The New York Times' Shoddy Strange Analysis Of The Clinton Loss

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)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

Comments

[DRaymond]

I can only figured that Nagourney thought that he couldn't look like he was copycatting everybody elses list of why Clinton tanked so he had to come up with reasons that nobody else had thought of. Unfortunately the reason nobody else thought of them is that the were stupid.

[sclucie]

Adam Nagourey has been writing pro-Clinton editorials under the guise of reporting for months. I grew up with a reverence for the New York TImes. Over the past five years, and particularly in this election year, I have lost any respect I ever had for the paper and most of its writers. It seems impossible for the Times too distinguish opinion from fact, many of its pieces have been bombastic and almost the entire editorial staff seems to function as the most dysfunctional family imaginable.

[WarriorLemming]

Yeah, I stopped going to the NYT's for any trustworthy campaign news. The world through Clinton's distorted goggles is obvious and spreading the poison in MSM media gives her undeserved authenticity.

[roselaw]

The NYT is infiltrated by neo-cons and neo-con groupies at every level.

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.

[Melizzy]

I think the same has happened to CNN. Thanks for a great post. And for anyone else tired of Dobbs and Blitzer, MSNBC w/ Chris Matthews and John Olbermann is MUCH better. They ought to hire Cafferty quick! :)

[nibblybits]

Yes, I agree that Nagourney's analysis was bizarre. I've been following this election pretty closely all along and I gotta tell you that I had never even heard of that tipping story, so I'm pretty doubtful that regular voters who are way less obsessed than I have used the story as the basis of not voting for Hillary.

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.

[chx]

maybe, just maybe more than half the democratic party didn't like her very much.

[ibsteve2u]

The "New York Times" sometimes gives me the impression that they are no more than a front utilizing a constant stream of stories that are generally viewed as being "liberal" to lull its readership into unquestioningly swallowing at least some portion of an occasional raving neocon/neoliberal fantasy.

lollll...that also goes a long way to explain William Kristol's presence there, doesn't it?

[oogabooga]

It really was hers to lose. And she did. Obama just had a more agile and astute staff than her. Clinton's staff wallowed in the old campaign tactics. This time around, however, requires more modern strategies, with the stress on fixing our country.

[veracity]

The simple fact is, if the Arthur Sulzberger and his editors & writers at the New York Times had spent HALF as much time and intensity investigating (then) Texas Governor George W. Bush's record of scandals in Texas in 2000, including Meirs/Lotterygate, Funeral-gate, hidden DUIs, worst-in-nation pollution, busted Texas budgets, slashed social spending, and Bush's dismal record of going AWOL from his Alabama ANG assignment during the Vietnam War (assigned there by the Texas ANG, shipped out of state to prevent his refusal to take a flight physcal exam leading to a court-martial scandal that would have been an embarrassment his up-and-coming powerful Republican father) - instead of snarking on VP Al Gore all through the year, (not to mention the Times IGNORING Haliburton CEO Dick Cheney's record of DEALING WITH IRAQ BEHIND BACK OF US SANCTIONS ON IRAQ all through the ate 1990s),
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.

[ErnestineBass]

Your nick perfectly reflects the content of this thoughtful comment, veracity. Bravo! -EB

[littlepuffycloud]

I think Americans had something to do with Clinton's failed campaign; we voted for Senator Obama. The American psyche, well at least mine, can't stand the thought of another Clinton in the White House. Can't stand the memory of Bill wagging that fat finger of his, claiming he 'did not have sexual relations with that woman'. Clinton supporters have convinced themselves that they would get only Hillary and not Bill. That Hillary can deny racism played a part in this campaign shows how out of touch she really is. Her campaign has set back any other woman's bid for the presidency 10 years. We'll all snicker and remember how Hillary refused to drop out because her 'sisters' begged her to continue. That these women in Kentucky, West Virginia, and the rest of the rust belt state think she gives a rat's ass about them is astonishing. They refuse to see her for who she really is; all they see in her is a fighting vagina. Wow...almost a comical analogy.

[CJGibson]

I'd never even heard of 3, 4, 5 or 8 til this story.

It'd also be a mistake to not include Sen. Clinton's negative campaigning in a list of the reasons why she lost.

[Sandy972]

Personally, as much as the 90's was much better than the last 8 yrs., the Clintons have always been a bit cut throat. We all just overlooked it because of our own greed and complacency. Most of us had fairly good jobs, housing costs were good, gas was cheap as well as groceries so we all overlooked their core problems, which actually came through during this election time.

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.

[JDinDC]

The nomination was Hillary's to lose . . . and she did. Biggest mistake: Looking at our desperate dissatisfaction with blue-red gridlock, partisan thermonuclear warfare, and the politics of personal destruction and thinking what we really want is a return to the 1990s. Her policies are not that different from Obama's, but she has had her time at center stage. People want to look forward to the new generation. Richardson had more experience and Edwards was a stronger populist. Hill couldn't make up her mind until it was too late.

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.

[ignrnthllblly]

"It seems hard to argue that Mr. Clinton was anything other that a net negative for Mrs. Clinton overall."

Uh, no it doesn't. Remove Mr. Clinton entirely and you are left with: no candidacy at all.

No Bill, no Hillary.

[HowietheScreamer]

True enough, and to think people actaully think that her candidacy is some huge victory for Feminism. She is, in fact, the ANTI-Feminist. EVERYTHING she has is because of her Husband. With out him, she is NOTHING.

I think MOST Americans are perfectly fine with the idea of a woman for President... just not THAT woman.

[Dotsie]

I read the Nagourney article yesterday and I agree with your posting but I have one comment. I am an Obama supporter and the people I know that support Hillary are also opposed to the war. They support her because of her gender and/or experience. You can remind them about her war vote and it's as if they don't care about it. They think the war was a huge mistake but will overlook her vote because they like her. It's bizarre!

[Heika]

I read Nagourney's column, which seemed designed to excuse Clinton and her campaign for a number of major mistakes, starting with the vote against the war, and wondered if it was me, if I had come to dislike this candidate so much that I couldn't imagine a reasoned argument in her defense. Thus, I was glad to see this post, which suggests that I wasn't the only one who thought the New York Times was once again completely off the mark. Maybe because the Times endorsed her they have to diminish what a ghastly campaign this has been and how many reasons there were prior to the campaign not to support Hillary Clinton. Don't forget this is a candidate that got money from Textron and voted AGAINST a ban on cluster bombs in civilian neighborhoods and yeah, Textron makes cluster bombs. Since the run up to the war, I rarely read the Times, except for Frank Rich's and Bob Herbert's columns. I think that's a wise decision. There are better places to get both the news and informed opinion.

[jah2008]

I've seen various articles blaming number of reasons why Hillary Clinton failed, but not one single article mentions the real reason. These so-called journalists just don't seem to get it. Because they've been brainwashed to believe the "inevitability" of Clinton candidacy, they continue to refuse to believe that someone better could possibly be the candidate instead of Clinton. These excuses are cumulative effects and overlooks the misspeak/misconduct by the candidate herself. Those who don't support Clinton do not trust what she says. Her message has been divisive and inconsistent. She's morphed herself into everything under the sun to get votes - hunter, whiskey-drinking, nascar-loving with a twang. She has failed in her leadership test with her inability to manage her own staff and money.