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
Wrong. She lost BECAUSE she came with Bill.
This is a breath of fresh air admist all of the eulogies of Clinton's campaign. Obama definitely benefitted from the varied mistakes made by Senator Clinton, President Clinton, Mark Penn, etc.,
But, he deserves credit for running an outstanding campaign that broke records with money raised, volunteers and voter turnout. It can be said that she continuously lost votes (if we look at the early polls) and Obama continued to gain. All the mistakes in the world would not amount to the inevitable candidate's loss. It took an inspirational pol coupled with the best advisors and the AMERICAN people to beat the Clinton Machine.
Thanks. Ye, I have to say that I would like to be done now with all the eulogies of HRC's campaign. Obam.a deserves some of the attention now, I should think. I would really appreciate seeing some more articles about what he did right - the kind of campaign he ran, the caliber of people he surrounded himself with, the incredible organization that was created. What he did to beat the Clinto n machine was quite impressive.
It is surprising how every one seem to avoid the real reason for Sen. Clinton's loss. I would say, to recycle a well worn phrase, ‘it is the politics, stupid’. Yes, she lost because of her political views that turned out to be very consistent with her personality. Her support of the Iraq war, and her general militarism presented her as a closet neoconservative, garnished with the opportunism of many Democratic Party leaders: the need to ‘look tough’ on national security. Remember her 'bravery' when she landed in Bosnia under heavy fire? All her other opportunistic policies (from crediting McCain to pandering on gas tax) exposed her as a run of the mill politician who would say anything to get elected. The progressives were able to mobilize a critical mass to keep this aspect of her in the forefront to sustain doubts about her integrity in public mind. It is because of this, not because of genderism, she lost. On the other hand, Sen. Obama, whatever he might do once he is elected, during the primaries, did not come out as another opportunist Democrat, and won in spite of racism. Politicians should take note: honesty is in great deamnd!
Great post.
Many things went wrong:
1. She voted to go to war because it seemed politically expedient (she wasn't alone.)
2. She believed the hype and didn't campaign as a left leaning democrat, she was already in the general election campaigning against Rudy, Mitt & McCain.
3. Picked the wrong lobbyists to run her campaign.
4. Ex-presidents are supposed to be statesmen, they generally don't even go after presidents of the opposition. Naturally everyone understands that he would lavish praise on Hillary and explain why should would be the best president. But to have a former president go so negative on a fellow democrat trying to run an idealistic campaign and engage the nation's youth, it was a sad and shameful spectacle, and the beginning of a strategy of: we can't win enough delegates, so we have to make him unelectable and sway the superdelegates to our side.
5. Yes the MSM were misogynistic in their coverage, but I don't think anyone could seriously claim that Obama was. Contrast that with, he's not a Muslim - as far as I know, or Bill in SC.
Personally, I started out thinking, Edwards, Clinton, Obama - they are all great, I could get behind any one of them. It saddens me so, if Hillary had just stayed positive and on the high road it would be a no-brainer for her to be on the ticket. So yes, a lot did go wrong.
It's the emotion but it's also the people. The story on every MSM broadcast should be the O bama CAMPAIGN and how they used the grassroots, that's the history that he made. He reminded everyone that the people really do have the power.
Sadly, it isn't the story yet. I'm patiently waiting for the Hilla-ry buzz to simmer down. But, there are those who must continue to fan the flame.
Agreed, noting went wrong... just something went very right.... Obama was a breath of fresh air who ran an amazing campaign..
And finally, the country is tired of the DRAMA of the Clintons..
"lets go back to the 90s"
...i.e., building a bridge back to the 20th century.
Polls were showing over 60% of Americans uite simply did not trust Senator Clinton. I am sure this had something to do with the final result!
This is a smart analysis that misses one small point.
Starting out, millions of us were looking for an alternative to Hillary because we were very wary of her support for the War on Iraq. We knew that not only did she vote FOR the war, she was an enthusiastic supporter for several years.
As far as I was concerned, that made her untenable as someone I could get excited about. So, I came into this looking for an alternative to her.
I fell hard for Obama.
I voted FOR Obama.
There is no comparison. It's a powerful gut feeling that this guy is someone I can trust.
He hasn't disappointed me yet
Good points made in this article. I think that there is a generational element that played in this primary. Obama really did attract a newgeneration of voters. The future after all, belongs to them. The resisistance we saw was the older generation that is stuck in the past and change is not so comfortable as one gets older. It has been new vs. old and they all bring something different. Thanks to the new young voters and their enthusiasm to get involved. Bill Clinton got it wrong -when on the campaign trail he made reference to young people not knowing how to vote where as older people looked at what is important. Now, I say -"What a fairytale"-young folks know how to make good decisions.
Oh come on.
Bill was so charismatic that his party suffered catastrophic losses up and down ticket across the nation. Meanwhile Obama is opening doors and lifting up Democrats everywhere and at ever level where Bill lost them.
Hillary didn't surge at the end. Once the Repub nomination was settled, suddenly Obama had 2 opponents fighting him poersonally. He, knowing he wasn't going to be beaten for the nomination, moved on to fighting only one of them for the general election. You can say he stumbled at the end of the nomination race but he mostly wasn't competing there any more.
Stupid, it wasn't the emotion, it was the superior political machine built by Obama who could see a party machine existing in thin near-future air where the Clintons and Republicans and media could not. The media still can't see it.
He beat the Clintons both at their game of drawing swing voters, and also at the upcoming game which is mobilizing youth and other historic low-participation voters.
I like your analysis. ;-)
Excellent. You are right...Hi
I would be willing to forgive her even those things in the name of REAL party unity, but she still has a blog on her website that gives her supporters the opportunity to come together and plot absurd things like getting her nomnated for VP, then voting for McCain and HER as a way to shut Obama out to punish him for having won the nomination. Haven't those people ever voted before and SEEN the ballot....
Thank you, Dawlishgal. You said it right!!. It was not a surge at the end; but rather the 'Operation chaos' in effect and the fact that it was always 2 to 1. McCain never attacked Hillary, (and that's when I began to realize that he wanted Hillary to win so he could have a better chance of winning in the GE) but both he and Hillary never ceased attacking Obama.
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GOD BLESS OBAMA!!
" ... her blatantly racist statements, including the one about "hardworking Americans, white Americans.
Yeah, that wasn't exactly subtle, was it? In the end I think statements like that cost her more white votes than they won. It isn't 1980 anymore and playing the racism card isn't acceptable, except in a few benighted backwaters of Appalachia and the South. I hope the Repukelicans make the mistake of trying it -- I really do.
"an accident of the calendar..
Yes, most 'analysts' are not giving Barack Obama enough credit. Thanks for doing so.
In fact, many mention that she made him a better candidate but the truth is that they made each other better. No doubt about it. She's better now than she was before facing Obama. Now she can use her new skills to get him in the white house!
Great Write-up.
Obama 08
I recently found myself in a lobby with an "old" (January) news magazine featuring Hillary on the cover and the headline "Hillary Finds Her Voice." It came after her New Hampshire comeback. I found it interesting because a lot of people now are referring to the populist note she sounded in the last couple of months of the campaign as the voice she should have found earlier.
Bottom line is this. The voice of Barack Obama that we read in "Dreams From My Father" sounds very much to me like the voice I read in his 2002 speech about Iraq and the 2004 speech that captured everybody's attention at the last convention. The stump speech I heard for the first time at the Jackson-Jefferson Dinner in Iowa was consistent with that as was his victory speech in Iowa, and his concession speech in New Hampshire that first gave us, "Yes We Can." There was nothing in any of his other victory or concession speeches inconsistant with those, nor with the race speech in Philadelphia.
My point is, while Hillary, a famous icon we've known for years kept finding and redefining her "voice" Obama never lost his. He's been speaking of unity, hope and change from the beginning.
And what exactly were these voices Hillary was finding? In New Hampshire, the big revelation was that she could shed a tear. In March it was that she could pander to the less educated.
Incredibly well said. He wasn't in search of a message. He seemed from the start like a genuine, steady, thoughtful guy with a vision.
This is far and away the best analysis of the Democratic primary that I have seen so far. But there are a couple of refinements that I would add.
The most important is that peoples' gut/emotional feelings may actually be a reasonable and logical basis for making a complicated decision such as selecting the next President of the United States even though the previous two election cycles indicate otherwise.
The other point is that the emotions of the primary were clearly a significant battlefield and the reason that Obama was better able to make an emotional appeal to the electorate is that he was better able to dispel the negative emotions his opponents were trying to paint him with while Clinton seemed to reinforce her own negatives (usually by admitting mistakes too little and too late).
I honestly believe that Obama has an extraordinary amount of honesty and integrity (especially when compared to most other politicians). I think this is why his speeches can be so powerful even though it can be a bit of a handicap in debates.
IMO, this is the heart of the change Obama talks about and it is the reason he was able to win the Democratic nomination on the battlefield of the emotions.
Good point at he end, but the way I heard it was that she was not welcome in Illinois, because she would not have worked her way up, which is the way you earn respect in Illinois. And by the way is the way Senator Obama did it. He worked his way up.
Yes, Obama's an extraordinary candidate, but to say Clinton didn't make mistakes is not true
The biggest were:
--overconfidence. She said she was the "inevitable" nominee, that it would be "over by Super Tuesday", and that she could win the big states (where money and the political establishment would help) and ignore the caucuses. She (and Penn) were wrong.
--poor planning. Sitting out the caucuses. Not even knowing how they work (like in Texas). Sloppy. Careless.
--bad money management. $180 million gone and Hillary blames Solis-Doyle? Then asks BILL to come and try and sort out the books? That's not good leadership.
--OLD ways. Big donors, old loyalists, political connections who owe favors, underutilizing the internet
--Financial Impropriety. Bill is a lobbyist for a foreign government ($800,000 from Colombia). He lobbies for Dubai. There's the hidden library donor list. The missing 2007 tax returns. Obama didn't use them, but they are BIG credibility problems
--Trustworthiness. Bosnia. Ireland. CAFTA and Penn & Bill. NAFTA flip-flopping and misrepresentation. Her comments in support of Bush. Iraqi war vote(s). "Obliterating Iran".
--Bad Management. Infighting. Incompetence, including money. Polling and pandering. Secrecy at the top, and--from Bill, almost Nixon-level paranoia.
--Debts. Really. You campaign for the "working man and woman" but don't pay the bills you owe them that they DEPEND on for their LIVELIHOOD? This looked bad.
So many errors, big and small. True, Obama didn't use this, but Rove and the Republicans would not have been so genteel..
So very true. I agree w your points. Obama did not go negative on HRC at any time except at one debate when he shot back to her about her corporate lawyering for Walmart. He stayed positive while she came out shooting at him with both barrels. i.e. Rev Wright, Renzo, 'bitter' comments, only she and McCain are qualified to be president, white working class won't vote for him, and many more.
Most interestingly and not discussed is that HRC voters' margins grew after McCain won the Republicans nomination. There was an increase in the number of voters who would not vote for Obama if HRC didn't win. Could this 'operation chaos' project ran by Russ L. have worked more than being reported? It's a given that the Repubs wanted to keep the Dems primary going and in the end run against her in the GE.
It is clear you did not pay attention during the campaign if you believe Obama never went negative. IN fact, Obama went negative first, went personal first.
In Dec. 07 Obama attacked Ms. CLinton on a negative and personal level. He later called her a liar for truthful statements she had made concerning the number of people covered by her health care plan. He lied about her in order to cover his lie that his plan would cover as many people for less money. He went negative when he called the Clintons racists. He was negative when he had his campaign guru blame Ms. Clinton for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. This attack makes the Obama response to Ms. Clinton's historically accurate rremark abot RFK especially hypocritical.
The facts of this campaign are not the facts you have presented. And it is a shame Obama supporters are so unable to see their candidate with even a minimum of reality.
"Operation Chaos" was nothing more than a smokescreen designed to explain away all the bona-fide defections of Republicans and Independents toward the Democratic Party. Rush's job was to make it *seem* like these defections were the intentional impetus of a Republican operation.
I love how you listed "bad management' twice. It deserves to be noted twice, as it was one of her BIGGEST flaws.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
