How Obama Won and Clinton Lost

A year ago, Hillary Clinton was 30-points ahead over any rival in the Democratic primary. She had outraised everyone at that point by more than a two to one margin. She had the backing of the majority of the Democratic establishment. She had the backing of a popular former president who happened to be her husband. And she lost.

So what happened?

Like any story, the reasons and causes aren't easily reduced to a one paragraph explanation and there were multiple causes for why Clinton lost. I will reflect on just on a few from my perspective.

This is a race that Clinton could have won and should have won, and came very close. And her gender ultimately didn't have much to do with the loss.

The following is my attempt at explaining what happened:

1. She ran for months and months as the candidate of experience and the electorate overwhelmingly wanted change. She wasted many resources and much time arguing and building a case based on experience, and two-thirds of Democratic voters wanted change. She tried turning this around late in the game and Obama owned it at that point.

2. The political environment of this race was much different than 2004 or 2000. In those elections, strength was the key attribute the country was looking for. The country desired more of a father figure. Today, the country is looking for more a a healing presence, someone more nurturing and demonstrating an ability to bring the American family together -- more of a mothering persona. The country wanted a Mom, and Hillary gave them a Dad. She tried to hard to demonstrate her toughness and strength and voters wanted more caretaking and sensitivity.

3. Presidential campaigns are always about understanding voters fears, but then asking them to vote their hopes. Clinton did an unbelievable job speaking to voters fears but she never crossed the bridge to speak to voters hopes. She got stuck in the fear equation and voters needed her to move to hope at some point.

4. The Clinton campaign based their tactical strategy on the idea that this would be a short race and big state victories early would decide it quickly. This primary became a long race and every single caucus or primary mattered. Clinton scrambled to retool the campaign based on a longer effort, in the midst of a heated primary.

5. Hillary Clinton never separated herself enough from Bill in the course of this race. Voters wanted to see her stand on her own two feet, and understand that on her own she could do the job and it would be her presidency. Every time Bill showed up on the radar it reminded voters that she wasn't on her own. And couple this with fact that Bill Clinton, while having a great political ear and voice advocating on behalf of himself, seems to not be as adept at advocating on behalf of someone else.

6. The country is looking for something new and hip and next generational, and this is especially true for voters under 30 (the 9/11 generation). Barack Obama gave voters this, and Hillary didn't. Obama was the Ipod of this election, while Clinton was the Walkman. The Walkman is reliable and easy to use and works great, it just doesn't have the hip factor that an Ipod does.

Obviously, this is only a short list of causes from my own perspective, and equally as important was Obama's candidacy, his message, and his campaign's tactical successes.

But in the end, this race was in Hillary Clinton's hands and it is a race she should have won, no matter her opponent.

And dealing with a loss where you didn't have to lose, but for your own actions, is heartwrenching. I do feel for the process she must be going through and will go through. Peace to her.

Related:
Read more from Huffington Post bloggers on Barack Obama clinching the Democratic nomination for president

Originally published on ABC News.

Comments

[apoyo]

Hillary was Nintendo 64 and Obama was the Wii.

She was VHS and he was blue ray.

[sockman]

Hillary didn't attract the extreme left of the democratic party. Barack did and this simple fact caused her to lose almost all the caucus states. The extreme left of the democratic party are the organizers....the foot soldiers....the arm twisters and yes...the bullies. The caucuses are lost without them. Talk about Bill Clinton being a "liability" is just silly. If it were at all possible for him to run for president tomorrow he would win hands down. This simple fact annoys many democrats....the extreme left especiallly so they worked their butts off to prevent another Clinton form taking the White House. Most didn't know jack about Obama but what drove them was their extreme dislike for the Clintons and their centrist approach to American politics. Barack will eventually govern from the center and the left will despise him as well. The extreme left is antiestablishment by nature so it won't be long before they feel betrayed.

[BubbaC33]

A caucus is anti-democratic in nature. When I vote it is in private, free of outside influences. I take my own counsel and have no pressure from a group or crowd to intrude upon my own thinking and ideology. A caucus is much closer to mob rule.

[aht772e]

you mean, like at a convention?.....

[jericho4119]

So, if you know all of this about caucus states and caucus voters - why didn't the campaign team for Senator Clinton?

Perhaps you could have done some volunteer work for them - but then I guess you are not a "lefty organizer".

[aht772e]

she triangulated for the general (ie. republican votes) before winning the nomination (Iraq, Iran, flag burning, etc..). She ignored the grass roots in favor of the DLC and corprorate money until it was already lost. Many of us saw little difference between her and george W besides a presumptive level of competence. Despite claiming otherwise, her career revealed very few battles won against republicans as she claimed, AND THEN, she complained about "the boys" picking on her in the debate, Bill compared Obama to Jesse Jackson in SC, she talked about McCain being more prepared than obama, and she was no longer a democrat. Finally she convinced feminists that she represented them better than the rest of the party (despite 4 decades of support).
Now, maybe running out of money by spending as if she had already won and always would have more hurt her case, but with the above set of facts, no amount of money could have gotten he rthe nomination.

[ckfan]

HIllary lost because she's not a leader. A leader has extraordinary vision, is a great strategist and understands how to market or brand a message to get the desired result. A leader inspires and understands that people will follow you if they understand your vision, your message and if they respect and admire you. A leader knows how to hire the best; yet, ensures his or her vision is paramount. Hillary exhibited none of these qualities. McCain has. And so has Obama.

If she ran the country the way she ran her campaign this country would be doomed to 4 years of fighting between parties and nothing would get done.

All of these women who claimed she inspired them didn't notice what a terrible leader she was. They were too focused on her gender and didn't view her with a critical eye. As a woman, I want the best PERSON to President. Hillary would've been a disaster.

Obama08

[MariaHopeful]

Hillary lost for one reason only. Barack Obama. More beautiful in every way!

[missette]

"For one thing, hiring Mark Penn was a colossal blunder which put her way off her game for over half of the campaign."

Today's NY Times has a feature of several people's opinions as to why Hillary lost. One piece is by Mark Penn. He astonishingly says it was because the campaign ran out of money - this from the man who was reportedly earning $6 million to run the campaign as an extra-curricular activity, and then sabotaged it to boot with his dealings with Colombia. What he fails to realize is, one major reason why they lost is because the only reason they were in it was to win. There was no greater cause they were fighting for. It was just a job, and Penn took the money and ran, while Clinton ran out of money.

[harriscrl3]

Hilary lost because she was up against a formidable opponent period end of story. This was an opponent she underestimated and to her credit most people would have underestimated him I mean a two year Senator who is AA and has the last name Obama. If someone like that said I want to run for President people would have laughed and said yeah right and I want to be the king of England. SHe was up against an oppenent that was formidable and didnt look it. Think about it she spent her time discredting his intelligence saying Oh he is all talk he doesnt have substance and she actually convinced herself of this despite the fact that he was putting together a juggernuat campaign. He raised more money than her and he managed his campaign better than her. He kept his message consistent there was no in fighting or drama in his campaign even when they lost. Once people got to hear him they see he has excellent command of the issues. She had everything going for her in the beginning money backed by the establishment a former president and he came didnt blew her away because he couldnt he was NOT KNOWN but he managed to do what he wanted he squeaked by and won. This isnt about how Hilary lost its about how Obama won and won he did. It looks close but its NOT close. He came from 30 points down and eeked out a win.

Carol

[OMauriceS]

Does America need a "fighter" or a "Leader" in the White House at this crucial time in American history? Who does the rest of the world see as having the temperament and judgement to renew America's respect in the eyes of the rest of the world?
Experience or Hope and change? which theme was more relevant to the 2008 democratic primary and the general election?
I rest my case!

[mellene]

I think you put it pretty well. I just can't find it in me to agree with Clinton that she lost because she's a woman. I don't think she's facing up to the real reasons. I found her most of the campaign to find excuses for what was happening or what I'd call her spin on things. I think in the end, Obama had a better campaign and better advisors than Hillary did. For one thing, hiring Mark Penn was a colossal blunder which put her way off her game for over half of the campaign. As you say when Bill and Chelsea hit the trail with her, it looked as if they were in charge of the new messages with Hillary using some weird strategy of being just one of the good old blue collar girls. Give me a break with her millions and South Sea Island string of golden pearls she's more of an elitist than she'd call Obama. Mostly she didn't ring true to me, whether a man or a woman.

[Revealed]

Obama's political existence would not have occurred if the Clintons were progressives. The division in the Dem party is between the progressives and the DLC (Blue Dog) conservatives. The DLC conservatives, who shaped the liberal movement of the 1980-2000, were content with compromising on progressive principles with platitudes for the masses and goodies for the corporates. They passed NAFTA, championed globalization, and advocated laissez faire capitalism. Under Clinton's leadership, the Harvard economists landed like vultures in Russia and advised the povertry-stricken Russians to sell off the state assets (built over seven decades, including their crown jewel technological know-how in materials science, chemistry, physics, metallurgy, etc, as well as their oil, beryllium etc natural resources) to private profiteers for a pittance. Goldman Sachs and the like financiers financed the so-called Russian oligarchs who overnight became owners of billions of dollars worth of (formerly worthless!) vast oil, natural gas and other resources. That is why Clinton could not have not voted for the Bush II's war on Iraq. The interests she represented wanted nothing less than total domination of the world's key resources in the hands of the western corporates. That strategy failed when the people of Iraq refused to surrender.
Obama appears to represent the progressive section of the Dem party. We have to wait and see if he too sacrifices his progressive pronouncements at the altar of expedience of hanging on to the office.

[Nonamnesiac]

The main reason Hillary lost is because she voted to send military members of my family and hundreds of thousands of other family members of other families into harm's way against the interests of the United States. The overwhelming intelligence at the time was that Saddam did not have WMDs, was an enemy of al Qaeda and that removing Saddam would create a bloody calamity and a power vacuum that would be filled by Iran (according to Daddy Bush, Powell, Cheney and many others). Hillary's Party knew it was a major error and a majority of Democrats in Congress at the time voted against invading Iraq (both Houses combined). After that she defended her vote, spoke bellicosely about it, then lied and claimed she believed the intelligence the administration forwarded, even though it was obviously manufactured. Subsequently she personally attacked Putin and Chavez, people whom one might not like, but people who were democratically elected and with whom she would have to deal if she were elected. Then she voted for Kyl-Lieberman.

There was no sexism whatsoever in her losing. People like me who were hard line Hillary supporters prior to her Iraq vote became hard line opponents. She wanted to kill or maim our families and Iraqis, against the interests of the United States.

Had she voted against the Iraq invasion, she would not have lost a primary against a relatively unknown Black guy whose middle name is Hussein.

Her warmongering cost her the nomination, not sexism.

[Bluediva]

I agree, her vote on Iraq was a decision that was costly and had many consequences. Besides the destruction of a soverign country, bloodshed and suffering not only to U.S. Military and families but hundreds of thousand Iraqis. Certainly a lesser consequence of her vote was perhaps the loss of the 2008 Democratic primary. Having said this, I supported Hillary and remain an admirer of the Clintons. They have both served the public well for many years.

Reading Mr. Dowd's editorial I belive a deeper reason HRC lost and would have lost even if her vote on Iraq would NOT have supported Bush. The main reason is Obama's time is now! He is the person at the right place at the right time. Number six remains the pivotal issue:

6. "The country is looking for something new and hip and next generational, and this is especially true for voters under 30 (the 9/11 generation). Barack Obama gave voters this, and Hillary didn't. Obama was the Ipod of this election, while Clinton was the Walkman. The Walkman is reliable and easy to use and works great, it just doesn't have the hip factor that an Ipod does."

Adding to this reason Obama also offered Change and motivated a generation to believe not only he, but they could affect and bring about that change.

[ApolloSpeaks]

BARAK OBAMA ON GENOCIDE IN IRAQ

On CNN last week, Obama, the self-proclaimed mastermind on foreign policy, said to Candy Crawly that when leaving Iraq he will prevent the country from desending into the horror of genocidal war by replacing US troops with UN forces. So the New Politics Express will use the folks who stopped genocide in Rwanda and Darfur and disamed Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hey people snap out of it: the politics of hope and change is hopelessly mired in folly.

[ObamaProud]

and Bush is not the complete embodiment of folly? There is no doubt about it, Obama will make mistakes, as will anyone, but compared to the reckless devastation the Bush will leave him with, I think the percentage of progress will highly outweigh the potential pitfalls. Lots of issues to deal with... Iraq is a mess any way you slice it.

[huhwatjusay]

she is a remarkable woman, this hillary. i believe that the world has seen just how remarkable she is...in any other time, i believe that she would have won. unfortunately, we have had 7+ years of horror with the current administration... corruption at the highest levels...at the helm, a man whose eyes are blinded and ears are clogged to the urgent needs of this nation.
mr bush may have run the nation broke, but has not broken the spirit of the american people. we know that we can do better. we know that things need fixing...things broken and dreadfully mismanaged by this administration. the american people reject this mind-numbing aspect of rule by fear- of divisiveness- of favoritism- of ineptitude to the utmost degree.
obama's call for change resonated with the american people... his organization and grass roots funding from over a million small donors... his absolute rejection of washington lobby monies... his words that touched that part of us that, despite our frustrations, despite this administration's massive blunders, despite all that is wrong in our country... we've got something that no one can ever take away from any of us...we have each other. we are americans first and always. this is our common bond.
let's all move forward in the spirit of this common bond with a common goal. let's bring our voice back into washington. a mc cain presidency is not an option...we are going forward.
that's where we go from here.

[illinoisan]

You totally missed it.

If Clinton had voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002, Obama never would have had an opening and never would have even considered running. No other challenger would have been capable of taking her out and she could have won running in her sleep (which I guess was the plan all along).

[NABNYC]

She had a bunch of conservative insider wealthy white men in charge of her entire campaign, and all she did was show up and read the speeches they wrote for her. She was a puppet, and eventually people saw that. The white men who were running her campaign had nothing but contempt for the public, and a lot of people eventually caught on. I mean Hillary's so-called "health care" program consists of ordering Americans to pay money to insurance companies -- the same insurance companies that backed her campaign, the same insurance companies who have raped the public and denied us affordable healthcare.

She also lied way too much. In fact most of what she said was a lie. She's no feminist, and she's never done anything to help any other women. Where is the legislation sponsored by her to get women into better jobs, demand 50% of the seats in Congress go to women? Not a word from her. An occasional speech at the U.N., but nothing to help American women. She claimed that she created S-Chip, but it was really Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch who created that. Then her silly story about ducking shiper fire.

She had a terrible history, no record worth anything except pro-corporate anti-labor Goldwater girl Wal-Mart Board. And her best efforts to cover all that up failed. Bad candidate got the campaign and the result she deserved.

[freshnotbitter]

Good summary, NABNYC, I'm glad at least one person noticed reality instead of succumbing to the hype.