TNR Asks Clinton Supporters: What Went Wrong?

The New Republic:

Endings are rarely as joyous as beginnings--and in the case of a long, wearing, and ultimately disappointing campaign, they can be downright brutal. But they also have the potential to be educational, for participants and gawkers alike. So it is that we asked (begged, really) a range of Hillarylanders for their up-close and personal lists of "What Went Wrong?" Not everyone wanted to play. Many stubbornly pointed out that their candidate is not yet dead. But, on the condition of total anonymity, a fairly broad enough cross-section of her staff responded--more than a dozen members all told, from high-level advisors to grunt-level assistants, from money men to on-the-ground organizers.

Many answers fell into a handful of broad themes we've been hearing for months now. (She shouldn't have run as an incumbent. She should have paid more attention to caucus states. She should have kept Bill chained in the basement at Whitehaven with a case of cheese curls and a stack of dirty movies.) Others had a distinct score-settling flavor. One respondent sent in a list of Top 25 screw ups, the first three being...

Read the whole story: The New Republic

Comments

[truth2008]

For the past few days I think that we are seeing the real Hillary Clinton. As a African American, I never believed that Hillary or Bill were racist. I think that her managers (Penn etc.) mismanaged her campaign, and labeled her as this tough image that made her appear rough and masculine. She allowed advisors around her to shape her image, when she should have just been Hillary. Although I support Obama, I now feel Empathy for Senator Clinton. Please understand, that as a woman and AA, I've always voted for the democratic party. Now, for the first time in my life, I have the opportunity to vote for a qualified AA, Senator Obama. I am so inspired and proud as an AA to finally have a chance to vote and support Obama. It's not a racial thing, I supported Bill Clinton just as much. It's time for the Democratic Party to unite, and support the nominee.

No more division...

[HopeGirl]

You can use the racism of others to divide. She clearly did this in states that she knows struggle to this day wit this issue.

So, can you use other people's inherent racism to your own perceived advantage and not be a racist yourself?

If so, what does that make Hillary? Cold Blooded?

[DinOhio]

It's called low-brow politics and unexpected from a "Democrat". George Wallace stuff.

[Grunty1]

At the end of the day, blaming her manager's for racism or any other failing of the campaign is stopping the buck short. It was HILLARY's campaign. She could have overruled Penn if she thought his methods were poor or counterproductive. But, she didn't.

[Felicty]

When Bill got onstage and virtually offered the idea of a team presidency, it was over for her. He will NEVER be able to share a spotlight, particularly if it was HERS.

[ProfessorDuh]

Exactly. When a candidate tries to run using the OTHER candidate's popularity, her campaign is something more than dead. It's pathetic.

[Monkeytime]

Ouch. From teh mouths of her own people (albeit anonymous). And in the very DLCish New Rupublic.

For sure, even she's go to know its over.

[TotobiAyokoh23]

What went wrong? It is simply the natural LAW of KARMA. Throw a table tennis ball to the wall; it will bounce back at you.

[olderdem]

I always find it puzzling that pundits write about how it was Hillary's campaign that was flawed, rather than the candidate. One vote in 2002 against Bush's War Resolution and Hillary very, very likely would now be the Democratic nominee.

A vote against the war would not only have been the correct vote, it would have shown strength of character and political courage – a willingness to do the right thing rather than protecting her “viability” as a presidential candidate. She would have looked smarter than all the “boys” voting for the war, rather than trying to look tougher than any of them. If she would have admitted early on that that vote was a mistake, then maybe she could have redeemed herself, but that admission by Edwards and others made them weaker candidates – it would have helped, but its not clear how much. Many of us were looking for someone that had the judgment at the time it counted and she didn’t.

The “win at any cost” narrative was a legacy she carried from her husband, but her Iraq vote, the Bosnia “misspeaking”, and the “Obama isn’t ready for the 3am call” fueled the narrative. Then she capped it off with her gas tax “holiday” in Indiana and North Carolina, when it appears that voters understood the con, despite all the pundits talking about what a good political move it was to pander to them.

[08politicaljunkie]

Well written, olderdem.

I find it difficult to believe that with all her power, influence and access, and Bill's power, influence and access, that she didn't know the "truth" about Bush and Cheney's motives for starting that war. I believe this was, in my opinion, her biggest obstacle and she only added more during her speeches and in the debates.

First, in touting her experience, when her experience was already a plus was a mistake. I began to question her experience when she spoke about "change" and started criticizing "the government." I asked the television, "Aren't You the Government?" and then stated, "Look where your 'experience' has gotten us."

What nailed her for me was she said in reference to mortgage finance rates (may not be a perfect quote here) "I voted for it but hoped it wouldn't pass." WHAT??

...then everything else as you and others have stated.

[likeicare]

It was Bill, stupid.

[ProfessorDuh]

A majority of people never wanted her, and a lot of people hate her guts. That's what "went wrong." I've never heard anyone but aging feminists express a preference for her, and even they are only voting their gender, not their good judgment.

[thepoliticalcat]

A majority of which people? Until Obama won that incredible string of victories, those of us Democrats who supported any other candidate had accepted that our candidates didn't have a prayer and Clinton was inevitable. Until very recently, more people were voting for her than for Obama.

Just because you don't like women, or older women, or feminists, doesn't mean you get to invent your own set of facts.

[ProfessorDuh]

A majority of people where I live, and on line, and everywhere else didn't like Hillary. The level of street-level talk against her was toxic. And try not to make assumptions. As a matter of fact, I like rational feminists. Women who are merely voting their private parts give me a pain, however.

[Grunty1]

If Democrats at large accepted her inevitablity, she wouldn't have lost...

[PackyJ]

What went wrong isn't that hard to understand.
The nomination was hers to lose a year ago, and she succeeded in doing just that.
According to the mainstream media, a year ago Hillary Clinton was the "inevitable nominee."
She and her campaign bought into that line, and while she was "phoning it in," Obama's forces put together a fairly well-oiled machine.
Like the frog in the slowly heated water, she never realized her candidacy was in trouble until it reached the boiling point and she was "upset" by Obama in states the MSM had assured her she couldn't lose... after all, she was "inevitable."
Then, AFTER she was in trouble, her campaign did a melt-down, and she became completely reactive, instead of proactive.
Her organization has made blunder after blunder, and Obama's organization has made very few, if any, mistakes of consequence.
He deserves the nomination, she doesn't.

[ebbtide]

There is a very good diary over on KOS by "thereisnospoon" that I think hits it the best. In essence, she ran on a nineties platform and failed to recognize the country was fed up with all the DC shenanigans.

Seems like the people on her staff can find, (still) OTHERS to blame---everyone but Hillary Clinton. That says something to me. Disgruntled staffers unable to blame queen Hillary for her racist remarks, for her slime and dirty politics. In fact, one of them seemed to think she should have "gone after" Obama before Iowa.

Pity for them. They are out of a job and so for all of them that expected great things and jobs from the Clinton administration.

The buck stops at Hillary and she fumbled the ball , badly.

[jmpurser]

How about the fact that for a significant number of people the only thing more appaling than the idea of Hillary the candidate is Hillary the president? She ALWAYS had the highest negatives. I remember early on when one of her fans was claiming that all she had to do was demonstrate her "humanity" to her detractors and all would be well. If you're running for president and your core issue in convincing people that you're HUMAN then maybe you shouldn't be running.

[anthonylee]

Simply put . . . .She voted FOR the war, before she was against it!?! Indefensible, unapologetic and arrogant . . . .

[AxelDC]

What went wrong? Obama simply outsmarted her. TNR points out where he outsmarted her (caucuses, proportional delegates, moneyraising, staffing issues, message, etc.), but Obama came out with a strategic plan. He mapped out how many delegates he needed in each state and where he would get them. He set fundraising goals and planned his campaign from the preliminaries to Iowa through Feb 5th and beyond. He even said that if he lost Iowa, it was over. He out organized, out thought and and outmanuevered her.

She set her sites on winning knock out blows in big states and it being over by Feb 5th. She expected Obama to endorse her on Feb. 6th, and instead she woke up behind and broke. That set her up for 11 blowout losses from which she has never recovered. She sees every primary as a chance to "get back in the game". He sees every primary as part of his building blocks. That's why he can shrug off West Virginia and focus on Oregon. He knew that WV was a lost cause a year ago and not necessary to win the nomination.

If you look at where she started and where he started, it's obvious that if they had an equal playing field, she would have never stood a chance. McCain should be afraid.

[utd]

He had a plan period. She has been trying to exersize the "nuclear option" for the past 4 months, when a bit of good old fashioned management would have come in handy.

[OrionGal]

I agree! Senator Obama and Mr. Axelrod set up a strategic campaign plan and it worked.

Hillary did not set up a PLAN and she made assumptions.

[Taaj]

When HRC decided being a woman were fake tears, false emotions and masculine strength, is when she lost. She first lost HERSELF.

If she had campaign with the feminine brilliance, strength and ideological knowledge of women, she would have had the change message, and many of us would have stayed in her camp. But she allowed too many men to determine her destiny. She was lead down the road of whiskey shots, touting gun, malice, brute anger, and sacrasm.

For many women and men, she did not become someone we could point to for our daughters, and say see one day you could become President of the United States.

The irony in all this is perhaps Hillary listened too much to a man (Bill), while Obama was listening to a woman (Michelle). I hope next time she learns to stay true to who she is and not attempt to become an imitation.

The original is always better and for those who want a male perspective as president will vote Obama, and those who want a republican will vote McCain. The imitation is sent home!

[marc1antony]

Arrogance, Lack of Management, Sense of Entitlement, Underestimating your opponent, Lying to the American public that have had their fill of lies from the so-called leadership. Pandering.

[KillTheMessenger]

What went wrong? The candidate had no charisma and tried to make up for it with lies, racial division and pandering to the dumbest of voters.