Adam Nagourney of the New York Times just posted his column from tomorrow analyzing "the factors and developments that undercut her candidacy, some self-inflicted, others inflicted upon her." It’s truly one of the dumbest pieces of political punditry I’ve seen in this election, and it takes a lot to say that. Amazingly, Nagourney explains Clinton’s loss without ever mentioning her vote on the war in Iraq, the incompetence of Mark Penn and her campaign staff, the strength of Obama’s candidacy, or the brilliance of the Obama’s campaign strategy.
To rate each reason Nagourney gives, I’ve created the NSI: the New York Times Stupidity Index, with a rating from 1 to 10 (10 being stupidest) of how dumb these reasons are.
Nagourney begins with the "timing of the Edwards endorsement" after Clinton’s West Virginia win. Considering that the election was over long before John Edwards figured out which way the wind was blowing, this is a bizarre reason to start off a column about Clinton’s loss.
NSI: 10 (out of 10)
- Nagourney cites Michigan and Florida, claiming that Clinton’s likely (inevitable?) victories there would have given her a boost going into Super Tuesday if they had counted for half-delegates as the Republicans did. That’s not too persuasive: if Obama had competed in Michigan and Florida, he would have done better there, and remember that this is an expectations game above all else. Michigan and Florida also would have stretched Clinton’s weak financial position.
NSI: 2
- The Drudge Report. According to Nagourney, "bad news about the Clinton campaign got extensive attention" on the Drudge Report, after an October NYTimes report on how the Clinton campaign was working with Drudge. This is nonsense. The Drudge Report is a playground for bad reporters, not a major influence on how people vote. Clinton got bad news on the website because her campaign was failing, not because of Drudge blowback.
NSI: 8
- The Tipping Scandal. Nagourney blames a false NPR report that Clinton had stiffed a waiter on a tip for "feeding the image of Mrs. Clinton as entitled and imperious." Oh, please. Did anyone pay any attention to this piece of crap story?
NSI: 8
- Immigrants Behind the Wheel. This may be the only real effect identified by Nagourney. When Clinton waffled on the question about Spitzer and immigrant driver’s licenses, she looked a lot like her husband. This was not very important in itself, but it mattered because the media finally realized that she might not be inevitable.
NSI: 1
- The Return of Joe Trippi. Nagourney claims that under Trippi "the pitch of the Edwards campaign instantly turned more populist and tougher, and took aim at Mrs. Clinton." Edwards did become more populist, but Edwards never really went very negative, and he also took aim at Obama (especially on health care). Edwards’ populist ploy pushed progressive votes away from Obama, so I can’t see any real harm to Clinton here.
NSI: 4
- Bill Clinton. According to Nagourney, "It seems hard to argue that Mr. Clinton was anything but a net negative for Mrs. Clinton overall." That’s utter nonsense. Virtually every poll has shown that voters were more likely to vote for Hillary because of Bill. The problem was that everyone expected Bill to be a huge positive for Hillary, and instead his flubs greatly reduced the positive value he provided.
NSI: 4
- Planted Questions and False Rumors. Nagourney: "It is hard to exaggerate how much damage Mrs. Clinton suffered from two things that her supporters got busted for doing...." No, it’s not hard to exaggerate, because Nagourney does wildly exaggerate it. The story about planted questions lasted barely a day and disappeared, and nobody really blamed Clinton for a few supporters who pushed the bigoted emails about Obama that roam around the internet like mosquitos.
NSI: 5
Altogether, these eight reasons mark some of the most inexplicably trivial and stupid explanations of why Hillary Clinton lost. But most of all, they ignore the key reason: Obama is the better candidate. Unfortunately, if this is the kind of political analysis we have to look forward to from the mainstream press this year, it will require us to push the real truth told by alternative media. You couldn’t trust the New York Times when it was pretending that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so why you would trust the New York Times pretending that Clinton’s vote for war didn’t hurt her campaign?
Read more at John K Wilson's Daily Kos Diary. Crossposted at ObamaPolitics.
They avoid admitting that the war is a disaster, or that the surge isn't working. Therefore, it can't be a reason why Hillary lost either.
They're largely hysterical about Iran, and we get Brooks, Kristal, and Friedman calling for cold and hot wars on the most influential editorial page in the country. Nor will anyone who wants a future there acknowledge that the Palestinian/Israeli controversy has anything to do with the dangerously growing instability in the middle east.
A very good case can be made that the war in Iraq plays a major role in the increase in oil prices, through instability and the massive borrowing that has helped decimate the dollar, but you won't see that analysis either.
Lastly, out of a nascient fear that Obama won't mindlessly support Israel, they will do everything they can to bring him down, even if it means a disaster in the form of a McCain presidency.
The reasons seem pretty clear. Bad planning, poor messaging, competing for and losing Iowa, Bill's racist comments in South Carolina and Nevada, then failing to deliver a knockout punch on Super Tuesday. On the delegate front, ignoring the caucus states was her downfall. The contest was hers to lose and she lost it.
You can probably do some real parsing of her personal foibles that led to all the factors above, but she started out as a flawed candidate who happened to have 100% name recognition, which is why she started out as the frontrunner but couldn't keep it.
Good riddance. For all the "experience" she touted, she didn't have her first elective office until 7 years ago and a whole lot of baggage. She was doomed from the start.
lollll...that also goes a long way to explain William Kristol's presence there, doesn't it?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm
....then Al Gore would almost certainly have become president, the World Trade Towers would still be standing in lower Manhatten, and the US Army would not have tens of thousands of wounded veterans requiring intensive medica and psychological care.
It'd also be a mistake to not include Sen. Clinton's negative campaigning in a list of the reasons why she lost.
Barack just looks so fresh and his ideas are so moral and ethical as well as practical. Why does everyone seem to think they are so "far left" that they are impossible to handle. They are actually the best policies for our country in this day and time. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for letting Bush not raise our taxes to help pay for this ungodly war and being so stupid to get us into this predictament. Why did we leave it up to our soldiers to fight this war along? We all should have been doing our part, as in WWII. What were we thinking? What improved in the last 8 yrs? Absolutely nothing and Hillary was definitely part of the problem. She actually went along with almost everything this administration did and we should have held her accountable when she decided to run.
Second big mistake was misusing her greatest potential asset, Bill. He could have been the one drawing huge rock-star crowds with the tone of the elder statesman reminding Democrats of the days of peace and prosperity. Instead, she sent him out to be James Carville, attacking fellow Democrats and becoming just another politician and fair game in the press. She took him off the Former President pedestal, giving the GOP the one thing that would energize their dispirited base: the chance to vote against a third Clinton term.
Uh, no it doesn't. Remove Mr. Clinton entirely and you are left with: no candidacy at all.
No Bill, no Hillary.
I think MOST Americans are perfectly fine with the idea of a woman for President... just not THAT woman.