« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary should have won!
If only she'd run a competent campaign, that is. This article:http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=f7a4a380-c4a4-4f84-b653-f252e8569915
is on the TPM news feed and won't be there long, but you don't want to miss it. It's Clinton campaign staffers explaining why they think she lost.
... There was no attention to history ...
... Not learning from the mistakes of Kerry and Gore, the campaign was based in the D.C. area, rooting its perspective in the fishbowl and echo chamber nature of the capital. ...
.. 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. ...
... 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, ...
... [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. ...
... We would just cringe. Ugh. Such an out-of-touch corporate run kind of campaign ...
... Our message in fact was working very well through September. What we failed to do is pivot when we needed to. [...] 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... we didn't plan for a national campaign ...
... 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. ...
... The real race was the three-way. But [Penn] 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. ...
... 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. ...
Remember, these are comments from Hillary's own campaign staff. Read the whole thing, and breathe a huge sigh of relief.
Why bring this up? Because Hillary is still in it, but now for the veep slot. Someone who surrounds themselves with advisors based on putting loyalty over confidence, who relies on simplistic planning and is slow to accept that it isn't working, etc., etc., shouldn't be that close to the Oval Office. Certainly not as President, but also not as Vice President.
If any candidate without the name recognition and fundraising advantage and party support that Hillary started out with had mismanaged their campaign this badly, they'd have been out long, long ago.
I wish her a long and successful career in the Senate. If Obama appoints her to the Supreme Court, as some have suggested, I'll cheer (in part because it would be fun to see wingnuts tied up in knots for many years as a result). Anything that doesn't require competence at large-scale management.
Advertisement
Comments (53)
Good link and a very interesting read.
As an outsider, I'd probably add a thing or two and maybe dismiss a couple of others, but all together a good read and for the most part, I'd say that their hindsight isn't quite 20/20, but they're on the way.
May 16, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iranian perspective on US presidential race. The only one afraid is Mc Cain who sees himself away from the power to start another war. As an Iranian, I feel the rural America is being scared of an unfamiliar entity called Iran. I have aspent a whole night of my work making this little clip. It is not so professional but has the message. Please see and promote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVYlGZmtYg
May 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop spamming.
May 16, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Top 10 Reasons Obama Defeated Clinton for the Democratic Nomination
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/top-10-reasons-obama-defe_b_101307.html
1. Obama is an Extraordinary Candidate
2. Change...Trumped Experience
3. Unity...Trumped Division
4. Hope and Inspiration...Trumped Fear and Anger
5. Obama Out - Communicated Clinton Using One Consistent Message
6. Explosive Obama Fundraising [...Obama]
7. Excellence in Execution: Great Field [...Obama]
8. No Plan B [...Clinton]
9. 18 State Policy [...Clinton] vs. 50 State Strategy [...Obama]
10. Great Team Management and Leadership [...Obama]
-- Robert Creamer
May 16, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pres '08
May 16 GallupMcCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 45%Pres '08
May 16 GallupClinton (D) 48%, McCain (R) 45%
May 17, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
That article summarizes what went wrong with Hillary. In doing so, it summarizes all the reasons I stopped even thinking of supporting her. I was open to her messages at first, but as Obama impressed me more with both inspirational speech and his frankly measured, if not moderate, liberalism (after all, he does need to win the GE and then govern) and Hillary ran a silly campaign that produced so many Scooby Doo "huh?" moments from me, there was no way.
Intellectually it makes sense that she could be VP. But after reading the TNR article, I wonder if it's wise to let her near the White House. Can you imagine what her staff would look like?
Sad, very sad, about Hillary. I hope she keeps her senate seat. Her aggressiveness and knowledge of process and machine politics will serve the party. But I'm not sure she belongs in the administration at all.
May 16, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theoretically or in general, I don't think a lot of campaign staff would make the transition and if she were to become VP, I'd hope that the Clinton name would get her better staffers.
Rabbit didn't clip the bit about proportional allocation, but if you use some of Karen Tumulty's thing from last week to expand upon TNR's longer list, she did seem to have at least one Kevin James-like idiot.
May 16, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary ran a silly campaign that produced so many Scooby Doo "huh?" moments from me, there was no way."
The kitchen sink was my final straw, when it became obvious she was treating the primary like the general, I knew Hillary would disappoint me.
I have always defended both Clintons, vociferously. If you saw the movie Primary Colors, the character Emma Thompson played always seemed unfairly harsh toward Hillary.
Especially the scene where she takes the shallow political posture (and drives her closest aid to suicide), I was always offended by it.
But when I saw her on the kitchen sink path, it hurt my heart to realize that she actually had it in her to take that kind of tack.
I only wonder now just how dominant that political animal really is in her collection of convenient characters she conjurs up for whatever the moment demands.
May 16, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also knew she would disappoint us, but I could never have predicted how completely.
May 16, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoyed reading the post Rabbit and Magister says exactly how I feel.
Good Luck Hillary and her staffers.
I hope we may find the exit she feels she deserves, and now its time to move on to the General.
May 16, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post, Rabbit. Thanks for making sure we see it.
I think it's amazing that her staff's admissions match perfectly what all of us here at TPM have been saying for months. If we knew and they obviously knew it, why couldn't they change it in time?
Because her campaign was top-down, that's why.
May 16, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems the ones quoted in TNR weren't the ones in charge. Top down doesn't quite seems to describe the organization; it sounds like a zig-zaggy disorganized shout-down where too many had delusions of being in charge, with staffers caught in the middle.
May 16, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some times it comes down to the bottom line, literally. When it started to come out that HRC couldn't run its own campaign budget, it's inevitable that people would start to extrapolate this into, "How can HRC oversee the largest budget in the world?"
May 16, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty amazing that everyone and their dog would be accusing the media of mud-slinging and at the same time print and forward "accounts" like you just posted (hope you didn't have to labor too long).
Anonymous, blame-trading, mud-throwing.
TPM and its many "helpful" readers are not against the media. They ARE the media. Same tactics, same intention, same techniques.
The irony, however, is in what this so-called piece of journalism seems to imply.
Clinton may lose the nomination not because Obama is the second coming incarnate, holier than though, once-in-a-life candidate.
Only because her campaign made more mistakes than his did.
May 16, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, you are the only one left who thinks Obama's supporters are brainwashed, so many of us came over from Edwards (just look at the Obama jump when Edwards got out), we aren't starry eyed cult members.
Why is it that, just because hillary is losing this, Obama must be some sort of cult figure?
Is it possible a lot of us just consider him the better candidate?
But as for a once-in-a-lifetime candidate, as far as my 55 years (56 very soon) go, there's never been another like him.
If he wasn't so special, you couldn't parody him with your Lincoln avatar. You are one of those many Hillary supporters who have inadvertantly built up his lofty image, in the realm of "methinks thou doest protest too much."
Your bitter protestations and snide avatar have done more to galvanize the Obama myth than all the Obama supporters combined.
When I was still in the fight for Edwards, I referred to Barack as "Martin Luther Lincoln."
Maybe my snark was actually prescient. And I have no shame in making the transition, only pride in the overwhelming populist movement that has overtaken the beltway campaigners and steamrolled the Republicans in places they never imagined, like Louisiana, Missippi, and Hastert's Illinois seat.
The Obama wagon is rolling.
Either climb aboard or get left in the wheeltracks. Not many other options.
May 16, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking for only my opinion, I'd have to say that the majority of Obama voters are reasonable, well-adjusted people, but there do seem to be some elements similar to a cult among certain segments.
I guess that I should be glad that he drives such passion and I really hope they vote in November. Some time ago, I read something which quoted from a psychologist or a sociologist who theorized that boomers are all about the individual and themselves, while the younger generations more often seek validation from groups.
May 16, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people at Obama rallies seem quite normal. There is enthusiasm but it hardly strikes me in any way as abnormal or out of touch. There is a lot of ant-Hillary energy but Obama seems able to calm that down,
I would prefer that they run together if they have the stomachs for it.
May 16, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton may lose the nomination not because Obama is the second coming incarnate, holier than though, once-in-a-life candidate. Only because her campaign made more mistakes than his did.
I agree completely! Let us bask in this moment of unity ... okay, that's enough.
Obama is a remarkable candidate, but the whole point of what I posted is that it was hers to lose and he's winning because her campaign made more mistakes than he did.
A lot more.
Some real doozies, and I look forward to the dueling tell-all books that will peel away the layers.
If she'd run even a semi-competent campaign she'd have been the presumptive nominee long before now. Conversely, running the kind of campaign she did, if she hadn't started out with near-universal name recognition, huge campaign funds, and deep support with party insiders, she would have been out of the race completely long before now.
Obama will win, and will be an excellent President. But if he hadn't been there to take advantage of Hillary's mismanagement and incompetent advisors someone else might have taken it away from her. Probably Edwards, IMO.
Or, god help us, she might have won and taken her style of short-sighted, loyalty-above-competence mismanagement into the oval office. We haven't completely dodged that bullet until Obama picks someone else as a running mate, but so far so good.
May 16, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some real doozies, and I look forward to the dueling tell-all books that will peel away the layers.
As if we need any more, there's another reason not to choose her. There's going to be a mad scramble to write those tell-all books, not just for the big advances they'll get but because quite a few people associated with the incompetent campaign have reputations they'd like to try to repair. There have been rumors of some book deals already being under negotiation.
And those books will come out soon. It's an arms race, and every one of those advisors wants their book to come out first, or at least close behind any other book that would make them look bad. But every one of those books will make Hillary look bad.
Now imagine that Hillary is Obama's running mate, and November is approaching, and two or three or four books hit the stands talking about how Hillary mismanaged her funds, how she was unable to bring herself to fire advisors who clearly needed to be fired, how there was essentially no plan in place beyond "win Iowa," and even then the plan didn't actually include learning enough about Iowa to figure out how to win it.
There's a lot more to the damage she'd do to the Obama campaign than just the "Hillary endorses McCain" ads that would use Obama's own running mate's words against him.
May 16, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point I hadn't considered at all.
May 16, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, there is no irony. Nobody but a few Clinton supporters think of Obama as anything but human. No one thinks he's the messiah. The trouble is people who are so outraged others aren't supporting Hillary that they have to make it a pathology, when in fact sometimes people rationally, genuinely prefer another candidate. Please try to wrap your head around this concept; it's important. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee, and if you are a Democrat, please at least attempt to take a step back from your disappointment and loyalty to Hillary. There's no irony in the statement that he made fewer mistakes; it's simply true.
May 16, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.
John F. Kennedy
May 16, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"it was hers to lose.."
Please, don't give these pols more credit than they deserve...
If this were an old-fashioned inside-the- beltway campaign, I might agree.
But there's a populist, almost non-partisan movement rising that is so overwhelming, I don't think anything they could have done would have changed it.
We give way too much credibility to all these campaign micro-managers, I don't believe for a moment they can take either credit or blame for the outcome of this election.
There are much more powerful social and economic forces at work here, than the bulging egoes of these self-appointed political gurus. Karl Rove is a great example of this hubris in campaign manager's clothing, and Hillary's house Roves are no exception. Their opinion of their own power and influence makes them legends in their own minds, but in reality, they had less to do with the outcome than they care to admit. When we argue endlessly about how the staff or the managers screwed up some campaign, or somehow came up with the magic slogan that wins the day, we just encourage their internal self-promotion.
You are all giving these staffers much more credit than they deserve, for victory OR failure.
Considering the sea-change we are watching unfold, I suggest that no amount of chess-moves and political posturing can keep that tide from rising.
May 16, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is always a populist uprising. And the early front runner always falters. McCarthy (68), Muskie (72), (forget who it was in 76, but Carter didn't come into the picture until Wisconsin), Hart (84), don't remember 88 though there surely was one, Tsongas (92) and Dean (04) all had the early lead, the presumption path and all falters. In 80, 96 and 00 we were running incumbent presidents or vice presidents.
May 16, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of those compares to this event, I was there for all of them, and there has never been anyone in my lifetime, not even Kennedy, who has capured the enthusiasm of the public that Obama has.
As for the early populist front runner, I would give that distinction to Edwards, he is closer to the past candidates you mention, and might well have made a better run than any of them if the media had not intentionally taken him out to clear the way for a McCain/Clinton contest.
But they (the anti-populist media that took out Dean and Edwards) just did not expect Obama to gather so much steam, so quickly, there was no anti-Obama media strategy all cooked up long before the race began, like there was for Edwards.. They got steamrolled, blindsided, caught off-guard, taken aback, surprised, startled and left to wonder..
Leroy, go read a book called "Political Prairie Fire" about the non-partisan league of 1915-1922, by Robert Morlan, and you will know which "populist movement" I speak of.
This is different.
Edwards was the early populist you compare to those other historical characters, Obama is totally unique in our era, much more akin to that sweeping, powerful populist movement a hundred years ago.
May 16, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I missed this post before posting mine! Sorry.
May 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's only recently dawned on me that I'm a bit of an Obama cultist myself.
The way it dawned on me? I compared my Obama rapture to that of my boss, who is a ravenous Hillary fiend - a far more dedicated cultist than I.
The difference between a cult and a religion is how long it's been around.
May 16, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
For as much talk as there has been about Obama's "cult" among Clinton supporters, it amazes me to see the long-standing and deeply ingrained cult of personality surrounding the Clintons thriving among them. The enamored exist on both sides.
May 16, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Though I'd say that one of the big differences is that the Clinton cultists forgive them of their trespasses, while those who worship Obama believe he can do no wrong.
(Plus, I was really bothered by that "we're the ones we've been waiting for". I now understand that it may have had something to do with an obscure poem, but it sounded like prophesy to me)
May 16, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even without reference to a poem, the point is that "we" can't wait for others to do what "we" should be doing ourselves. Not all of us can be POTUS, be all of us can be engaged in the process. Change has always come from the people who needed it most. Take for example the Civil Rights Movement: instead of waiting on LBJ, civil rights activist forced him to act (Sorry, but that whole LBJ/MLK thing really got in my craw. And I'm too young to used words like "craw," so that just shows how much it annoyed me.)
May 16, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to get too far into the deep meaning of it here (but I will anyway) it is the very core foundation of our entire social contract and the Constitution. We are a self-governing people. If we behave as ignorant, lazy people who refuse to engage in serious critical thought and do the heavy lifting to be informed, engaged, etc. then whose fault is it that our leadership goes off the rails?
So "we" are the only ones who can save ourselves, because we are the people who determine who governs us.
May 16, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure the "we're the ones we've been waiting for" is a Native American saying. But it comes from some culture that is passing along the wisdom that you don't look for some outside force. Instead you realize it's up to you!
May 16, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an Iranian, I feel the rural America is being scared of an unfamiliar entity called Iran. I have spent a whole night of my work making this little clip with a few pictures to help a bit of familiarity with Iran and our perspective on your election. It is a matter of life or death for us. Mc Cain is the more likely candidate (and I believe he already has plans) to start another war. The clipis not so professional but has the message. Please see and promote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVYlGZmtYg
May 16, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop spamming.
May 16, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary ran 20th century campaign in the 21st
May 16, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of good and confirming information in that article... but as others have said, nothing truly surprising to those of us not taken in by the Clinton PR from the beginning. It was hers to lose and they did just about every conceivable thing wrong, and I believe this is why superdelegates are finding it easy to switch from her or to commit to Obama- because of the elegance of his campaign, and the miserable mismanagement of hers. Those with memories will recall how Hillary botched the health care initiative and kneecapped all comers in her quest to be First Lady of Health Care, and America lost big. She hasn't improved as a leader, and her campaign shows all the earmarks of it.
And this is why I think that choosing her as VP would be a mistake - she has the insolence of office, and will bring little management or leadership ability to the position - she would not help Obama, she would merely impede him.
May 16, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the superdelegates are finding it easy to switch to Senator Obama, all of the fun would be over by now. In fact, when it comes to taking a stand, most superdelegates, in the immortal words of a late union president whose union I proudly represented back when, are walking around with tobacco stains in their underwear. But, again, see below, I submit that anyone who wants to beat McCain does not want to take the chance of dissing Hillary by denying her right of first refusal on the VP slot. And if that's too hard for the delicate sensibilities of those who believe that, in their support for Obama, they are pure as the driven snow, then they need to take a clue from Hillary Clinton and grow some balls! :)
May 17, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Not learning from the mistakes of Kerry and Gore, the campaign was based in the D.C. area, rooting its perspective in the fishbowl and echo chamber nature of the capital. And [the campaign] was overstaffed with hired guns with no real allegiance to HRC; she was the safest and easiest bet, no sacrifice necessary."
Billy? Billy....?
May 17, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know it's the end when the "what she did wrong" postmortem arrives.
May 17, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Read the whole thing, and breathe a huge sigh of relief." Ah ha. So you were worried! And despite the fact that her campaign was, in your opinion, totally incompetent. And look at those polls. Gallup has her statistically tied with Obama again. Gallup has her beating McCain by 3 points, while Obama trails by 2. One poll has her just 5 points behind in Oregon. She's going to have a blow out in Kentucky. So I'm not criticizing you. You were right to worry. And I can understand why you went to so much trouble to post this lengthy catalog of Clinton woes. But not wanting her on the ticket with Obama because she is somehow unworthy? I think you missed it on that one. She's got a lot of supporters. And Obama isn't doing all THAT well. I mean it's mid May and he still doesn't have it sewn up. Maybe you ought to think that one over some more. I mean, she had you worried, so she must have something going for her.
May 17, 2008 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying that it's Obama's problem that Clinton won't concede defeat? What's next, saying that king Arthur wasn't good because the Black Knight was still trying to chew his ankles off?
May 17, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah ha. So you were worried! And despite the fact that her campaign was, in your opinion, totally incompetent.
Of course I was worried. I didn't really stop worrying until after Pennsylvania and Wright's second emergence, and seeing that the superdelegates were still going to Obama at four-to-one or five-to-one over Hillary.
And this is despite the fact that her campaign was, in my opinion and the opinion of many of her advisors who are now scrambling to avoid having their own political careers tainted by that incompetence, totally incompetent. In spite of the incompetence she had a lot going for her. Huge name recognition. A huge fundraising advantage (initially). Deep support within the party. A former president campaigning for her. With those things on her side even a semi-competent campaign would have given it to her.
May 17, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point in the campaign, when everyone in the MSM and the overall consensus is that Hillary Clinton has lost the election, what purpose do you think you are serving now? I think, if anything, you are helping to elect John McCain.
At this point, if Hillary Clinton decides that she will accept a run as vice president, and if there is a groundswell of opposition from the Obama camp, and that opposition causes Obama to reject Hillary Clinton, then we will lose this election--and it will be the fault of certain folks who just don't understand that it's not about them or Hillary Clinton; it's about beating McCain in Novemeber.
And, what a shame, because I am dying to feel the love for Obama. I really do wanna
feel the love, but, respectfully, this kind of stuff just keeps it from happening. You better hope that there enough folks are like me in November; I'd vote for a mailbox over John McCain if it were running on the Democratic line.
My recommendation is that, if Hillary would do Obama the favor of running for vice president, suck it up dude, be a strong robot, stop your bellyaching and border-line concern trolling, and stay the hell out of the way. On the other hand, why listen to long-time loyal Democrats like me who have stayed with the party for thirty plus years of adult life? I know the new Democratic Party really doesn't need folks like me; you have this brand new coalition that hasn't been wheeled out since . . . ooops, George McGovern? Ouch.
May 17, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point in the campaign, when everyone in the MSM and the overall consensus is that Hillary Clinton has lost the election, what purpose do you think you are serving now?
She's lost the race for the presidential nomination (short of a dead girl / live boy mega-scandal for Obama). But some people apparently are trying to get her onto the ticket as the running mate. I think that would be a very, very bad idea, but that possibility certainly isn't over yet.
At this point, if Hillary Clinton decides that she will accept a run as vice president,
And this is exactly the problem: the attitude that it's hers to accept or reject. Notice that the arguments for Hillary being given the veep slot, including yours here, aren't arguments about how she's the best choice. They're arguments about how she's earned the right of first refusal (whether she's the best choice or not), or threats about how Hillary and/or Hillary's supporters will find a way to keep Obama from getting elected if he doesn't give them what they want (whether she's the best choice or not) etc.
And I'm worried that this might work, so that Obama ends up saddled with Hillary as a running mate. A running mate who has openly and repeatedly endorsed his GOP opponent (and you can bet those video clips will play a prominent role in McCain's ads if Obama is coerced into picking Hillary as veep). A running mate about whom two or more tell-all books by her advisors will be coming out soon, trashing her management of the campaign and getting huge national attention. A running mate whose "favorable" numbers (among all voters, not just those who turn out for caucuses and primaries) are near an all-time low.
Obama should be free to pick the person who will help him run the strongest campaign possible against McCain.
and if there is a groundswell of opposition from the Obama camp, and that opposition causes Obama to reject Hillary Clinton, then we will lose this election--and it will be the fault of certain folks who just don't understand that it's not about them or Hillary Clinton; it's about beating McCain in Novemeber.
If it were about beating McCain in November then we wouldn't be hearing arguments about why Hillary should be given the "right of first refusal", and scenarios about how she might get enough superdels to threaten to leave Obama if he doesn't give her the slot, etc., rather than saying that Obama should pick the running mate who will best help him in the national election, whether that's Hillary or someone else.
May 17, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary lost in part because we realized that winning is all that matters to her. She was willing to vote to go to war when she perceived that vote as furthering her presidential ambitions, knowing that it would lead to the deaths of many. Her career more important than the lives of others. This captured the way many of us saw her and doomed her candidacy from the beginning. Obamas call for change resonated with many because Hillary is from an old politics that needs to be changed. Now we need to discover whether Obama really represents anything new or is simply old wine in a new vessel.
May 17, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The scary thing is that some people believe this warmed over spit. Change change change.... The sun riseth and the sun setteth and proceedeth around to whence it came. There is nothing new under the sun.
And yes, people like Hillary's policies in a number of areas including education, poverty and women's rights/issues, and she's been working on these since the 60's. She has half the Democratic vote, and this is a big reason why, even though Obama fans love pissing on the idea and saying she's just in it for herself. So you get upset that people talk about your kool-aid, yet you turn around and tell 17 million people they're delusional for following a woman who only cares about her own ambition. Le plus la change le plus la meme chose.
May 17, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like some of Hillary's policies. I dislike some of Obama's. She has gotten the support of not a whole lot less than half of Democratic primary voters caucus delegates, and supers. She didn't meet the expectation that she'd be not just the nominee, but a commanding leader in the Party.
I think many of your points are important, and I respect the fact that although you vigorously disagree with us Obamites, you have something to say. I agree that we need to let go of the 'cult of personality' and 'delusion' narratives about Clinton supporters (and that you might think about easing off that kind of rhetoric on Obama supporters).
Let's talk about how Clinton's supporters and ideas can be used to help the Democratic GE campaign. Frankly, if Clinton had focussed on that all along, instead of obsessing about winning, she might have clinched this long ago. But that's water over the bridge.
May 17, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
ut not wanting her on the ticket with Obama because she is somehow unworthy?
Not just "somehow" unworthy. Her incompetent campaign management makes her a poor candidate for the presidency, and therefore a poor candidate to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. That's in addition to the pre-packaged "Hillary endorses McCain" ads that Hillary has already provided footage for -- he'll probably use those anyway, but he'll use them non-stop if he can show Obama's own running mate saying Obama isn't ready to be president but McCain is. And so on.
I think you missed it on that one. She's got a lot of supporters.
A lot of whom will vote against McCain even if Obama wasn't their first choice.
And Obama isn't doing all THAT well. I mean it's mid May and he still doesn't have it sewn up. Maybe you ought to think that one over some more. I mean, she had you worried, so she must have something going for her.
Of course she does! Something going for her? She's got a former president campaigning for her. She's got better name recognition. In some areas she's got the vote locked up simply because Obama is black (and in those areas, it won't matter who he picks as a running mate, he still won't get those votes).
But none of this says that she's the best veep choice for him. He does need to pick a veep who will help him in the campaign.
Could I get you to agree that Obama should be free to choose the running mate he believes will best help him defeat McCain, whether that's Hillary or not?
May 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is my question to every Hillary supporter who thinks Hillary is "owed" the veep slot in some sense, or who talk about scenarios in which his arm might be twisted in some way that would coerce him into selecting Hillary, etc.
Can I get you to agree that Obama should choose and should be free to choose the running mate he believes will best help him defeat McCain?
More specifically, if Hillary is the veep candidate who would best help his campaign beat McCain, then anything she's said in the past shouldn't be a reason for keeping her off the ticket. But conversely, if Hillary is not the veep candidate who would best help his campaign beat McCain, then she shouldn't be on the ticket. Either way the decision should be based entirely on the political considerations of who would help the campaign best.
Can we agree on that?
May 17, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote:
then anything she's said in the past shouldn't be a reason for keeping her off the ticket.
Just to clarify what I meant by this, things she's said should keep her off the ticket in the sense of holding a grudge because of them. Hurt feelings shouldn't be a factor in that decision.
On the other hand, things she's said that are on video, and that might show up in McCain ads, could be a valid consideration. And Hillary broke new ground here, when she said that McCain was ready to be commander in chief and Obama was not. Having an ad for McCain with video showing Obama's own running mate endorsing McCain's readiness to be commander in chief, and belittling Obama's own readiness, would be a first. And I think it would be very damaging. It'll be damaging just coming from a well-known person in Obama's own party, but coming from his own running mate? What's she going to say to minimize the damage?
So in that sense, the things she's said that have been so aggravating to Obama supporters are fair to consider in deciding whether she's a viable veep selection. But only in the sense that she said these things on camera, and if she's the running mate then McCain can be expected to use the worst of them against Obama.
May 17, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Number one reason Hillary Lost?
She was the inferior candidate.
Now, we can parse that anyway we like, whether it was Obama's exceptional message/campaign/persona, etc. or Hillary's deficits in organization/message/vote for the war/authenticity or whatever.
Fact is, she was second best, and she came in second.
May 17, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear what you are saying. But I think we have to shift away a bit more from framing the issue as being "what Hillary wants". I think the focus really has to be on what Hillary's supporters want. That ultimately is the issue that the folks who want to win in November need to focus on. If Hillary feels slighted, and Hillary's folks are not affected by that because of the way things are at that particular point, then that's cool. And, you're right, if we win in November, then much of this is forgotten, and that is also good.
May 17, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the focus really has to be on what Hillary's supporters want. That ultimately is the issue that the folks who want to win in November need to focus on.
I wouldn't be so quick to equate "what Hillary's supporters want" and "what will best help us win in November."
Obviously there's some overlap in those questions. But a lot of Hillary supporters will vote for Obama, no matter who his running mate is. They'll vote for Obama if only to vote against McCain.
A strong veep candidate from a swing state could make a much bigger difference in the campaign, for example. Obama is going to win New York with or without Hillary.
A veep candidate who has some cross-over appeal can help steal votes from McCain, especially if he has to tack to the right to avoid losing the wingnut vote. Hillary has some strongly committed followers, but also has huge negatives (she's close to setting an all-time low in the gallup poll on her favorability numbers, and that's a poll that goes back fourteen years), and that would hurt when it comes to Obama trying to pick up the moderate/independent vote.
And I've yet to get an answer from any Hillary reporter to this factor: what's Hillary going to say to the obvious ad that McCain will run showing video of Hillary saying McCain is ready to be commander-in-chief, and Obama isn't? What's the impact of having that sort of endorsement for the opponent coming from Obama's own running mate? What could she possibly say to minimize the damage?
These are some of the factors, but it's a very complex calculation, how the positives and negatives balance out.
And all I really want is for Obama to be free to pick the running mate he thinks will best help him defeat McCain. Without coercion, without whispers about twisting superdelegate arms to get them to pressure Obama into choosing Hillary whether she's the best choice overall or not, not because it's her "right" for coming in a close second, etc. But I also think that if there were any chance that she would be chosen as the best running mate without that sort of coercion, then that sort of coercion wouldn't be such a prominent theme in the arguments for why she should be chosen.
May 17, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment