Hillary Clinton has launched two lines of attack in this campaign -- the media is biased against her and the public is too susceptible to Obama's charisma. Even if one were to concede those points (just for the sake of argument), they don't do anything to mitigate the damage Hillary has done to her own campaign. Here are some questions that I hope she'll answer in the campaign post mortem (which looks to be on its way)
1. Why didn't you do more to build your small donor fundraising apparatus early on?
2. Why didn't you quickly admit that your vote on the war was a mistake, apologize, discuss the lessons you had learned and how as a result of that reflection you were now better prepared to lead? Do you now understand that the early support that Obama got from the antiwar wing of the party gave him an opening and your refusal to admit your error meant that he was able to capture the mantel of "change" candidate while you looked like more of the same?
3. Why didn't you better understand that the American people had had enough of the negativity and act more quickly to rein in Bill's devastating race-baiting before it completely sunk you with Black voters (and many whites who had also had enough)?
4. Why didn't you better manage your resources so that you could compete in the caucus states on Super Tuesday (where you gave Obama the delegates he needed to stay in the race)?
5. Why didn't you see Obama's success raising money in 2007 as an early warning that this might be a protracted race and develop a strategy to at least mount a challenge in February instead of engaging in the politics of sour grapes?
6. Why didn't you make sure that you understood the rules for the distribution of delegates in Texas before betting your candidacy on a big delegate swing there?
7. Why didn't you understand that the Super Delegates couldn't serve as your final defense if Obama came out of the primaries/cacuses with more delegates? Why wasn't it obvious that it would destroy the party if the Super Delegates were seen to be stealing the nominatin from the candidate supported by the party's most loyal voting block (Blacks) and its hope for the future (younger voters)? Did you really think that party elites would throw the party under the bus to hand you the nomination?
I can't wait to read the tell all books by campain insiders in which they address these and other questions about the flaws in strategy and execution by the Clinton camp.
Hillary's Biggest Failure
I think Hillary Clinton is absolutely right to suggest that she's been criticized in the press more than any other candidate, but the way I see it, her fame is a two-edged sword. While she gets held to a different standard due to her fame, she wouldn't be where she is now if it weren't for her name recognition and the fact that she inherited her husband's political machine. Just as it's puzzling that she somehow deserves credit for all the good things that happened during the 90's but none of the bad, if she's willing to capitalize on the unique advantages of her position as the inheritor of the legacy of the previous president (and all the political and fundraising power that comes along with it), she should have been prepared to deal with the unique challenges that come along with that as well.
For a candidate who constantly touts herself for being "prepared" to be president, Clinton's lack of preparation in dealing with an antagonistic media doesn't bode well for her prospects in a general election (much less her ability to govern). A smart campaign would take media bias as a given and come up with a plan to mitigate these negatives, yet this week, Hillary has settled on the strategy of whining about the press being mean to her, seemingly blind to the fact that this is an industry full of yellow journalists who have spent the past fifteen years printing and broadcasting some truly shameful muck. Was the Clinton campaign really naive enough to think they'd be any different this year?
With hindsight being 20/20, it seems to me that the Clinton campaign's strategy should have been to treat their candidate like an underdog all along, highlighting every trivial item written about Hillary and using her quasi-bully pulpit to use these examples as "proof" that the media it out to get her. Instead, they spent most of the past year insisting on Hillary's "inevitability" and reveling in the press's willingness to help them write the storyline. Yet for all their media savvy in using early polling and press laziness to declare the nomination over before it began, they seem to have made the mistake of believing their own bullshit and got caught off-guard when the pendulum of press opinion predictably swung back and hit them in the ass. Once again, this doesn't really do much to convince me that she'd be a good general election candidate or that she'd be "ready on day one" to deal with an hostile press.
Thankfully, a Clinton candidacy is something we won't need to worry about for much longer.
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
If I wanted to use a typical Republican (and lately, it seems, Clintonian) talking point against her, I could say: If she can't even handle a hostile press, HOW is she going to be able to handle the Rabid Right? Or, for that matter, if she can't even handle a hostile press, HOW is she going to be able to stand up to Al Qaeda!?!
I know that's terrible. But hey, what's good for the goose and all that!
(I'll still vote for her if she's the nominee though. I'm not stupid enough to throw my vote to the Republicans with McCain or Nader)
"Thankfully, a Clinton candidacy is something we won't need to worry about for much longer."
That could be true and then thankfully, we won't have to read snide comments and snippy prognostications from snotty writers.
One of the essential, fundamental problems with Hillary Clinton and her campaign is this: ever since entering the WH as First Lady, she has gone out of her way to cultivate and co-opt wealthy individuals capapble of enriching her and her husband both financially and politically. She used their elected position as a private personal hedge fund to vault themselves into the company where they believed they belonged--the rich and powerful. Now, irony of ironies, her campaign is resting on the shoulders of the poor and disenfranchised-- the elderly women and economically challenged and frightened--and there is no authentic way for her to present herself as their champion or their savior. This is what rings so false about Hillary Clinton.
To the great people of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island & Vermont,
Please do us all a favor & finally close the door on the Clintons.
You're the Closers. Lets do this thing!
~HK
Apparently it was Karl Marx who said: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
http://www.bartleby.com/66/53/38153.html
Actually her Whining is about the most positive part of her gutter campaign and provides amusement to those of us who understand her shortcomings but do not underestimate her coalition of people who think the only qualification she needs is her gender and the rednecks of the democratic party who like her because she is white.
You got that right. Every time she goes negative on Obama, Clinton seems stunned that the media still have the files on her less than perfect record - Wal-Mart, NAFTA, her failed health care project, Iraq War vote, IPA, and then some. George Stephanopolous pointed out in an open letter to her in Newsweek years ago that this is why she shouldn't run. Apparently she took no heed, but she should have at least been better prepared to counter the accusations.
I agree. I think we'll all breathe a sigh of collective relief when the Clintons finally descend from the stage. We've had to put up with witnessing their eight years of high drama; now we're experiencing Act 2 and its' exhausting!
Very good point. & thank you.
Hillary's campaign has been one blunder after another. She has mishandled the financing, lost supporters & how dumb of her to be so antagonistic toward the press. Especially when we all remember that this attitude only surfaced when she started to lose - before that, she was sweet to reporters & had no complaints. She won't take the blame for anything & that is a glaring flaw.
In contrast, Senator Obama has run a fairly flawless campaign. He has attracted the best & the brightest to work for him & he has managed to inspire millions of Americans to help him get elected.
Now, isn't a presidential campaign & all its intricate day to day challenges a good measure of a candidate?
Loading comments…
Posted March 1, 2008 | 12:43 AM (EST)