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.

Comments

[SamThornton]

While it may be correct to point out that Mark Penn, Patti Solis Doyle, and Bill Clinton bear responsibility for many of the Clinton campaign missteps, the fact remains this is Hillary's campaign and the ultimate responsibility for the leaden rhetoric, tone-deaf stabs at Obama, and strategic blunders fall on her alone.

If Sen. Clinton is the nominee (and provided the nomination wasn't stolen), I'll probably vote for her. However, in contemplating just what sort of role her husband might play in the White House, I'm growing increasingly uneasy.

Bill Clinton is no shrinking violet and it's doubtful he would be rearranging doilies in the West Wing. It seems likely he would probably act as a sort of co-president, a powerful executive immune from the oversight the Bush Administration has proved is required to maintain a functioning democracy. Some might see this as an advantage for Clinton and Democrats. I do not. The more I contemplate the scenario, the more disquieting I find it.

[HansUnfeit]

Don't count her out yet. A lot of the slickness of Willy rubbed off on her over the years!

[ystasino]

Monday-morning armchair QB rehashing stories full of rationalization and always missing the point:

Obama understands bottom-down organizing, is relatively clean and can talk a good game. In this election people are seriously fed up and Obama recognized this strategic advantage.

Clinton is a top down executive who does not believe in organizing has a long record and is average on the stump.

The results we are seeing are a direct function of who the candidates are, not some rationalized poetry.

[Clinton]

The hope is that after HRC loses we won't have to hear from the Clintons anymore. They are an embarrassment.

[timm0]

"She and her surrogates allowed the media (they often assisted) to portray the race in binary terms: change versus experience."

With you on virtually all of your analysis, but this is a little out of context. When there were 8+/- candidates, the race was not at all in those terms. Of the early candidates, those with the least experience as elected officials were HRC (the least) and Obama (second to least). This only emerged after all the others drifted out.

There are many ways to interpret the meaning of the "experience" factor, but in the least, any sane campaign insider would have to see that the fact that the race ended up being between the two LEAST experienced of the class was a big, bright red flag reading, 'experience is NOT an issue for 2008!'

Total incompetence - fueled by arrogance and ignorance.

[BitJam]

Obama has spent more years in elected office than either Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards.

[realistxxx]

"Total incompetence - fueled by arrogance and ignorance"

Hmmmmmmm sounds alot like the last 8 years.

Pass.

[barackoblogger]

The reason that the Clinton campaign doesn't have a message yet, is because they can't reveal the real, unspoken message.

1. Vote for me because of Bill.

2. Vote for me because I'm a woman.

[Moose49]

3. Vote for me because, if you don't, you don't matter.

[Independent007]

Vote for me or else Jesse Jackson will win the election.

[S1m0n]

Her strategic blindness goes much farther back than that; all the way to her support for the war in Iraq. It's hard to tell what she thought she was doing by supporting the war, but it was obvious with only a few seconds thought that there would be NO political payoff to a democrat for backing the war: Iraq was Bush's war, and for as long as the public remained in support of that war, any and all political benefit would go to Bush, not Hillary. America supports the quarterback, not the cheerleader(s).

So the only position on the war that held any promise of a payoff was to get ahead of the public in opposing the war, and wait for public opinion to catch up. This was an event so likely as to be inevitible, so the risk wasn't great. There was no end of clear-eyed analysis which accurately forecast the awaiting disaster (some from GHW Bush and even an earlier incarnation of Dick Cheney). That the invasion would turn into a quagmire was foreordained.

But Hillary missed this. Coupled with the strategic blunders committed in her presidential campaign, enumerated above, a clear picture is beginning to emerge--Hillary is to 'strategy' what Dubya is to 'eloquent'.

[UsuallyWrong]

I agree, but her campaign for the presidency started when she called a real estate agent in NY. It seems to me if she assumed the Dem nomination was hers - Voting for the war would pay off in the general election.

[RickO]

That's a great post. Hillary may have had some "help" by those who try to cast Obama supporters as cult followers. As an Obama supporter, I really resent that because I think Obama is doing precisely what a presidential candidate should do. Rather than parsing policy details, he is building enthusiasm, motivation and sense of hope. Those are powerful forces and anyone who enters office these days needs to come with as much of the public as he or she can. The president does not wield a magic policy wand, which makes campaign promises hollow and pointless, unless that promise is to simply act in good faith in the best interest of all of us and to represent us to the world as the genuine beacon of hope we all want ourselves to be. Obama has been very successful at this and, I trust him. I respect Hillary and think she's one of the smartest people around, but that not all it takes.

[gcg737]

Great article! In a nutshell, Hillary Clinton has run her campaign into the ground but must now be trusted to run the country out of a recession (potentially a depression) with her powerful, uplifting message of . . . "I'm the solutions" candidate.

For someone running on the "experience" platform who belittles the opponent running on the "change" platform as being too naive, "untested," and gauche for the job, it certainly seems that her opponent has run a masterful, well-funded, efficient campaign while she has run a clumsy, inefficient, wasteful campaign.

It's positively mindboggling how effectively she reduced her inbuilt name-recognition advantage to -- at best -- a stalemate against her opponent; at worst, a potentially resounding defeat. Despite all this, she maintains the delusion (at America's peril) she's the "best candidate," the "most vetted" candidate, for Democrats to nominate for the White House.

Indeed, hope springs eternal that Americans are too stupid to compare and contrast these candidates' performance to date.

[Independent007]

Americans are very very smart.
Some gals who vote for Hillary ignore her past and feel she should be "given a chance". But other gals think that her past is not too nice either and cite even a bigger problem: Bill.

If he had stuck to just stumping and not injected race into the campaign, Obama would not have had any reason to say "the Clintons will do anything to win".

And her continuing attacks on Obama plagiarism, and now Michelle Obama "first time proud to be an American" just makes her look petty.
People don't like that stuff and she will pay the price at the voting booths.

[ckdogs]

I agree that her campaign was arrogant, at first. She didn't answer questions, was hostile to the press, etc. When push came to shove - Bill came out swinging, and disgraced himself. And then she began to whine about unfair coverage ie Chris Matthews having to apologize, and trying to get David Shuster fired. Obama doesn't attack the press when his coverage is negative.
But Hillary lost me when she voted for the war, and never spoke out against the Bush administration's assault on civil liberties, on the Justice Dept. etc.
She was politically calculating, rather than a real leader. Her losing - if she does lose - is not only because of "strategy" - give us voters more credit. It is because of her lack of standing up for important issues - and because we believe that Obama will stand up.

[Moose49]

"Where Hillary Went Wrong"

The number one answer has two words: Mark Penn.

Also, the constant lurching from one message to another -- "Inevitability" ... "Change vs. Experience" ... "The False Hopes Argument" etc. etc. -- exposes the lack of an underlying rationale for her candidacy other than it's my turn, I deserve it, the Clinton dynasty must continue.

Now, here's hoping your premature post-mortem proves prescient.

[Doofus]

Take Oprah Winfrey. Add a touch of Leona Helmsley,

Martha Stewart, Ellen Degeneris, Rosie O'Donnel,

Barbara Walters, Katie Couric, Judy Scheindlin,

and a hint of Sarah Silverman.

Had enough?

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

The problem is, Obama is for real, and Hillary has spent over two months trying to paint him as a fake. That has angered the black community, emphasized her negativity and simply flown in the face of reality.

Listen to her stump speech-- it's not more detailed than Obama's. It's just boring. Boring doesn't equal substance. It equals tired old lines about "moving America forward into the future." Candidates are *supposed* to give speeches-- that's what they do, and if you can't give a good one, don't bash your opponent for actually exciting people.

Unlike Obama, she doesn't talk about shutting down Guantanamo or restoring habeas corpus. I couldn't find it on her website either (though she was in favor of both in the past, and I assume still is, in an unadvertised sort of way). Their websites are eerily similar too.

The difference is, Obama is inspiring us while Hillary is saying that inspiration is meaningless. Oh yeah? "You're all fools-- vote for me." Treating young voters like they're a bunch of morons in a cult-- that's not the way to get their support.

Hillary spends so much time *talking* about how specific her plans are, she doesn't get around to talking about her plans. She treats Obama like he just graduated from high school, and expects the media to treat her like she's been in the Senate for 35 years.

Her campaign is dull, mean-spirited, unfocused-- and not worthy of the kind of president I thought she could be.

[Egghead]

"Treating young voters like they're a bunch of morons in a cult-- that's not the way to get their support."

This is one of the things I find most worrisome coming from Clinton supporters (I say Clinton *supporters*--I'm not saying she actually said it.) A lot of the posts on HuffPo seem to be saying "you kids, you're stupid, you don't know anything"--I've even read "them and their iPods."
What's weird is that this is often coming from the former "never trust anyone over 30" crowd.

[Countess]

Clinton has not lost yet so I think we should wait a bit before pronouncing her obituary. I am for Obama but I believe she will win Wisconsin as it fits her perfectly. The Clintons can still get dirtier so don't count them out.

[barackoblogger]

I found the whole "inevitability" argument extremely off-putting.

We live in a Democracy, not an aristocracy, but Hillary's campaign message at that time read like it was her birthright and we had to "give" her the election.

The amount of negativity and name-calling from her campaign has been a turnoff as well. "Naive," "stuffed shirt," "all hat no cattle."

It gives her supporters quick buzzwords to latch onto, but these phrases are very unappealing to those who are still undecided (and easy to refute, seeing as how they're based on a misrepresentation of who Barack is).

I would say that overall, Hillary has run a very negative campaign, focused more on putting down Barack than anything else.