Hillary's Demise Was All About Iraq

Most of us know now that Hillary Clinton has lost the Democratic presidential nomination race. But, she really lost the race before she officially entered the presidential race, because of one issue, and one issue only: Iraq.

Sen. Clinton, and her supporters, gave Barack Obama the political opening to enter the race not just by her vote to authorize the war but her refusal to stand before her constituents when she ran for re-election in 2006, explain her vote and admit she had committed a grave error. A significant portion of Obama's support has come from people vehemently opposed to the war.

Rather than take a moral stand, Sen. Clinton listened to her political operatives whose only calculus was winning, not morality. Of the many great strategic and tactical errors her campaign made (and one hopes a positive outcome of this race is the diminished roles of Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson in shaping the Democratic Party) the greatest one was believing that a vote for the Iraq war would be a strength. Stop and think of that for a moment: to win a political office, she was willing to live with the specter of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and a huge financial cost to our country, which, by one estimate, will be three trillion dollars.

Looking back, I gave her an opening to repair her image with the anti-war base. In the Fall of 2005, I entered the New York Democratic Senate primary to challenge Sen. Clinton's immoral support for the Iraq War. I had no expectations of winning. Rather, I, and the many people whose voices our campaign represented, wanted a debate about the war.

We tried to engage Sen. Clinton about her vote. At virtually every turn, she refused to have an open debate. At the New York State Democratic Party convention, I sought to have my name placed in nomination to force a debate about the war. Sen. Clinton's staff, and her supporters, threatened delegates who were considering signing my nomination petition. Rep. Jerrold Nadler led the effort, pressuring anti-war delegates who wanted to openly criticize Sen. Clinton's vote; I witnessed with my own eyes Nadler corralling one of my delegate supporters, trying to get her to remove her name from the petition (she refused). Other delegates, who were furious about the war, were scared away from our campaign by the prospect that they would lose access to Sen. Clinton, or other goodies that come with being part of the machine.

Over the summer of 2006, we played a somewhat comical game over whether Sen. Clinton would agree to debate me. I issued a very polite letter to her, asking for debates. Her campaign never responded. The press repeatedly asked her, and her campaign operatives, whether she would agree to a debate. The typical response was roughly: "We'll see how the campaign develops". That was also their answer on Election Day as people were going to the polls. And, yes, many of us have found her new-found demands for more debates with Obama...er...amusing.

Here are the lessons I draw from 2006. Had Sen. Clinton used her Senate re-election race in 2006 to admit her vote was wrong, she would be preparing to accept the Democratic nomination for president. Sen. Clinton's supporters failed her. People like Nadler and others, more concerned with their political futures and having no backbone to confront a then-feared political machine, refused to demand that she admit her vote for the war was a mistake. By falling into line with the machine, they allowed her to slide by in 2006 -- and they bear some responsibility for her failure in the 2008 presidential race.

But, forget political careers. The real tragedy is this: because of her national profile and, even back when the war was being debated, her seemingly clear path to victory in the 2008 primaries, Sen. Clinton could have been a national voice against the war. With her power, celebrity and influence, she could have prevented the deaths of a million Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers, not to mention an unconscionable amount of money. Measured against the war's devastation, her loss in this election pales by comparison.

Comments

[KillTheMessenger]

Senator Clinton lost the race when she went in there with an inferior (less than mediocre actually) staff whose leaders did not understand the rules and the environment they are in. She lost the campaign when she turned into a self-aggrandizing mother-figure who wanted to focus the right of every women to be equal only on herself. She lost when she could not control herself under pressure and made up stories like a three year old who needs attention and love but won't get it from her parent.

She lost on so many levels that it is almost unimaginable how she can get up in the morning, look into the mirror and tell herself that she is in there to win.

Whatever Hillary Clinton was before the campaign is lost. The new Hillary Clinton is unelectable even for mayor of a small community of a hundred people.

[BlueAsh]

Not being a New Yorker, I missed out on the battles you recounted in this essay. I must say I am impressed that someone had enough courage to challenge a Clinton. As you said, it's not about winning, but making sure that the winners know the responsibilities and obligations that come with winning.

By sheer coincidence, I once met a man (Stephen) who put his name on the Democratic ticket to run against one of Virginia's sitting congressman, Tom Davis, because, Stephen said, Davis shouldn't run unopposed.

Somewhere along the way, keeping one's position becomes more important than serving.
Obviously, pursuing power for power's sake seems most important for Hillary--as we speak, she is talking on CNN about how "somehow they just want to push me out" (of this race), as if she was unaware this was a contest and that her records were being judged.

I feel grateful towards people such as Mr. Tasini and Stephen (of Northern Virginia).

[egal]

Well, of COURSE Hillary is being judged on her sex and not her positions.­..err, policies. We only judge men on their politics, while women get a free pass for being women and "the wife of".

Just what we need, to act more like the men-only nations and concurrently hace a bunch of women determined to prove misogynists right by screaming and crying instead of focusing on the actual issues. Unfortunately, it's hard to fault them (well over 70% of people will believe or obey a perceived authority figure without thought or guilt) when she is providing such a stellar example of both how to serve one's constituents in politics and how to look like a macho whining female.

...Sarcasm just doesn't translate to blogs effectivel­y....

[magen]

Hillary is against saying "I was wrong" but that's what EVERYBODY except the 30%ers wanted her to say.

How do you win an election in a democracy by courting 30% of voters? You don't.

Us 70%ers are who she should have paid attention to. Too late. Bye.

I live in NY and she lost my vote for her as Senator with her ridiculous antics.

She's doing GREAT with the redneck racist crowd though.

[Gemma08]

She's simply odious. And her latest comments re JFK and assassination simply make her more and more odious. She's completely removed from reality. She's worse than Bush. And post-menopausal. Not a happy combo! *shudder*

[Sali68]

I don't think it was the Iraq war...many could have forgiven that. She cowered to fear...we all did. Her undoing is the fact she has no moral compass.

[ebbtide]

Many of us did NOT cower to the fear. There were millions who early on caught on the lies of George Bush. We were ordinary people, but informed. We did not have a staff nor any clout at all, but we knew as did twenty three other Senators.

Obviously she was not. I will never forgive her for that vote. Dear God, some 4050 Americans are dead and tens of thousands wounded and maimed in the early years of their lives, and she voted to let a liar of a President do it., To add to that, she fully supported the killing for two more years. No

We all did not cower to the fear.,

[Sali68]

I should have typed some of us cowered because I too saw through the lies of Bush and the WMD...We had common sense and she should have used hers. If she had only admitted she was wrong then it could have been forgiven. If she had ONCE said I was duped, or that I cowered she would have been forgiven but she like the administration looked us dead in the eye and said 'So" vote for me anyway

[wwsword]

How did John Kerry get the nomination given that he voted to authorize force against Iraq? Even if many Democrats don't agree with the vote, they understand why Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards voted to authorize force against Iraq. No, Clinton's vote to authorize the use of force is clearly not the reason.

The chief causes behind Clinton falling behind in the delegate count despite winning the most popular votes are these: (1) the Obama campaign's manipulation of the caucus system, (2) the undemocratic character of the caucus system itself, (3) over-representation of ultra-liberals and African Americans in the Democratic primary, (4) the idiocy of proportional representation in a winner-take-all electoral system, (5) the Obama campaign's deft playing of the race card against the Clintons, (6) the Obama campaign and pro-Obama media establishment's deployment of sexism to dehumanize Hillary, and (7) elite desire to dissimulate white supremacy through the symbolism of a black president.

If I had to isolate the most important of these, I have to say that (5) and (6) are particularly salient in understanding what happened at the level of the masses, since turning blacks against the Clintons tricked them into supporting the post-racial candidate and degrading Clinton's humanity by bashing her gender led to approximately half of Democratic voters rejecting the most qualified candidate in favor of the least-qualified candidate.

[FogCityJohn]

Reality-based, partial translation of this post:

"(1) the Obama campaign's manipulation of the caucus system"

Translation: Obama's campaign read the caucus rules and followed them. Clinton and her supporters were either to dumb to do that, or just blew caucus states off.

"(2) the undemocratic character of the caucus system itself"

Translation: Anyone can show up at a caucus, and more Obama supporters showed up than Hillary supporters. Since Hillary therefore didn't win, the process must be undemocratic because any and all processes which do not result in a Hillary victory are per se undemocratic.

"(3) over-representation of ultra-liberals and African Americans in the Democratic primary"

Translation: Why on earth do we let BLACK PEOPLE vote at all? They refuse to recognize the superiority conferred by Hillary's white skin.

"(5) the Obama campaign's deft playing of the race card against the Clintons"

Translation: I'm really mad that Clinton's use of race in this campaign didn't lead to her victory. It should have been a sure thing. How could people miss what she meant by her "hardworking Americans, white Americans" remark?

[HansB]

That's exactly how I read the comment. Let me fill in the blanks.

"(4) the idiocy of proportional representation in a winner-take-all electoral system"

Translation: if a candidate wins the popular vote in a state, he/she will win that state in the general. As in, Hillary is sure to win Texas. Therefore the primaries should be run like the general. By the way this would mean no primaries in Puerto Rico and no popular vote majority for Hillary. Don't want it both ways, do we? Of course we don't.

"(6) the Obama campaign and pro-Obama media establishment's deployment of sexism to dehumanize Hillary"

Translation: how dare Obama use the word "she" when speaking of his rival.

"(7) elite desire to dissimulate white supremacy through the symbolism of a black president.­"

Translation: the only way to overcome white supremacy is by voting for a white.

[UrbanInterloper]

The difference between Kerry '04 and Clinton '08 is precisely those four years in between. Voters feel differently now, and political realities have changed. In 2004, voters were desperate for "anbody but Bush." That no longer applies, and voters haven't forgetten that historic loss, or how Kerry's Iraq vote was his ultimate undoing. Voters don't want to go there again with Clinton, only to have the Republicans paint her as flip-flopper, the sequel. Also, Kerry got the nomination because he clearly stated that his Iraq vote was a mistake, right from the start. Clinton dragged her feet, and then did so meekly and begrudgingly. The worst possible outcome would be that Clinton followed in Kerry's footsteps with only 49% of the vote and yet another historic loss.

As for all your enumerated reasons, wow. At least half of them are complaints about a system everyone knew was in place prior to entering this race. Senator Clinton, her alleged dislike of caucuses and proportional representation notwithstanding, knew that she had to figure out how to win these contests anyway. She did her best but lost. Complaining afterwards is unbecoming.

Nonetheless, I urge you to continue your principled fight well after 2008, regardless of who wins or loses the presidency. I wish you only the best of luck in convincing the DNC to convert to a winner-take-all, primaries-only system. While you're at it, maybe drop the contests for Puerto Rico, Guam and Democrats Abroad, too?

[colbyb25]

Half-way through reading you post, I figured it was a joke. A play on words that those in the Clinton Campaign would use to point blame everywhere but at themselves. It is truly amazing to see the Clinton camp, as well as the Clinton faithful to death supports, place blame on every and any external factor they can grasp at. It couldn't have been that they ran a poor campaign. It couldn't have been her historic ties to lobbyists. It couldn't be the obvious double talk and pandering. It couldn't be her arrogance heading into the primaries. Of course it couldn't. Its everyone else's fault.

For once, why don't you accept responsibility for your candidates choices. The difference, as a general statement, between the two candidate's devoted supports, is that Obama's accept the fact that he isn't perfect. You could even say that that is one of his best characteristics. However anytime something doesn't go right for Hillary; whether it is a miss speak, an iraq war vote or horribly managing a presidential campaign..­..it is never her fault and there is always someone else to blame. Very sad.

Obama '08

[JimR]

Just curious, have you tried writing fiction? Because you have a real knack for it.

[111]

Nah - we don't like her because she lies (Bosnia), is manipulative (gas tax relief) and callous (she's going to stay in a race she can't win because Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June)

Why do you want a president who can't manage a campaign, blames everyone else when there are problems, who severely underestimates her competition, who mismanaged her campaign finances so badly she is many millions of dollars in debt, who has lost in spite of being the favored candidate, who predicted the race would be over in February and that she would be the winner, etc. etc. etc.

[altohone]

One could also make the opposite argument.

800,000 Limbaugh voters wouldn't have voted for her, and she may have "lost" several states she claims to have "won".
Her special interest donors wouldn't be funding her campaign either.
There would also have been tremendous pressure on her to disown all her other DLC policies.

That said, her vote for the war was what motivated my opposition from the start.

[timm0]

I can agree that a mea culpa could have helped suppress the rise of rivals in this primary. Witness the fact that almost every other official candidate in Iowa voted to authorize war. Gravel and Kucinich were way too quirky to gain traction. So the only real serious person for anti-war advocates to rally behind was Obama. So I see some basis for your contention.

However, the core of hillary's failure is hillary. She is a base and amoral person, focused solely on her personal power and self-aggra­ndizement.

Debating you is a very simple example. Did she really think you were going to kick her butt in a debate? She's a solid debater. I don't know you, but I will assume that you don't have the chops of a world-renowned debater. At best for you, it would have been a tie - and a result that would have had no effect on the outcome of the election. But instead of respecting the process and engaging in a simple demonstration of good faith to the electorate, she unleashes the "machine" to suppress and intimidate delegates. In short, she could have done it the simple, ethical way - or do it the sleazy, ruthless, immoral way.

And of course, we now have an almost daily dose of more sleazy, ruthless, immoral efforts by her and her posse to get her way. THAT - hillary's reprehensible character - is the cause of her demise. Everything about her demise arises from her personal flaws.

[Liberal2]

"...base and amoral..."­??? Why is it all you base and amoral people project your sins onto others???

[fairwitness]

It's Shakespearian--once her die was cast with the war-mongers, she had no way back but self-effacement and public remorse, recognition of error and request for forgiveness, conditions she is constitutionally unable to tolerate.

Character is determinative. She made her bed, hates it, but cannot escape sleeping in it. So she careens wildly from calm statesperson to shrieking shrew, motherly warmth to party executioner. Her inner demons have driven her over the cliff. And we all crash with her.

We all suffer her shame. It's so Shakespearian.

[BlueAsh]

So true! If only it was played out on stage.

At this point, I vacillate between feeling sorry for her and despising her.

[tcagle]

Hillary did not enter the race until she was convinced she had it locked. This was a mistaken assumption. Her war vote was a mistake too. The reason she won't quit the race is the same reason she would not own up to flubbing the war vote: she is unable to admit she is wrong. Now she is just a hack lawyer with a bad case. Sic gloria transit Clinton.
I believe that people want somebody this time around that they can trust. Obama is far and away the better candidate on the issue of trust. Don't even get me started on the Repubes.

[TGChicago]

As someone who is generally not a fan of Ms. Clinton, I think she did indeed have a chance to win me over by standing up against the misguided war in Iraq. If she had stood up for principle back in 2002, she could have showed us that she's not a calculating cynical politician, but someone who is willing to fight for what they believe in.

However, every step of the way she has done the opposite. Now she is paying the price.

[Pocho]

There is a word seldom heard in US society, let alone understood. Its absence forms the society's definitive description. That is "Honor".

[BadCompany]

I agree that she'd be the nominee right now if she had admitted her error in voting for the war.
It's a major turn-off that she won't.
It's also a real turn-off to hear talk of an Obama/Hagel ticket.
I hope there's no chance of that.

[EricHayes]

The Obama-Hagel ticket is the 2008 equivalent of the 2004 Kerry-McCain fantasy dreamed up by the idealists. I think it has about as much chance as an Obama-Clinton team does now.

[jmpurser]

I'd agree that was a significant factor (much more than sexism) but honestly I don't think any single event/factor could be said to have determined the fate of any of our seriously flawed contenders this season. It looks like a slam dunk for Obama at this point but I think it's doing a disservice to reality to pretend that people who favor someone else are just overlooking one simple issue.

[repearwo]

"not just by her vote to authorize the war but her refusal to stand before her constituents when she ran for re-election in 2006, explain her vote and admit she had committed a grave error. "

It does not get any better stated than that. I have never been a big fan of Hillary, but the war clentched it. "If I had known then what I know now" was such a clear lie and an insult to the people's intellegence.