem to be an option.
I'd gladly abolish caucuses in favor of primaries for all time. But they have been accepted as legitimate for years, and no one questioned their legitimacy until Hilary started getting slaughtered in them. They lost their legitimacy in Hilary's eyes because of the results and the results alone. That doesn't mean we shouldn't switch to primaries for the future.
In my opinion, there also needs to be some change to the proportional system of delegate allocation. I think the idea of proportional allocation within states has merit. The winner-take-all approach silences too many voices too fast. However, the allocation needs to tilt more steeply toward the winner as the margin gets bigger. If there's a landslide margin, there should be a landslide delegate allocation. As it is, even a substantial margin can result in a dead heat contest for delegates. We'll never get resolution that way.
There should also be more careful thought to sectional representation in primaries. It's all well and good that Iowa and New Hampshire have their traditions, but it would be better to have some large as well as some small states from all geographies voting in each phase of the campaign. Iowa and New Hampshire have too much weight, and their state systems that have their own flaws. In Iowa's case, it's the caucuses. In New Hampshire's, it's the crossover vote.
We've found out this time around that crossovers in an age of instant communication are a problem if voters are free to re-register and vote in either primary at will. The Limbaugh Democrats in Texas show the problem at its worst. I don't know how best to handle the participation of the large and important blocks of independents in most states, but the way we're doing it now often seems either to exaggerate the role of independents in the nominating process or to eliminate it altogether. Excluding independents is likely to lead to still greater polarization in selection of nominees. Wish I new how to give independents a voice without allowing opponents to game the system by voting for candidates in the primaries because they think they're sure losers in the fall.
Hilary would win the popular vote if the DNC would only allow her to admit China to the Union and register the Chinese. She's probably got somebody working on it.
April 1, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
LifLongDem, I agree with your comments that the nominating process needs to be overhauled. I'd begin by eliminating super delegates although I'd be happy to allow party elders & elected officials into the convention without voting privileges if they weren't elected delegates.
With respect to just one of your points, you raise some interesting ideas. Let me just add to your comments.
The other side of the coin to proportional distribution of delegates is winner-take-all, which has its own problems as we saw with the Republicans, The GOP is stuck with a candidate who was rejected by most of the voters in their primaries by the rule that winner takes all even if that winner has only a plurality. I think that the solution lies somewhere between this Republican way of doing things & the Democrats approach.
The idea that I like is actually the way that the Republicans do things in Texas:
1. If one candidate wins the majority of the votes, then it's winner take all.
2. If no one wins a majority, then it's proportional representation.
There just seems to be something innately fair about that approach. You should get all the delegates if you can't even get 50%+1 of the votes.
I think that this approach would also help to address the problem of overemphasis in the early primaries & caucuses. Because contests would involve many candidates, they would invariably have proportional distribution of their delegates. As a result their impact would be lessened - as it has been this year. But as the field became winnowed down, later primaries would take on increasing importance as the chance of winning a majority would increase with fewer & fewer candidates.
Lesser candidates would be able to stay in the field in the early primaries if they could make any kind of respectable showing, but it would be the primaries in February & later that would ultimately be decisive as candidates could roll up delegate totals faster later in the race.
My hunch is that if this rule were in effect this year, it would already be over.
April 1, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment