Nothing Went Wrong
In retrospect, finding flaws with the Clinton campaign seems the natural thing to do. How else could a man who was just a state senator four years ago have defeated one of the most competent, intelligent, well-connected, well-respected members of the Senate? The New York Times ran a series of op-ed pieces Sunday asking, "What Went Wrong?" Some said money. Some said sexism. Some said she took the low road in her campaign tactics. Some said her Iraq vote. Some said she was too establishment. But among the 13 political coroners who wrote post-mortems for the Clinton campaign, the one who put his finger on the hemorrhage that cost her the election was the one who knew where to look -- Bob Kerry -- because he had run against Hillary Clinton's charismatic husband in the 1992 primaries.
Nothing went wrong. Hillary Clinton was emotionally outgunned, just as Bill Clinton outgunned his rivals in 1992.
The pundits and pollsters had it backwards. People didn't vote for Obama because they preferred his message of change to Hillary's message of experience. They preferred his message of change because in their gut they preferred Obama. When all the other candidates scrambled to be the agents of change after Iowa, it didn't matter where they put their spare change because they weren't Obama.
As the first woman to have a serious shot at the presidency in our nation's history, who would have reversed virtually every decision George W. Bush made over the last eight years, Hillary Clinton could legitimately argue, as she tried to do after Iowa, that she offered the best of both worlds: change and experience. What she, her pollsters, and the chattering class mistakenly believed, however, was that Obama had somehow found the right one-word magical amulet, and that they just had to own a piece of the amulet. But that view neglects the fact that virtually every challenger in the last century -- including Bill Clinton ("change vs. more of the same") -- had used the mantra of change, and some won with it while others hadn't. John Edwards frequently spoke of "change -- big change," but he didn't win the nomination in 2008.
What is perhaps most remarkable in all the post-mortems to the Clinton campaign is how little we have heard what is both the most obvious to the naked eye and the best supported by data: It's the emotion, stupid. The reason Hillary Clinton opened a large early lead against her Democratic rivals and seemed invincible was not that she is phenomenally competent and intelligent, which she is. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson are also phenomenally competent and intelligent. What launched her campaign were the emotional associations people had formed between eight years of the Clintons in the White House and eight years of peace and prosperity. I never heard her campaign complain loudly when journalists used the term "the Clintons," despite the firm conviction of many talking heads that Bill Clinton was a tremendous liability to his wife's campaign. They understood that she needed not just her rock-solid understanding of "the issues" but the power of association.
In fact, what led her to come roaring back -- too little, too late, it turned out --i n the last three months of the primaries was a failing economy that reminded blue collar and rural voters just how much their lives had improved during the Clinton years (reinforcing the emotional associations that had originally made her candidacy seem inevitable) and her relentless attacks on Obama. Those attacks drove her already high negatives up (a risk she had no choice but to take) but also drove his positives down and his negatives up (i.e., changing voters' gut-level feelings about him), and raising many Democrats' worries (fueled by the Jeremiah Wright story and his comments in "liberal San Francisco") about his capacity to lead, his capacity to win, and his capacity to defend himself against the attacks conservative groups will no doubt throw at him in what will likely be the dirtiest general election campaign in modern American history.
The survey data from the last forty years of presidential elections are crystal clear: "The issues" are a distant fourth as predictors of voting behavior. The best predictors are people's feelings toward the parties and their principles (which are obviously of less relevance in primary than general elections because the competitors draw on the same wellsprings of partisan sentiment). The next best predictors, and the ones of most relevance in the primaries, are the feelings the candidates elicit from voters. Next in line are voters' feelings toward the candidates' personal attributes. Among those personal attributes, the lowest on the list of predictors of voting is competence.
At base, Americans want to know three things about candidates: Do they share my values, do they care about people like me, and do I feel in my gut I can trust them to pursue those values and interests faithfully?
Hillary Clinton ran on issues and competence, focusing, like every Democrat who has failed to win the presidency in the last 40 years, on the factors least predictive of electoral success. She spent too little time creating a compelling, consistent personal narrative that could weave together her own life history with the state of a nation yearning for a different kind of leadership, and too little time attending to the negative stories told and retold about her during nearly two decades of savage Republican branding. She could have told the story of how she grew up in a traditional American -- and Republican -- home in Illinois; lived through the changes of the 1960s and learned the lessons we all learned as a nation, that we cannot be true to our national ideals while showing intolerance or prejudice toward anyone, whether women, African-Americans, or the conservative hate group de jure; but that she never forgot the traditional American values she learned at home that have been appropriated by Republicans but do not belong to them, such as hard work, personal responsibility, patriotism, and a commitment to our nation's security. A master narrative that wove together those elements would have provided a compelling alternative to the story of Hillary as triangulating, poll-driven opportunist that led many to distrust her.
Anyone who doubts that the same emotional dynamics that have, empirically, been central to the success or failure of presidential candidates over the last 40 years were central to Obama's defeat of the seemingly invincible Senator from New York should simply go back to the tapes of the Democratic primary debates and the Gallup polls from last summer through mid fall, when Obama was running a much more traditional, issues-oriented Democratic campaign -- as Hillary continued to rise in the polls, eventually breaking 50% among likely Democratic voters in October of 2007. But that all changed with his electrifying, game-changing performance at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Iowa. There, he stopped campaigning like Adlai Stevenson and started campaigning like Barack Obama, and the rest was history. After that point, there was nothing Hillary Clinton could do but to go negative, which took him down a notch but reinforced her already high negatives.
It's not that issues don't matter -- her Iraq vote, her Iran vote (which came around the same time as Obama's transformation in Iowa, and played into the narrative that she had learned nothing from her Iraq vote) -- or that her campaign didn't make mistakes, most notably its failure ever to settle on a compelling, genuine, consistent narrative about who she is and what she stands for (a strong commander in chief and a stateswoman with gravitas, then a woman who wasn't afraid to shed a tear in New Hampshire, and finally Rosie the Riveter when a tough populism seemed to be the order of the day).
But people don't vote by considering every issue singly and then consciously weighing the constellation of policies each candidate supports to see which candidate maximizes their self-interest. They summarize their attitudes toward a candidate via a gut-level feeling (e.g., "I find him incredibly inspiring," or "I just don't trust her"). That feeling (or, more accurately, that complex set of feelings) aggregates not only their judgments about the extent to which the candidate will likely look out for people like them and honor their values but also their sense of whether the candidate is genuine; whether the candidates seems defensive or unwilling to admit mistakes (as Hillary did in her responses on Iraq, which did more to associate her with George W. Bush, and hence to sabotage her change message, than anything else she ever said or did); or whether the candidate, attacks on the candidate, events of the day, or media coverage stir largely unconscious but sometimes conscious ambivalence or negative feelings toward the candidate's race, gender, or other factors most voters consciously eschew as influences on their votes.
So what when wrong? Hillary Clinton had the misfortune of running against a candidate too much like her husband in his extraordinary capacity to inspire.
As Bob Kerrey, tongue-in-cheek, summarized her biggest mistake in his op-ed in the New York Times, "She and President Clinton should have moved back to her home state after they left the White House. By doing so, she would have been elected the junior senator from Illinois in 2004, thereby reducing the chances that Mr. Obama would have been in a position to run against her."
Drew Westen, Ph.D., is professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University and founder of Westen Strategies, LLC. He is the author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, recently released in paperback with a postscript on the 2008 primaries.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The pledged delegate count was close enough at the end, it seems it was the campaign and not the candidate. Senator Clinton *could* have won the nomination, even with all of Obama's inspiration and connection with voters. Clinton was not the ideal national candidate, having poor speaking abilities and an at times abrasive personality. But with a better campaign, she could have won anyway.
Her main mistake was underestimating Obama. She thought, once the voting started, his supporters wouldn't show up. And she thought it would be over by Super Tuesday. Pride cometh before the fall.
There was also too much Bill Clinton. He should have praised Obama early on and not called him a "roll of the dice." As the face of the Democratic party, it was his job to be cheerleader for all the candidates, not attack dog.
Hillary Clinton broke the main rule of primary politics-- move in the direction of the party's base. She tried to run as a general election candidate even in Iowa, where she refused to apologize for her Iraq war vote.
Clinton could have won with a better campaign, but her disastrous campaign was in some ways a reflection of those flaws in her which are understandable, considering we all have them-- and few have had such a brilliant career in spite of such imperfections.
competent and intelligen
competent and intelligen
The Republicans won't lose to the newbie ... save your sarcasm
Republicans will lose because everyone has seen that they are liars. Obama could just wave occasionally and still win over McCain
Oh yes they will! Save your pie-in-the-sky.
At the end of the day it came down to message.
Hillary asked voters to empower her.
Obama asked voters to empower themselves and presented himself as their agent.
Obama is leading a movement. Hillary conducted a campaign.
I'm a 60 year old Vietnam Vet and I've waited my life for a candidate like Obama. He is by no means perfect - no one is - but he has the humility, vision, and courage to trust the people. Wisdom is not perfection - it is the ability to learn from mistakes and move ahead. It is the ability to see over the horizon and understand that few issues are black and white and within shades of gray there usually lies a greater truth.
His willingness to talk with our adversaries is part of that wisdom. The tragedy of our race is that we build monuments to those who win wars but none to those that prevent them. If we are willing to fight and kill another we should also be willing to talk to them.
Leadership is not choosing the easy path - it is choosing the path that will get us where we want to go.
Amen, Amen, Amen.
Until the very end, Hillary was about "me." Obama is about "we."
As Michael Moore concludes in Sicko, it's time for a "we" generation! We all know it. Grace, humility, honesty and an ability to inspire are sorely needed in our leaders.
Thank you! A "Victory" is not only military! The biggest victory is if obstacles are overcome with no loss of life or stature.
Thank you for your comments and your service. .
My gut said Hillary is out for herself. My gut said "birds of a feather flock together" and Penn, Wolfsen, McAuliff and Ickes are not birds I want in the White House. They are the Karl Roves of the DNC - - and they all surround her.
Every election is about gut reactions; one has to trust that the candidate will follow-through with what they say and in this environement of antagonism between the parties, we need someone who calmly reaches the common ground to get us moving forward - - my gut said Hillary is not that person.
When all was said and done; MI, Florida, the lack of graciousness on Tuesday night; popular vote vs delegates.
She a "Goldwater girl" and he trying to be post-racial.
HRC lost due to her tactics-
I was in her camp until South Carolina, when she and Bill, went "Dixie-crat"
and decided to use race as to win.
After losing N. Carolina, and they use their arrogance to tell African-Americans and others that they were disposible to Latinos etc. And continued to use the politics of separation to win.
Obama won because he out-smarted their campaign, pure and simple.
I just hope that in this post-race analysis, after the emotionality clears
that the media and everyone truthfully examine what happened.
HRC didn't lose because of race or sexism, remember Obama
has both strong talented women and men helping and working with him.
it was talent, being out-classed and being dirty
that lost HRC the race.
Actually, there was ONE other big reason I didn't vote Hilary. All her attempts to convinct Obama of guilt by associatio
meanwhile, she's on the corporate board of Walmart. Who REALLY terrorizes (in that they disrupt the economic and social stability of a region) small town America the most:
1. Richard Wright
2. Al Qaeda
3. Wallmart
For me, it be number 3
Richard Wright should be Jeremiah Wright
duh, thank you, my bad!
Thank you Mr Westin for what I feel has been the most on point, accurate portrayel of what happened this past primary season. For most issues I cared about both Hilary and Barack seemed to have identicle platorfirms, so what clinched it for me was two things:
1. The Iraq war and her subsequent comments regarding Iran.
2. Even though Barack and Hilary were saying the same things; when Hilary said it, I just plain didn't believe her. Whether it is a fair depiction or not, she just does not come across as genuine to me, whereas Barack Obama comes off as extremely genuine (for a politician at least).
I would have had no problems or reservations on supporting Hilary as a cadidate had she been the nominee, as I support almost all her platforms. But whenever she spoke, or debated, she could not seem to do so without that self satisfied sneer on her face. She always regarded Obama not as if he were her opponant, but her annoying teenage son trying to get the car for the night when he's supposed to be grounded. To me and the friends who I watched the debates with at my home found it EXTREMELY offputting, even Hilary supporters. Hilary and Obama have diametrically opposed speaking styles, and his is just plain better. And with someone like me, who likes both candidates about equally, an offputting personality is enough to tip the scales.
I talked to some people who don't follow politics very much. What I heard from them is less about his charisma and more about his even temper. They trusted his ability to stay calm and consistent and voted for him on that basis, since his policies aren't that much different from hers. This was both Republicans and Democrats.
Mairs - I've heard this a lot as well from people, even those who didn't vote Obama, that his ability to remain cool under pressure was very appealing.
"People didn't vote for Obama because they preferred his message of change to Hillary's message of experience. They preferred his message of change because in their gut they preferred Obama."
Exactly!!! Hillary had a charisma gap. Obama is in the same mold as Bill Clinton, JFK and even Jimmy Carter. Someone who can inspire and connect to the people. I think Hillary became a much better speaker, a much better candidate towards the end of the process but by then it was too late. I think the fact that she never had a serious challenge in her senatorial races hurt her. She never had to work hard before to get elected. Obama conversely lost his first race for a congressional seat and fought for his senate seat.
Hillary's biggest mistake was waiting for 2008. If she had run for President in 2004 she would have been the nominee instead of Kerry and she would have won. She wouldn't have rolled over the way he did. I think Hillary decided to play it safe. Get a little more time in the senate, the presidency would be open and the country would be hungry for change. She should have taken a page from Bill's book and challenged Bush at the end of his first unpopular turn the way Bill did Bush Sr. We would be talking about President Hillary today.
She voted for the Iraq war: end of story.
Agree with Sufi66.. That is where the story ends for most of us who didn't vote for Hillary...
Not for me. That's why I didn't vote for her in my state's primary, but that was on Super Tuesday, and I didn't have much else to go on. Since then, I saw how she campaigned against a truly GOOD man, who was running a truly GOOD campaign, and I didn't like it!
And this is why senators rarely win the presidency (except when all the candidates are senators!) They're open to fire for every vote they've ever made. Obama is lucky because he's spent most of his senate career campaigning for president.
I hate to keep harping on the same theme, but the fact is that Obama has failed to vote against a single defence appropriation bill involving the prosecution of the Iraq war since he's been a senator.
Once the war was started, I don't think it would have been appropriate for him to vote against the resources the troops on the front line needed, regardless of how he felt about the war itself. Now, he's got to figure out how to get us out of there without the whole thing blowing up in our faces. It's a messy cleanup job, but he seems to want to take it on. So, more power to him.
Initially I thought that Hillary came across as the more dynamic, charismatic candidate. She slipped in my estimation by showing herself to be intellectually disingenuous. Obama, on the other hand, stood the test of intellectual scrutiny. He didn't rely on spin, denial, and his ability to separate the distractions from the issues impressed me.
I turned against Hillary the night that she celebrated her "win" in Fl, after announcing publicly that the results would not count, signing agreements to that effect, and never once taking issue with the fact that Ickes, her top adviser, instigated the 100% sanctions against Fl and Mi.
I turned solidly for Obama after his race speech. I liked that he appealed to our reason as voters, and that he showed a confidence in the basic decency of people in an area- race relations- where decency has not often ruled the day.
Obama may have won many of his voters through charisma and charm but some of us still shine a harsh light of scrutiny on our choices. I voted for Bill C, and could see that his charm made him a winning candidate, but I never ever trusted that his words were more than a political speech. Obama is different. If you read about his life, what emerges is a man who is actually walking his talk. This rare quality isn't offered in a politician every decade.
"[Hillary's campaign failed] to settle on a compelling, genuine, consistent narrative about who she is and what she stands for ..."
Could that possibly be because she herself doesn't really know who she is and what she stands for? She gives me the impression of being a woman who might have once had principles and ideals, but has sacrificed them all to personal ambition.
A few hundred thousand Americans have actually been shot at in our many wars. It is a serious matter. When Hillary lied about ducking the sniper fire in Bosnia to boost her image with the voters she, when the lie was exposed, lost the votes of a Helluva lot of people who believe that is something you just don't lie about. It sure did it for me. I wouldn't vote for her, as the saying goes, for dogcatcher. Take it from a WW-ll Vet.
Most political actors at the highest level provide us with regular glimpses of being propelled by the demons of neediness, insecurity, entitlement, narcissism, rigidity and other dubious anxieties and personality traits.
But Obama's likability comes from a trait shared with Reagan and JFK -- he projects the image of a man who's entirely comfortable in his own skin. And we can't help liking him because of that.
This came home to me once again last week, when he announced he they were taking the weekend off to go home for a "date" with his wife. And there was never a moment of doubt in anyone's mind that he meant it, not conjured it up for political gain.
Would anyone have believed -- or even accepted -- those words coming from John McCain or Hillary Clinton? Or would we have rolled our eyes?
You have hit the nail on the head, Obama is a younger, black Ronald Reagan. And what did Reagan bring to this nation? He put us in more debt than all off the presidents before him, talked a big show with few specifics and no substance, and allowed a coup by Oliver North.
What a hysterically funny comparison, Reagan and Obama! Not even close!
Except that Reagan was also a buffoon who may have been suffering from the early symptoms of Alzheimer’s in his second term. Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer and the first head of the Harvard Law Review. To stretch the comparison any further than their shared likeability is silly.
Except for the fact that ronnie raygun said from day one that he would do exactly what happened, insofar as he would cut taxes, and that led to exactly what we have now!
By contrast, Obama has said point blank that we need to pay down the $10 TRILLION debt, of which 70% is caused directly by raygun, daddy, and the shrub!
Nice try, though!
"This came home to me once again last week, when he announced he they were taking the weekend off to go home for a "date" with his wife. And there was never a moment of doubt in anyone's mind that he meant it, not conjured it up for political gain."
Very well put! And I concur whole heartedly!!!
I find that as we all get a few days away from the end of the nomination campaign, we can take the time to better analyize the elements of the campaigns of both HRC and BO that worked and didn't. Like the investigation of an aircraft crash, it takes time and a thorugh investigation to determine the real reasons, perhaps multiple issues that led to that crash although some factors may appear earlier. The Democratic nomination process how HRC lost and BO won will probably be the subjects of a number of books, both for the masses and for college classes as well as studied by many political campaigns in the future.
While it do agree with your post there are many other reasons Hillary lost. People saw her for the liar she turned out to be, on so many issues. She seemed fake and her smile smile not genuine. She and Bill Clinton alienated blacks, early in her campaign and she contined to do so with divisive statements, all in a desperate attempt to discredit Obama, and gain certain votes. Because she and all of her campaign had underestimated Obama they hadn't planned well for a campaign that lasted after super Tuesday, she was forced to go negative which hurt her with some voters. Her sense of assumed entitlement to the presidency was also a big turnoff. And the list goes on. Mark Penn blames it on money but there is a reason people gave Obama more money, they liked him better. The Clinton camp needs to face the fact that Hillary's negatives far out weigh her positives.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
