Where Hillary Went Wrong: A Pre-Postmortem
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.
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
this is why Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee of the Dem Party
1: Mark Penn = Hubris
2: Howard Wolfson = Obnoxious
3: Terry McAuliffe = Arrogance
4: Bill Clinton = Selfishness
For someone who played gender politics - she let the men so her in --
that was "do her in" -- sorry for the type
Honestly, Hillary was counting on two things to deliver her the nomination, and they are as follows:
1. The Clinton name
2. The white majority
When things didn't go as plan, she panicked and injected racism and negativity because it's what she knows best.
Thanks Wisconsin!!
Attention all Starbucks Dems --
I am giving up my daily lattes until the Dem Convention to donate the money to give our guy the Mo to see him through Texas and Ohio.
Anyone interested in matching this challenge? Lattes in exchange for Keeping the Obama Momentum?
Clinton's mistakes are not strategic errors; they are character flaws. She did not underestimate her opponent and overestimate her own popularity by dumb luck. She has immense hubris, an overstated sense of entitlement, and an unfounded belief that her own intelligence, while impressive, trumps that of everyone she ever meets. Obama, meanwhile, has quietly outmaneuvered her and she has not come to grips with it.
Even this week, she admits she doesn't understand the Texas Primary system, she botched another smear campaign on Obama, and she made another antidemocratic statement about undermining Obama's elected delegates. If she continues down this path, the question will not be her 2008 presidential campaign, but if her political career can survive this debacle.
Right on! The next female to run will take a play from Obama's book and run and the politics of inclusion, rather than, the politics of "unless you vote for me you don't matter", i.e. African Americans, Men, Anyone under 60 years old - that were left out of her campaigning when she swung the other way.
Polls close in Wisconsin in 15 minutes. Then we can see where the jump to negative got HRC. If, contrary to expectation, it helps her pull off a win there, the memory of the false charge will come back to haunt her. It reinforces the notions that (1) Hillary will do anything to win, (2) The Clintons are dirty. (3) Old Style Politics is here to stay, (4) Hillary really doesn't have much positive to sell, or she wouldn't have needed to go negaqtive, and (5) where were her great new ideas? If this is what she meant by solving a problem, then I don't want to trust her with mine. Or my country's.
She will never be president. And shouldn't be.
The first conventions I remember were in 1952....Ad
Since then I have seen hundreds of candidates come and go. As for the 14 pairs (Reps-Dems) that have become nominees, there has not been a single solitary individual that has asked the people of the country to run for President "with" him....exc
ALL of the politicians have run as an entity seperate from the voters, except Mr. Barack Obama. He is, in essence, asking us to vote for ourselves because we are ALL invited to participate in the future of our country. Yes, he is going to be the leader, but we are being invited for the first time in my memory to include ourselves as members in the creation of our country's future ...even if we don't vote for him.
This is a brilliant, unique approach to the Presidency; and, oddly enough, it embodies the essence of what the Founding Fathers hoped to create. I have no earthly idea whether this is blue sky or an incredibly exciting reality...
Exactly right, "Notapathetic". I find the people who accuse Obama supporters of being "cultists" insulting. They tell us we should not believe what our own eyes tell us: that America is ready to lock arms and change the direction of poisonous partisanship that began in the late 80's, and rose to a crescendo in 2000. I don't think Clinton wants to change what has worked for them thus far, or even knows how to engage in any other way.
This has metastasized such that we are caught in polarized paralysis, exemplified by even the Roger Clemens/trainer issue. Somebody, PLEASE change the dynamic!
I like that this article recognizes that with many political failures, there is often an accumilation of mistakes, not just one or two mistakes. Clinton's position is weakened at the start from the many true and pumped up scandals of her husband Bill's administration as well as high negatives prior to the nomination elections hurting her.
I would also add another factor that I have discussed elsewhere for Clinton's campaign going wrong - it is the difference of style of Clinton vs. Obama. Clinton is too much of the arrogent 'I' and of wanting to impose a policy on the Congress and Senate on key issues. That will just lead to massive gridlock on those issues and turns off a lot of voters. Obama speaks in 'we' and to seek consensus on key issues, that the Congress and Senate will be key in developing the key policy decisions as they should and keeps them happy on both sides of the asile.
I find it really hard to believe that they actually had no plan for post-Feb 5. After reading this assertion in several places, though, the thing that came to my mind, assuming it's true, was a potential parallel between this and our non-existent planning for the occupation of Iraq. It appears that much as we were to be heralded as liberators and everything would just fall in place from there, her campaign felt certain enough that she would be carried to Denver on the winds of a Feb 5th victory that they decided to not even consider defeat.
If they really were so certain of victory that they did not have a plan, then this smells so much of Bush 43 that I don't know how anyone can vote for her and expect anything different than a president who will not listen to anything she doesn't want to hear leading to much the same result as Bush 43.
The assertion is true and comes from pretty much a direct quote from Hillary herself -- she fully expected to have this thing wrapped after the Feb 5 primaries. Not a good way to approach things.
I think she is used to having a political machine working behind her, pulling the strings as opposed to...I don't know...wor
I comment you on your article. A good read. Pin pointed accuracy of political savy truth. Great body structure throughout, to premise conclusion's power of persuasion.
I too both read and write alot of commentary, on variety of topics. Most or at nil lots of today's commentary. Is prejudicial rambling, lacking content structure to article's premise of truth conclusion. Or simply boring, amiss ability to hold reader's attention to finality.
I added you & Huffington Post to my daily favorites.
Good job! Refreshingly enjoyous!
Rev Ronnie Roy Sr.
Lillington NC
Minister & Free Lance Writer
Very interesting and delivered article. One "error" one might say that you didn't mention and in my opinion is only further propagated by such an unnecessary premature postmortem - the undying, unflinching and obsessive love of Obama by the mainstream media.
This is an obstacle the Clinton camp NEVER expected to this degree. The negativity and microscopic detail by which all the Clintons have been scrutinized is simply too large to ignore. It doesn't mean they deserved it but even if she doesn't get the nod as predicted here, the people have had a great disservice done to them. Elections are meant to be fair assessments of character and policy. She was not awarded that and god willing it isn't the case, the lack of scrutiny towards Obama may end up being just the thing that gets played out during the general election and we will end up with Democrats losing in November.
Obama is right to say that Clinton is as bad as the Republic spin machine but truth is, the Clintons were normally the story and not the issue. The Republicans will seize that - they are already starting to do that.
It's a shame that NO candidate on EITHER SIDE talks about the influence and power of MEDIA to decide everything!
Ya right on the media's power of persuasion to effect and actually elect candidates.
They took an immediate "hands-off" approach to Obam, due to his diversity of race, 1/2 causasian--1/2 black. Afraid to offend.
And also. Due to media's total godlessness abyss. They hated & still do hate Huckabee. Due strictly to his Godliness. Even when he was winning and closing the gap. They refused to cover his campaign, hid his rise, negated his wins effects, and self-media crowned McCain the imminent nominess. To influence effect in the voters mind. A vote for Huckabee is of no purpose.
It's AmeriKA. "Land of the free frawl and home of the depraved". Thus can't expect anything else.
Rev
So, aceof and poet, you are both saying that because you are unable to free yourself from media influence and therefore the rest of us are similiarly feeble-minded? Well, speaking for the few of us who are able to think on our own, I am choosing my candidate based on my views, feelings and moral compass. I don't need to rely on the media, right, left or center, to inform my decision. Sorry that you have been so influenced.
Ouch. Well, you missed my tone completely. It was actually not intended in any of the attack modes that you attribute to me. My comments weren't even directed at you personally, just the people who seem unable to get it. My amperstand comment was in jest only. But really, let's be more serious. If you really can't understand what the new kind of politics, practiced by Obama, represents then you just don't get it. And you won't find it in any of the places you are looking. Haven't you ever been inspired? What was it that took you to that different place? It wasn't written down somewhere. It was something you felt inside. Something, an intangible something, that moved you, that propelled you forward in a better way. That's what the Obama campaign is to me. Sorry for offending you, but I didn't call you any names, so who is really the snide and supercillious one? Off to vote. Aloha.
Maybe there's less to scrutinize in Obama's past. Afterall, he doesn't have Whitewater, the bombings in Iraq and the Sudan, the Buddhist monk fundraising scandal, the secret donors to the Clinton foundation, the Kazakhstani uranium deal, the cattle futures deal, Sandy Berger's document theft, Mark Penn's Atwaterian tactics, et al..
I also saw a reporter mention on Christ Matthews that he had been told by someone in the Clinton campaign that they were going to go after Obama's PLEDGED delegates!! The rest of the media is not reporting it but you just have to say, how low can she go?
Of course the campaign denied it and probably won't be able to try it now that it's public.
Excellent analysis, Mr. Loewe. The situation reminds of what Yamamoto said after Pearl Harbor about waking a sleeping giant. This time the giant is the ordinary people of this country and we will not be denied. We the people do not want the divisive politics we've been forced to endure. We want our representatives to work together on the problems facing our country and world.
What precisely are Obama's "new kind of politics"? This article doesn't explain what this phrase means & I am truly curious. I watch the news & read the paper (& checked out Obamas website), but I can't see anything "new" about the politics of any of these people running for president. There is nothing startling or innovative about any of their "plans", most of which they will never see come to fruition. They are all politicians to the core & will do anything, or say anything to get votes. Politics as usual. So whats "new"?
(love the amperstand, do we?) You can't find Obama's "new kind of politics" in an article, on the news, in the paper or on a website. You either get it or you don't. The most tangible aspect of 'it' is that all over America, people are getting up off their couches and, in record numbers, going out to vote. I'll be going in just a couple of hours to participate in my state's caucus. Never gone before. He makes you want to participate in your government, recognize your own responsibility to do more and acknowledge the challenges ahead. My only suggestion to you is to do the one thing you don't appear to have done... listen.
No, I do love any type of punctuation; furthermore, that's not what my post was about. I do dislike sarcasm and spitefulness and I have seen plenty of both on Huffpo lately. Your response, delivered in what I can only describe as a snide, supercilious tone, doesn't answer my question at all. I like both Obama and Clinton, but I have had enough of the strangely divisive, combative attitudes of the Obama supporters. You are as rude, and demeaning as the Republicans. I intend to do the opposite of your suggestion and tune out. I've heard enough from all of you and it certainly isn't the encouraging or welcoming message one would expect from people who claim to be about "change" and unity.
P.S. I'm a teacher and have very little time to spend on my couch!
No Bushs and Clintons? That alone would be new.
It was really nice to read all of these posts without any of the nastiness I usually come across in the comment section of most blogs. It's interesting to read others' views but usually I can't get very far until I just have to go. I do hope that Americans are smart enough to know what's actually going on with the Clintons' "hysteria.
This is an excellent analysis of the "horse race" analysis of political campaigning, but it's interesting to me that nowhere do I see the slightest mention of Clinton's petulant (and dishonest) refusal to acknowledge that several of her Senate votes were egregiously wrong and grossly anti-Democratic, and that she would work hard to undo the harm done by those same votes.
I'm sure I'm not the only one for whom this was/is a primordial factor in opposing the very notion of a Hillary Clinton presidency. The rest is just further aggravation of her main primary problem, running as a Democrat.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
