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.
Originally published on ABC News.
Loading comments…
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
She lost me with all the divisiveness.
I was on this site championing Hillary throughout most of the primary. But when the divisiveness started, I moved to Obama.
I watched as the Clinton campaign went through all the demographic groups, trying to fan the flames of any racism that might be exploited in each. Blacks won't vote for Obama because he's not black enough. Latinos won't vote for Obama because they hate blacks. Women won't vote for Obama (Hillary only won the older women; Obama tied her in the other two groups.) Then it was hard working whites. Then the Jewish community. "Electability" lies, using divisive tactics and lots of contrived polls, a la Mark Penn.
Her campaign was far too ugly for this time in history, and it was Hillary herself who decided to go with Bill's friends for her advisors, instead of with a new team of her own choosing, a team that would have been more in touch with the mood of today.
Americans are tired of our politicians pitting us against each other according to our race, religion, gender or even our political leanings. I love my Republican neighbors. They're not evil, I don't hate them. I just disagree with them on party politics. And I know a lot of them feel the same way about me.
And as a white woman of 55, I am still incensed by her surrogates' constant refrain - that I'm anti-woman if I don't vote for Hillary.
Hillary underestimated the anti-war feeling. She comes from NY where the large Jewish political infrastructure makes it more difficult to be anti-war.
Hillary lost votes because of her support for war while Obama lost a negligible amount of votes for having opposed the war.
The "I'm tough enough" aspect of Hillary's campaign sprang from this mistaken impression of voter sentiment on the war.
Hillary might say that the strategy was aimed at the general because it was assumed she would win the nomination. Indeed, I think that was the first and last mistake she made.
Sen. Clinton should not have won it because she was way off message. She could not have won it because her campaign "managers" were utterly inept.
it is the war.
Mr. Dowd is a republican and they still don't understand how important getting out of Iraq is to dems and independents. Also, she underestimated Obama (the most exciting politician of my generation).
The war vote is among the top six. It was the only real policy difference between Obama and Clinton. Democrats do not support the war or the decision to start it and Hillary never came around to that position. Obama's was clearly and consistently different and voters agreed with him.
The best part I like best of Matt's analysis is where he says gender did not cost her the election. Yes, it was a factor, but gender worked both for and against her. Many who voted for her might have voted for Obama were Clinton not a woman. Just as many voted for Obama because he was black. As far as sexism in the media, Obama suffered grievously from racism among right wing media. I mean, this game of who was victimized more can go on an on, fruitlessly.
The saddest thing about the gender issue is that her campaign is trying to make it the historical explanation of why she lost in order to avoid more honest introspection. I believe Hillary herself has fallen into this trap.
Yes, Hillary's achievement is historical in scope and some day there will be a woman president. Other democracies have moved ahead of us on this, and have elected female heads of state: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher. But I honestly believe that for feminists to blame Hillary's loss on sexism as the MAIN reason for her loss is counter-productive, and alarmingly, MIGHT PUT McCAIN IN THE WHITE HOUSE..
For me, as important as any of the issues was Clinton/Bush Fatigue. 20 years is enough!
And oh, by the way, Matt shows he is an older generation type by not seeming to know that it is iPod, not Ipod. :-) Otherwise, a good article, Matt.
So what do you think?
Am I right to have confidence in my belief that come November 4, the American voters are going to go into the polls en masse and vote their self interest which will reflect the almost total failure of the current administration's last seven plus years?
Do I have it right when I say that Obama, the man alleged to lack experience, but the man who from his own earliest times has shown good instincts proven by his work with the poor and needy in Chicago prior to his going to Harvard Law, with his return to that same effort after graduating from Harvard Law School, and his fierce and public criticism of the decision to go to war in Iraq, not after the failure of the effort was shown, but prior to the war actually beginning; do I have it right that Obama will be our next president?
It's hard to tell what you have right because of your inability to express yourself coherently.
If people were to vote in their self interest, then yes, Obama will be our next president. The amount of people who will benefit from Obama's proposed policies GROSSLY outweigh those who will not. It's hard to fathom that all of the people who are struggling to survive due to the aggressive collapsing of our social and financial infrastructure would vote for even more suffering just because McCain broadcasts his propaganda at the monster truck rallies. But then... they did vote for Bush... twice.... so, logic need not apply to this particular argument. Hope for the best... :)
I believe come November 4, American voters are going to the polls and by overwhelming numbers elect Obama. Not because it's in their personel self interest but because it's the right thing, the only thing to do for our country and the world.
There is a lot of concern about Obama's campaign being based upon hope and nothing more. Ultimately all we have is hope. For all of the opportunities Bush had including a former president as father, with experience as governor and the wealth of contacts available to him, Bush's presidency has been a disaster - which the country may not recover from until it has crashed with a depression. The real estate bubble is not the only bubble bursting, the economy with pensions being put into hedge funds may yet blow up.
Obama's ability and understanding that organization can prevail is a proven theory.
HRC's tremendous support is imaginary, many are voters - political saboteurs sent by Limbaugh to confuse the political landscape. When you consider TRUE SUPPORT the willingness to organize the community, bring in new voters, and SEND IN HARD EARNED DOLLARS, HRC's supporters turn out to be much less. Her $40 Million debt is a testimony to her lack of true support. If they won't send in their money, they are not truly for her. Obama and his organization will have to bail her out.
Our hope is that we will allow ourselves to be reorganized by Obama's vision and discipline to make it work for ourselves and our families for more prosperity for the masses and not just for the wealthy.
Those who believe that Obama's campaign is based solely upon the concept of "hope", simply have not been paying attention. It is not a real concern for those who have.
Matt, you didn't even mention Hillary's negatives, her vote for the Iraq war, and her rather pathetic excuse for that vote that she "was fooled" by President Bush into thinking he would exhaust every diplomatic possibility before going to war. That single issue, alone, undermined her entire "Experience!" mantra. Her Kyle-Lieberman vote was not only a double-down on her bad judgement vote, but was a slap in the face of the millions of voters who weren't happy with her original war authorization vote.... as was her criminalization of flag burning bill, an appallingly blatant appeal to the right-wing authoritarians who comprise the base of, not the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party!
Bill Clinton always had the ability to shoot self in foot (with his narcissism and financial insecurity), but he was always a far better politician than Hillary, and Hillary's "I'm not just going to stay in the kitchen and bake cookies" comment, her "I'm not going to just stand by my man, I'm no Loretta Lynn" comment, and her "I was always opposed to NAFTA" when there was video of her supporting it, trumped any of Bill's shoot-self-in-foot tendencies by a mile.
Just imagine if the Obama campaign had used her "Bosnia sniper", "I was opposed to NAFTA before I was for it" and her "I was fooled in voting for the Iraq war" videos in a more aggressive manner, as Republicans certainly would have!
For all the talk about what Hillary did wrong, she won in the key swing states... this worries me a lot. This investment mgr writes a solid, short post (in which he links further to a larger article by MSNBC) which actually discusses what I'm worried about:
http://www
Can Obama really win back these voters in these states?
Hillary won in key swing states against another Democrat. That does not mean Obama will lose those same states against a Republican. All through the campaign Hillary's team tried to make the point that whatever state Hillary won in, Obama would lose in the general. That is absurd. This makes no sense in political reality because Obama will not be running against Clinton in the general.
Another factor is that in several states, particularly Texas, California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Clinton was helped by Limbaugh's Operation Chaos where he urged people there to cross over and vote for Clinton. History will show that Limbaugh was a Hillary helper to an extent not yet realized.
I wonder how many people voted for Hillary because Limbaugh told them too, quite a few i'm sure.
The Republicans didn't want to go against Obama they really wanted to go against Hillary because they had their playbook all set up and ready to go on her.
At the end, Mr.Dowd, is this not about wheather America wins? Can Obama end the downward spiral that the current administration set in motion? It is a moot point to ponder weheather Obama or Clinton is the better candidate while America is spinning out of control. Face it...democ
Well said. In the end, it doesn't really matter why Obama won and Hillary lost. With faith I believe the best candidate to defeat the Republicans won. I also believe the losing candidate's supporters are tenacious and hardworking, as we campaigned tirelessly for Hillary, we will now work to elect Senator Obama.
I continue to admire HRC but she lost and we all need to move forward. The coming election isn't about bashing Hillary but about winning back the country.
For the Democratic Party to be celebrating the Historic nomination of an African-American to be the nominee for President because he ran a good campaign and she ran a bad campaign, his handlers were organized and hers were disorganized, she couldn't use the superdelegates to give her the nomination but he could, his supporters are educated and hers are uneducated, he had manufactured experience and she had actual experience is the perfect example of relying on hope instead of substance to win the general election. I truly hope it is enough but I don't think so.
Hillary's team didn't recognize soon enough that the Bush administration made "experience" a negative.
What "experience"? I kept hearing this word abundantly applied to her... she has two years more in the Senate, and she was first lady. Am I missing something here? Where is all the experience people are talking about?
Yes, Obama talks hope and inspiration. But he can back that up with life experience, a record of intellectual experience and his time in gov't. Yes, it will be enough. Jim Webb framed it nicely this morning - the campaign will be about Intellect, Composure and Vision. Yeah Jim!
Could you please tell me all the so called experience she has?
None of the canidates have any executive experience so I look at how they run their campaigns and Obama has made history with the money he has raised with his over 1.5 Million people donor list which is unheard of and Hillary did raise a lot of money but she is Millions and Millions of dollars in debt.
If she can't even manage her campaign's finances then how do you think she can manage our economy.
In all seriousness, the pantsuits and scarfs were a huge negatives too. Who wears them other than Hillary and Pelosi? They look un-hip, grandma-ish and dowdy to the kids.
I always thought Hillary looked fabulous. She is a really attractive woman who has heavy legs - the pantsuits made sense.
Are u saying, and i just wanna make sure. That she's Entitled.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
