Even if Hillary is able to confound expectations and pull off a truly improbable victory over Obama, there will still have been a series of serious strategic and tactical mistakes, all of which contributed to her current position. Should she win, it will be despite these errors; more likely, they will bear the responsibility for her loss.
Inevitability
Early in the campaign, Clinton surrogates touted large national leads and a well-tested political machine to push the argument that Clinton's nomination was inevitable. Memo after memo, Mark Penn highlighted national and early state polls that showed Hillary with substantial leads. The logic was to make Obama seem defeated before the race had begun, painting all to follow as a pro forma exercise in democracy that would ultimately end, as expected, with Hillary as the nominee. The media generally peddled the Clinton campaign narrative verbatim, allowing the hypnotic tone of national poll numbers to seep a few layers too deep.
Yet all the while, the Iowa caucuses were a three-way race. Hillary was up by dramatic margins almost everywhere, but in the first contest, it was always close. The possibility of Obama winning Iowa was very real, very early, and the Clinton campaign simply failed to acknowledge that. Obama outraised Hillary in the first quarter of fundraising, and brought on famed organizer Paul Tewes to run Iowa, the same man who maneuvered Al Gore to victory there eight years earlier.
There was every reason to believe that Obama would have the money and organizational resources to compete at the highest level in Iowa. Having seen Iowa skyrocket John Kerry to the nomination, Obama would spend heavily there. And with his unmatchable ability to draw enormous crowds, one could have expected that his organization would turnout supporters in droves. Yet the Clinton campaign, drunk on their own narrative of inevitability, never took the possibility seriously. Instead of playing to her strengths, Hillary's inevitability argument continued to feed her biggest weakness - Iowa. The scale of the upset by Obama in Iowa was enormous, amplified by Hillary's own message. The narrative out of Iowa was not that the race had always been close, and thus the win not entirely earth-shaking. Instead, Obama had defeated Hillary The Inevitable.
Change vs. Experience
One of the most difficult places candidates can find themselves in is believing they are winning a political fight that they're losing. For Hillary, the change vs. experience argument became that problem. The central message of the Clinton campaign was that, unlike Obama, she had the experience necessary for the presidency. As the narrative took hold, voters almost universally accepted Hillary as having greater experience than Obama. And because her national leads were so significant for so long, she and her campaign mistakenly believed that she was winning the debate.
In reality, Clinton's failure on this front was catastrophic. She and her surrogates allowed the media (they often assisted) to portray the race in binary terms: change versus experience. In doing so, she ceded "change" to Barack Obama almost instantly, framing her argument in such a way as to reinforce his embodiment of change with every allusion to her experience. Hillary successfully defined herself as the experienced candidate, but allowed Obama to take ownership of the other side of that coin.
She won the losing side of a debate she framed herself.
The False Hopes Argument
Finding herself in an unexpected battle for nomination, Hillary and her campaign reframed their attack on Obama, arguing not just that he lacked experience, but that he was an empty suit, full of rhetoric and cadence, but not much else. More than anything else, the problem with this argument was that it was less of an attack on Obama and more of an attack on Obama supporters. They had been duped, she was arguing, allowing their hope to be unrealistically inflated, and were in for a wake-up call if they didn't heed her advice. The attack instantly struck a chord, an offensive condescension that seemed misplaced and unfair. Without skipping a beat, Obama's speechwriters responded by capturing the belittlement felt by his audience: "In the unlikely story of America," Obama proclaimed, "there is nothing false about hope."
Hillary failed to recognize, late in the game, that her victory would depend not just on winning undecided voters, but on convincing some Obama supporters to realign. Rather than dismissing their enthusiasm, she could have empathized with it.
While hope and change are the mantra of the Obama movement, at its core, it is undergirded by trust. Obama supporters trust him, and he has gone a long way to cultivate that trust. The extraordinary thing about Barack Obama is not the poetry with which he aspires to hope, change, and political realignment: it is that fundamentally, people believe him. Hillary needed to attack Obama to overtake him, but that attack should have been aimed at diminishing his credibility. Had she framed the debate around whether Obama was trustworthy or not, she would have put him in a defensive position that may have proved more effective.
Showcasing the Old Kind of Politics
The Clinton campaign failed to recognize the allure of Obama's "new kind of politics." Universally, the American people voiced cynicism about Washington politics and the current state of affairs. Among independents from all across the spectrum, the one thing they all share is enough frustration with the party system to decline to state an allegiance. For Obama to be successful in winning the nomination on a "new kind of politics," he would have to paint Clinton as a representation of the politics of old. She should have anticipated this, and been cognizant not to showcase herself as the embodiment of a distasteful political system. And yet, over and over again, she made tactical decisions that solidified his narrative.
She chose to accept lobbyist money at a time when her victory was being cast as so assured, that it remained unclear why she needed it. In South Carolina, she and her husband injected race into the campaign. What was so distasteful was not that the Clintons were racist. On the contrary, it was that they weren't racist, but were perfectly willing to meddle with race if there was a chance it would translate into political currency. So started the Obama message that Hillary "will do anything" to win. And it resonated.
In the twilight of her campaign, Hillary has become the champion of backroom politics in a way that few could have expected. In recognition of her nearly insurmountable climb back to the lead, Hillary is arguing that the Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated, a move that is so calculating and disingenuous, that it can be objectively described as an attempt to steal the election. And if that weren't enough, she is arguing that the super delegates should vote for her, regardless of the will of the people. She has said that "super delegates are part of the process for a reason," but refuses to acknowledge that the reason is to subvert the people's choice. In a campaign about old politics vs. new, she has allowed herself to personify all that is old.
Post February 5th Planning
The Clinton campaign failed to recognize that, if the race were to continue past February 5th, momentum would be defined by the delegate counts. It seems as though the Clinton campaign did almost no planning for post-February 5th, and that when they did plan, they applied the campaigns pre-February 5th dynamics to the calculation. Nevada was a victory for Hillary during the early-state process because she won the popular vote. In a post-February 5th world, it would have been a loss, the result of losing the delegate count.
The Clintons barely contested the caucus states, allowing Barack Obama's superior Iowa-style organization to run up massive victories and net more delegates than either campaign anticipated. She ceded the entire month of February to Barack Obama, save the possibility of Wisconsin, where she has displayed a half-hearted effort. Even now, her firewall strategy focuses on Ohio and Texas, despite the reality that wins for her in either state are unlikely to result in a sizeable gain in net delegates. The formula for victory has changed, but the Clinton campaign has not responded.
A Missing Shake-Up
Immediately after the Iowa loss, the campaign should have had a dramatic shake-up at the top. Ultimately, that shake-up didn't occur until after February 5th, and wasn't sweeping enough. Patti Solis Doyle had mismanaged the Clinton campaign to be sure, spending $175 million with incredible speed. But the campaign had been seriously mismanaged from a strategy perspective, and even today, those same senior strategists are calling the shots.
Mark Penn applied his microtrend philosophy to a macrotrend election. In an election about big themes and unifying ideas, his methodical niching of the voting public completely misread the moment. Later in the campaign, at a time when all indications were that Hillary needed to shift message and focus, Penn relied on a "stay the course" strategy. When Hillary pulled an upset in New Hampshire, Penn misread the results, assuming that "stay the course" had worked. In actuality, it was likely her tears that worked, the first truly honest moment in her campaign. And though she claimed to have found her voice in her New Hampshire victory, that voice was soon shelved, replaced by the same old tone and message and style. The scale of Penn's failure cannot be understated. The fact that he is still at the helm is helping to put the final touches on the Clinton campaign obituary.
The Co-Presidency
The scope of the damage caused by Bill Clinton's South Carolina meltdown is unknowable. But judging from the depths to which the Clinton campaign has suffered since, this was a Dean-scream moment to be sure, stretched out over a much longer period of time. Bill Clinton did so many things wrong in South Carolina: he injected race into the campaign with ease, he became an aggressive attack dog, making himself appear shockingly unpresidential. But more than anything, he introduced the notion that he could not be controlled, that Hillary was either willing to have him campaign as an equal, or powerless to stop it. And that ultimately, her presidency would be his. Even for those who approved highly of President Clinton, the notion was displeasing and particularly anti-feminist. The idea that Hillary would need to be dragged to the finish line by her husband was not a good statement about women. And it didn't resonate well. It's hard to imagine that Hillary (or Bill) will ever be able to reverse that perception.
The nomination race isn't over, but as I've argued, it's far closer to being over than most think. If Hillary does ultimately lose the race, it will be for a combination of reasons - not just because she faced the greatest campaigner in a generation, but because she made a series of strategic and tactical blunders along the way.
Her argument about experience lost because it was based on a lie. She didn't think we'd figure it out. Hillary Clinton spent her working years in a law firm representating real estate swindlers and S&L con men. She has one term in the senate. That's it. It is what it is.
When she claims that she was the co-governor of Arkansas and co-president of the U.S., she is lying. She was never governor or president. She was the wife. She accompanied her husband on his business trips. Her efforts to elevate her role were seen by the public as a fraud.
Hillary Clinton also ran as the bully. She and her husband went to the major corporate CEOs and party insiders and locked up support, supposedly threatening people that if they gave to anyone other than Hillary they would face bad consequences.
Then she and Bill ran around the country broadcasting the fact that they both have taken money from every big business in this country. And therefore, they bought the nomination and no one could stop them. They are bullies, they sounded like bullies, and nobody likes a bully.
Look who Hillary hired to run her campaign? Scum. Union-busters. Money whores. It was her decision. And it's a good reflection of who she would have put in charge of the country if she had won.
And then in the last few months, she changes her theme every day. She's experience. No she's change. Now she's the war president, the commander in chief. Now she's the tattle-tale. Now she's the racist. Now she's the weepy lady.
I understand her support now consists of lower-income uneducated old women. My money's on the old ladies, though, I'll think they'll catch on pretty soon. Then Hillary will have no supporters, which is exactly what she deserves.
Bill's presidency brought her older and (non-African American) minority voters. Her gender brought her female voters.
But she didn't connect with voters who didn't possess an emotional connection to Bill Clinton's presidency.
The singular moment when she did connect with voters was in that New Hampshire diner. There, you sensed that she cared about the voter more than her campaign. One moment. It was pivotal. Her decision there determined the fate of her campaign.
Hindsight. What if, after that moment, Hillary had...
Reduced the size of gatherings; allowed Obama the rock star stage; retained for herself intimate moments of listening to the needs of voters;
Framed herself as the elder statesman; dignified; experienced; inspired;
Left all attacks to surrogates;
Told Bill it was her race, not his; kept him off the stage, except when accompanying her;
Acknowledged the desire for hope; for change; for bi-partisanship; and crafted a message that addressed these issues in a way that she was uniquely qualified to do;
What if?
Despite God knows how many posts on Huffington, Hillary's failed campaign isn't the result of sexism. Her failure is the result of a campaign that misread the mood of the country and was too inflexible to adapt. They had their moment in New Hampshire. That moment was an epiphany for all of us, and possibly her campaign. But the campaign was too inflexible to recraft her message accordingly.
Hillary didn't lose because she is female, 60 years old, or even because she is Bill Clinton's wife (although that damage is incalculable). She lost because she was unable to connect with electorate.
Seems Her msisteps and even Obamas corruption in Chicago, noe his "misspeaks" his obviouos positon flaws, make no difference to the media.
The threats of riots by his supporters are not mentioned just brushed away yet any word sentence facial expression by Mrs Clinton her husband or supporters are scrutinised to the max.
Obama is a media creation of the far left and it shows.
However, being from Chicago -- before you call Obama "corrupt", perhaps you'd like to check a little-reported (nationally) story this week: The bottom fell out of the Rezko charges against Obama. The people he bought the house from, who did not want to get involved, stepped up because they couldn't allow the lies that were being told about the purchase. Rezko had nothing to do with the purchase of the house; there were several rounds of counter-offers between the sellers and the Obamas, and the Obamas paid the highest price offered. End of story.
Now, do you really want to go down the road of shady campaign donors? Can the Clintons win that argument with a straight face? Obama returned every dime -- every dime -- given to him by Rezko. Clinton finally had to give back the personal money given by Henry Hsu; and I don't know if she returned the $850,000 that he bundled for her.
When it comes to campaign financing, the Clintons don't want to open that door.
When you whine about Clinton-haters, don't be so free with Obama-hating attacks like "corrupt."
The more the Clintons act like Karl Rove is running their campaign, the less respect I have for them. I defended them for years and I'm weary of it.
Fact is she was singled out by the entire Dem field and the entire GOP field as the most evil human on the planet.The media seem more than egar to help out.
Edwards stayed in until he had destroyed her with his losing angry message.Obama was no where to be seen.
She was so damaged by the attacks from both the right and the left, and with Obama's playing of the race card and the media hysteria over any comment made by Bill Clinton as racsit what would one expect.Obamas support by blacks in meaningless GOP states in the general along with the influence of GOP and independants in open primaries has been to much to overcome.
I think both Hillary should withdraw and Bill shoulds stay away from the convention and leave the nom to Obama, Ted (twofaced) Keenedy , Ophera and the high schools kids supporting Obama.
THe fiasco to follow will be quite the joke.
Watching the Daley/Pelosi wing of the DNC self destruck will be worth it.
I think the GOP should be quite happy to run against this lot.
Everyone should be concerned that by tearing down Obama instead of making a resonating, positive case for your presidency, the Clintons are doing McCain's work for them. If they can't have the presidency, then no democrat should have it. Do we really want to extend the mean-spiritedness we've had to endure for the last eight years, and the damage it has done to our country?
With all her "experience" she couldn't do a better job of assessing this campaign? How does that speak to her superior judgment?
The most laughable statement I read today in a news story: Hillary actually said, "well, I wasn't in the Senate to vote on NAFTA." That she uses those years as her "experience", stumped for NAFTA, pushed for NAFTA, and now she says that doesn't count because she wasn't around to vote for it?
Is that not the end of experience argument?
If she had not signed the pledge, to the tin pot dictators in NH and Iowa and their new found allies, Clinton could have forced a showdown in the two reformist states, particularly Michigan, and kept them in the media dialog. Instead millions were disenfranchised, fatally wounding the campaign of the "traditional" Democratic candidate. By doing the right thing, and directly standing up for the rights of voters in Michigan and Florida she could have taken upon herself the fight for change, and justice. She would have been the true insurgent on the side of the reformist Levin of Michigan. Instead she comes off as a mere opportunist, while the anti-democratic DNC is leveraged by the Obama Camp, who took the Clinton weakness as an opportunity to rub salt in the wounds and deliver a coup de gras to michigan voters by sabotaging the ballot. Dean and Obama will have to rely on the other 48 states in the general, they have already ceded MI and FL in their quest for the democratic nomination.
The fascists er Repubs are the real threat to our democracy.
obama will not bring enough change. they should all be ran out of town and start over with a revised constitution like term limits for congress and no bush's allowed to get near white house.
that crime family has done enough damage to last a century.
obama must show mc war hugging bush in every commerical during general election.
that is a classic a little guy war hero sucking up. should have contest to put a caption on that picture of mc war mc cain hugging bush.
sad day in american politics that pic says it all about wash politics.