Top 10 Reasons Obama Defeated Clinton for the Democratic Nomination

Now that the outcome of the battle for the Democratic nomination has been settled beyond a reasonable doubt, it's worth looking systematically at the major factors that gave victory to Obama. After all, fifteen months ago, conventional wisdom viewed Obama as an audacious long shot. The very idea of a first-term African American senator with a name like Barack Obama defeating the vaunted Clinton machine seemed preposterous.

Here are my Top Ten reasons why lightning struck in the contest for the 2008 Democratic nomination (apologies to David Letterman ):

#10. Great Team. Obama assembled a great team that could work together. He stayed away from lobbyist insiders like Clinton's Mark Penn or McCain's Charlie Black, and choose political professionals who are committed to progressive values like David Plouffe, David Axelrod, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes. From the first he insisted on one key rule: no drama. There was little of the infighting and division in the Obama operation that ate away at the Clinton campaign. Clinton had many capable staffers and consultants, but Penn's divisive leadership style and failures as a strategist doomed the campaign organization to dysfunction. When the brilliant Geoff Garin was tapped to succeed Penn as Chief Strategist in April, it was simply too late.

#9. All-State Strategy. Mark Penn was convinced that Clinton could sew up the nomination by Super Tuesday focusing only on the big states. In fact, some have reported that he mistakenly believed that California had a "winner take all" primary. Obama's team hunted for delegates in every nook and cranny of America - especially in the caucus states that Clinton really didn't contest. Obama ran an active, on-the-ground campaign in every contest, from California to Guam. As a consequence, as one anonymous Clinton insider reports, Clinton lost the nomination in February after Obama ran the table in 11 straight states.

#8. No Plan B. The Clinton campaign had no fall-back plan when it failed to capture the nomination on February 5. There was no money, no organization and no plan to contest the states that lie in the land beyond Super Tuesday.

#7. Excellence in Execution: Great Field. Obama ran the best field operation in American political history -- particularly in the all important Iowa Caucuses. His campaign left no stone unturned, or a vote on the table, in any state. It opened offices everywhere, hired and trained great staff, and managed through simple, streamlined structures. It would have been easy for Obama to squander the massive influx of volunteers who were mobilized through his inspirational message. But the campaign developed structures to integrate and effectively use volunteers, both on the ground and through the Internet. In particular, it developed highly sophisticated new Internet tools to allow volunteers around the country to participate meaningfully in voter ID and get out the vote operations.

#6. Explosive Obama Fundraising. Obama's ability to compete everywhere, to build great field structures and to out-communicate Clinton in the paid media rested squarely on the massive fundraising operation. Obama's traditional fundraising program ended up matching the vaunted Clinton fundraising machine. But the newly developed Internet operation provided a massive advantage. So far Obama has recruited over one-and-a-half-million donors. In other words, by the time the primary season ends, almost one of every ten Obama primary voters (so far there have been 16.3 million) will have made a financial contribution to his campaign. That is beyond unprecedented.

#5. Obama Out-Communicated Clinton Using One Consistent Message. Obama's message has been consistent from Day One. Clinton lurched from "experienced insider" to "populist outsider" from Margaret Thatcher-like "Iron Lady" to a "victim being bullied." And of course, Obama's huge small-donor-driven fundraising advantage gave him the ability to out-communicate her in the paid media - often by a factor of two-to-one.

#4. Hope and Inspiration trumped Fear and Anger. A core element of that Obama message has always been hope and inspiration. Early on, John Edwards hit an important cord of populist anger that is critical to any successful Democratic campaign. Right now especially, people want their leaders to be populist outsiders not "competent" insiders. But Edwards was unable to resolve that anger into hope. Obama touched the anger but also held out possibility. When Hillary "found her voice" as the fighting populist at the end of the campaign, she tapped into anger as well. She didn't hesitate to play the fear card -- both when it came to foreign policy, and by channeling the Republican frame that "elitist professional types" are trying to destroy your way of life. But she never managed to inspire and resolve that fear into hope.

Inspiration is the one political message that simultaneously persuades swing voters and motivates mobilizable voters who rarely come to the polls. The North Carolina landslide provided a striking example of how inspiration can generate massive mobilization at the same time it appeals to independent swing voters.

#3. Unity Trumped Division. Obama showed that appeals to division - whether from elements that stirred up fear that a "black candidate couldn't win" - or from his former pastor - could be overcome by America's overwhelming hunger for unity. Americans - and particularly young Americans - are sick of Republican appeals based on the things that divide us, particularly race. It isn't 1988 anymore. A whole generation has passed from the scene and been replaced by young people who simply don't get the passions that allowed the fear of "Willie Horton" to decide the 1988 presidential race.

#2. Change Trumped Experience. Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn's fundamental strategic error was to position Clinton as the "Experience" candidate, when America desperately wanted change. Eighty percent of the voters think America is on the wrong track. They want change in general - and most importantly, they want change in the way special interests dominate Washington. Mark Penn, the consummate lobbyist-insider himself embodied the very thing people believe is wrong in Washington. It's no wonder he made this catastrophic strategic blunder.

#1. Obama is an Extraordinary Candidate. Inspirational, articulate, brilliant, funny, attractive and naturally empathetic - his history as a community organizer, his experience abroad, his beautiful family, accomplished wife, and adorable kids: Obama is the kind of candidate any campaign manager would want in any year. But he is perfect for this year. While the Clintons represented the Bridge to the 21st Century, Obama is the 21st century. His own, multi-cultural story is the future of America. As the campaign tested him, he showed he was cool, deliberate and effective under fire.

In the end, people vote for people. Campaigns are ultimately about the qualities of candidates --about whether or not people want them to be their leaders. Potentially, Barack Obama could become an historic, transformational leader. But John McCain has many qualities that are attractive to swing voters as well. Nothing is preordained. Now it will be up to every Democrat, every Progressive, to take advantage of this historic opportunity to make Barack Obama the American President who leads the world into a new progressive era of unprecedented possibility.

Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on amazon.com

Comments

[Demonax]

Three words: IRAQ WAR VOTE!

[classicalmusicman]

That's what finished her. Had she opposed the war, had she apologized for her vote, or admitted it was a mistqake, she'd be sailing off to Denver by now. It was that vote that opened the flood gates for an unknown Illinois Senator who wasn't even in the Senate when Hillary cast that vote but who was known to have opposed it. Without that vote, he might never have run, and if he did, he'd never have gotten this far.

But there's one more thing that I don't see mentioned often--Hillary's explanation for her vote. In essence, she said she voted for the Iraq war measure because she believed or trusted George Bush's word that this wasn't a "war" bill--when everything about it, including its name and Bush's rhetoric said it was. (At least John Kerry and John Edwards said they were misled by the intelligence.) Only a fool or a liar would say openly that she believed George Bush. As it turns out, Hillary is both--a liar because no one with any intelligence would believe George Bush (as opposed to the intelligence, a major difference) and only a fool would say this publically while running for President as a Democrat..

[nomadicexpat]

One Word:

Oprah!

[Jules36]

One link:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

[nomadicexpat]

a better link

http://youtube.com/watch?v=M5tw1nbxoys

[mjc]

One question: If Barack Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party, with all the very loving media attention, and so many endorsers, and so much money, WHY CAN'T HE CLOSE THE DEAL ON THIS NOMINATION? Why has it taken so very long for him to even get this close to the nomination?

[UrbanInterloper]

Clinton saying Obama can't "close the deal"--now that's funny! Maybe she should look into the mirror and do a little soul-searching. He's done just that, while she hasn't.

[ebanks84]

Because he's a gentleman. He wants to give Hillary every chance possible to make her case. How many other candidates would do that? None! Evidently, you don't appreciate someone being just plain nice.

[lavisiter]

Obama's always had people like you, others in the MEDIA, his driven pundits etc. etc. etc. etc. who have been visious FOR HIM! All the while - he's basking in this act of saintliness! Notice he has a slip every once in awhile when he lets down his guard!? Like today - May 15th when he PUT OFF - just brushed off a sincere and significant woman reporter all the while calling her "Sweetie!" He never did answer her question and ALL the huge throng of auto workers at the event who wanted to know his position on their JOBS! Nope he skipped out within SECONDS of telling the "little sweetie" he'd be back!

[0j0]

He can't close the deal because we have two outstanding candidates. In any other election year, Hillary Clinton would be, by far, the best candidate. Obama was 30 points behind Clinton just 6 months ago. Clinton was way ahead in Super Delegates, fundraising and organization. Give him credit for overcoming much of that by Super Tuesday, and becoming the front runner. The deal was essentially closed before Pennsylvania, but Clinton chose to stay in the race, even though she had no chance of winning the nomination.

[Arbos]

One question: If Hillary Clinton is this phenomenal candidate, who had an heir of inevitability about her, and the much hyped "Clinton Machine" behind her, with her national appeal and the Clinton brand name...WHY CAN'T SHE CLOSE THE GAP ON THIS NOMINATION? Better question....why couldn't she close the deal after New Hampshire?

[Demonax]

And one more question: Why can't she apologize for her Iraq war vote? Is it because Hillary, like George Bush, can never admit a mistake?

[thyorison]

This article is an insult to the intelligence of Obama supporters.
Hillary voted to authorize the Iraq invasion, which was the stupidest policy decision ever.
Barak opposed that.
We've been waiting over 5 years for a candidate who opposed that stupid decision.

[rvwave]

You are absolutely correct. Hillary lost the nomination when she voted for war, and sealed the loss when she sided with Bush in declaring the Iranian guard a terrorist organization. No more disastrous wars!

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

How does that apply to "proxy wars" the U.S. has fought for/with Israel?

[itsnotmyfault]

This is a very interesting article. With all of these great attributes and a three to one spending advantage over the last half of the primaries and an effort to demonize Hillary Clinton, making her into a rabid racist, all willingly supported by the media like this Huffpost "all Obama all the time" and a Hillary campaign which could not have been more dramatically mismanaged, the Obama, the great candidate, has not yet secured the nomination. When he does secure it, which is at this point a virtual certainty, he will have blown off the results in Florida, fought a re-vote in Michigan and secured the lions share of votes in areas of the country not likely to vote Democratic in the general election, regardless of this "new map" to victory that Obama envisions. That concept of a new map to Democratic supremacy in the general, I fear is utter fiction.

This Obama victory feels more like a victory in world wide wrestling as opposed to an Ali over Foreman "rumble in th jungle" style triumph. If the Democratic primary system mimicked the general election, even in the slightest, Hillary would have secured the nomination month ago. Instead, and smartly so, Obama's campaign has played the system in place brilliantly. The problem is that all of the ten great attributes Mr Creamer credits to Obama, maybe meaningless in the general election and John McCain will win and I couldn't take four more years of this current nightmare.

[donkat]

Hillary failed the first test when she selected Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and the rest to orchestrate the most dysfunctional campaign in recent history. Where was her vaunted judgement then? How did her so called experience help her in her deliberations? Is this a glimpse into what her presidency would look like? Of course, it is.

Bill and Hillary did play the race card and continue to do so. It was their own willingness to play their ends justify the means game and play it dirty. Let's not talk about anyone changing rules when Clinton first agreed with the other candidates and the DNC about Michigan and Florida. Now that she thinks they can help her, she has changed her tune. She didn't care about disenfranchising voters when she was confident she would win.

From the beginning Clinton has been a flawed, inconsistent candidate - she has lied (sniper fire in Bosnia?) she also might be delusional. She has stated that she will obliterate Iran should they attack Israel - placing herself to the right of McCain. Proving she is a hawk, she has always been a hawk.

A Clinton presidency would only mean more of the same. We can't afford more of the same.

[brioli]

so vote Obama and encourage your friends to do the same! remember #4 Hope and inspiration trumps fear and anger!

[Heaphy]

itsnotmyfault, you criticize Obama because he played by the rules of the Democratic nominating process, and has been successful. Please remember that the Clintons had enormous influence in developing and implementing those very rules. They've pretty much run the party for the past 16 years. The results of the recent special House elections tend to validate Obama's concept of a new electoral map. You strive to be perceptive but your wrestling vs. boxing analogy falls flat. Sour grapes will bring you nothing. Now is the time to unite the party for victory in November. Won't you please join the winning team? Wouldn't you like to win for once in the 21st century?
- Jim Heaphy

[Benton]

What a bitter hateful rant. Full of excuses, full of blame, and a complete unwillingness to take responsibility.

[Neoconstant]

How can so much wrongness be crammed into such a small amount of space? Obama HAS won the nomination, agreed to the same rules regrading MI & FL as HRC (only he has consistently abided by them), already HAS redrawn the electoral map and will do so again in Nov. "If the democratic primary system mimicked the general election, HRC would have secured the nomination month (sic) ago" - as Dems, we certainly know about that! Ask Al Gore!

[Smartey]

Funny that the article mentions the Willie Horton angle, when the vaunted Al Gore was the first to use the Horton horror in TV ads aganst Michael Dukakis. Mr. Creamer might want to edit that paragraph.

[jonathan94002]

Yeh, I get so tired of this myth.
In fact, while Gore did mention the furlough program that Dukakis implemented and he did mention that were problems with it, he not only didn't give names, i.e. Horton, he sure didn't broadcast a picture of a 'scary black man' across the nation's airwaves, ala bush and his disgusting scum buddies. It was Floyd Brown who dug up Horton and decided that it'd be such a good idea to get an extreme closeup of him and send that image out across the nation. (Although it was only paid for once, the media took up Brown's slack and rebroadcast the image a bunch of times, like they did with the swift boat liars.)

[PatrickforO]

Excellent article - Obama has proven throughout his campaign that he is a great leader, knows how to delegate, knows how to share a vision and mobilize people to achieve that vision, knows how to get organized and stay organized, stays on mission, stays (for the most part) on the high road, tries to unify, creates hope, is focused and very, very bright. Wake up, folks! You can tell A LOT from the way a candidate campaigns. This is what kind of president he'll be, and what kind of president this country desperately needs. As a poster below says, America thirsts for COMPETENCE, and Obama is competent!

[RichLiberal]

Just replacing a post that an over-zealous Huffington censor removed from this column the other day:

#1: The Obama campaign painted the Clintons as racists and leveraged that into a lop-sided vote from the AA community.

Hey, politics is hardball. Obama played the race card and appears to have gotten away with it.

But politics is also a long term affair, much beyond the outcome of any single election.

One great thing that Hillary has done is having created a very self-aware half of the Democratic party. Unlike what the Obama people think, this self-identification has nothing to do with racism, but everything to do with economics. The Hillary voters now have a much clearer perspective on what they are looking for in their representatives at the district, state, and national level.

Hillary is in the process of consolidating this base for the long road ahead. If she says that for now supporting Obama is the right course, then that is what most of us will probably do, although only as an expedient to prevent the Republicans from taking office. However, every candidate for every office will now be viewed as to how they behaved in the face of their constituents support for Hillary.

[Futuristic]

Hey RichLiberal, you are as wacko as your candidate Hillary. She has proved she is a wacko throughout the primaries, and you have proved that you are by the garbage mouth lies written here. If you had half of brain you would know that Bill and Hill played the race card in North Carolina, while Obama remained cool and calm. Hillary played the race card again in West Virgina and Penn. where were you, did you have your head burried that far up your a- -. How can you say with a straight face that Hillary "is in the process of consolidating the base" when she continues to campaign with a new theme that "hard working White voters will never vote for a Black man." The fact is Obama is ahead because a large contingency of smart White voters recognize that he is the best chance for changing American politics in the best interest of everybody, both domestic and foreign. The era of racist politics is coming to a close, fasten your seat belt because its coming fast.

[brioli]

Hillary with her MLK remarks and Bill's JJ remarks played the race card. Her hard working WHITE americans didn't help either.

[campgranata]

I would never be an apologist for MRS Clinton as I find her behavior reprehensible yet I don't believe that giving credit to LBJ for signing the civil rights act into law was an attack on MLK. Credit for the idea goes to MLK, the dreamer but it takes a legislator to make it law. Hopefully, in Obama you have both the dreamer and the legislator. Now on the JJ issue just the smirk on Bill Clinton's face when he said what it was he said looked suspicious.

[donkat]

The Clintons have played the race card, not Obama. That's a fact, not fiction. The Clintons played this campaign stupid and dirty and that is why she has lost so much support. She lost me when it became clear that they will do anything, say anything to win. They lie. They intimidate. She, like Bush, can't seem to admit when she has made a mistake. She even turned into Joe Lieberman at one point when stating that only she and McCain had the requisite experience for the job. She lacks grace and dignity.

Now that it seems so clear that she cannot win (to everyone but her) she has decided to act as a party uniter when it was she that split it. She doesn't care about the party, she's hoping that the party will forgive and forget the mess that she created. She's trying to make sure that she's not expelled from the party. She's trying to save her own hide, that's all.

As far as Clinton supporters having any influence anywhere - that depends on whether Clinton has a place in the party. Given her behavior, the jury is still out on that one.

[UpstateNYer]

They both played the race card.

[campgranata]

as a former western New Yorker who goes home once in a while and sees the devastation the lack of jobs has wrought I could never support Clinton for her broken promises. how is it in your neck of the woods?

[gladys46]

John Edwards endorses Obama ... about time John!!

[gladys46]

Hillary Clinton does not represent this woman's movement here in Philly ... Nope! Fast Eddie knows that ... we are the "women" that stopped her cold in PA ... we gave Obama the largest populated area of PA.

So when the pundits speak of some "woman's movement" had by Hillary ... forget it ...we are completely ashamed of Hillary Clinton! We wanted an honest, forthright, fair playing WOMAN ... she possesses none of those virtues!!

VP NEVER WE HOPE!

[donkat]

Nicely said! Hillary is a stain on womanhood - I suspect that she wishes she were a man and that's why she acts as she does. She certainly isn't a feminist.

Obama can't have Hill as VP - David Gergen said he'd need a food taster! That is unimaginable, she'd be trying to sabotage him at every turn. No, no, no.

As a woman, I hope to vote for a woman someday. Just not this woman.

[LollieDotCom]

Great article, well put. I do have to disagree slightly with one point.

You said:
"Obama showed that appeals to division - whether from elements that stirred up fear that a "black candidate couldn't win" - or from his former pastor - could be overcome by America's overwhelming hunger for unity."

Unity, my asp! Honey, I know racists who are voting for Obama. He overcame due to America's overwhelming hunger for COMPETENCE. No matter our age, gender, race, religion, educational level or how much we make.... survival instincts still reside within enough of us that it trumps everything else. He's the best person for the job. We can survive with no less than the best. Period.

[kgirl72]

How much of the working white class vote would be needed if Obama could win the Latin vote in the same numbers as the black vote?
10?
20?
30?

If he picks New Mexico's Gov, what are the possibilities for him?

[SensibleAmerican]

The only "reason" is because Democrats are rightly laughed at by the Republicans because they tend to choose the wussiest and most out-of-touch candidates for President again and again! Mondale, Dukakis, Carter, Gore, Kerry
For ONCE they chose a real “son-of-the-soil” Bill Clinton and he turned out to be the only Dem Prez. to serve 2 terms since FDR!
Democrats have been painted as “weak on defense” and they are proving it again by the far-left-loonies trying to hijack the Party and their subsequent support for Obama
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot in 2000?!The Republicans would not have caved in like Gore did
Imagine a Bill Clinton being swift boated by the Republicans in 2004?! Would he have bent over like Kerry did?!
They love to stand around in a circle and shoot! Ted Kennedy was almost 800 delegates behind in 1980 and he took the fight all the way to the convention. Now the same “has been” wants Hillary to bow out!

[donkat]

You need to change your "handle"... you make no sense at all.

[campgranata]

what are you sensible about: a healthy diet? It wasn't that Bill Clinton was the son of the soil (look up his history) it was all about Ross Perot.
Ted Kennedy what ever his past is not a has been but a powerful senate leader. your girl, you know the one who ran on the reputation of that son of the soil is on her way out; a has been in the making.

[kaygee]

Let the process decide. Confident Obama supporters should not have to resort to this "forcing" of the democratic process. It's not over until the 2025 is reached.

[newsjunkie8]

Neither can get 2025 soooooo.

Obama 08

[synergie]

wow, you're the first person with that tag I've seen to admit that. Neither can get to 2025 so neither has a mandate, so neither is require dot drop out, got that part? Let the process work. Neither is anointed, that happens after the party decides as a whole who is going to represent it. He hasn't sealed the deal, half the party didn't vote for him just as half didn't vote for her.

Just sit down and if you can't shut up, then at least ask pertinent questions of BOTH of them and stop trying to make Clinton the bogeyman. At the moment it is just as legitimate to ask him to step down as well, since he does NOT yet have the mandate!!!

[campgranata]

Didn't you notice, camp Clinton changed the numbers to include MI and FL?

[Verified]

These post-mortems of the HRC campaign often fail to recognize and name the one person who is truly responsibly for its failure. That person is Hillary Rodham Clinton. She hired and overpaid her sub-par (and frankly nasty) consultants. She agreed to and willingly carried out the strategy they offered. She allowed in-fighting to hamper the campaign's progress. She failed to sufficiently discourage her husband's outrageous racial innuendos. She went far into debt, arrogantly presumed ascendancy, flip-flopped, and pandered, pandered, pandered. Politicians to some extent, can be judged by the people they choose to surround themselves with and depend upon. But ultimately, they are the candidate and leader of the campaign.

[FLindependant]

Agreed. As much as all statements regarding Obama ring with some veracity. This was Hillary's nomination to lose and she performed almost as if losing was her intent.

[GaiasChild]

Great analysis, just great. There's also something about the times and how things are changing. Consider that Clinton's used tactics that have worked before very well and this time they seemed to hurt her more than her opponent. This must be very confusing. They are right out of Karl Rove's brain and horrific as they seem to those of us who appreciate Obama, they have worked in the past. Rove got W into the governor's job in Tejas by dirty tricks against Ann Richards. And that got him a secure place with W. The kind of genius Rove is is ruthless and toxic. So it has worked. Clinton tried it and wasn't able to destroy Obama with it (yet) but the really unexpected thing was that it seemed to hurt her. Another sea change seems to be that people in the USA want to be proud of their government and want to see inspiration and intelligence represent us to the world. Of course generalities don't mean much but how else can you account for the grassroots financial support for Obama? Some of those investors are like me, hard working white women who can recognize an Abraham Lincoln type JFK type talent when I see one. Once I would have supported her. Never Karl Rove tactics, ever. So there's been a change of heart perhaps. An awakening of sorts perhaps. And it will only be much much better when the Harry Potter reading kids are voting.

[RezidentBivrip]

The difference is who those dirty tricks spoke to. By nature liberals put on a more caring front, whether or not they are is for history to decide. Conservatives put on a tougher front. This means when Rove played hardball, he was talking to people who are all about kicking ass and taking names. Hillary tried that, and liberals weren't having it. There were plenty of people who voted for Hillary, and probably more who voted for the Clinton brand, and some also voted against Obama. But there was very little passion for her. Obama supporters are fanatic, almost to the point of cult-like enthusiasm. Hillary couldn't compete with that with Politics as usual.

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

This cult-like "enthusiasm, " which all-too-readily elides into open SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS gel-coated to instantly dissolve into "anti-racist" fits WILL leave a bad taste in the political craws of MANY non-Obamaiac demonics.....and WILL linger in memory....

The LATTER concede that he MUST be a god, but don't be surprised at the number of Democrats who choose another Sabbath on which to worship.....!

[campgranata]

you're right it's a different time and a different game. what has worked is not working and so how much importance can we put on states that were important to what ever party when that too is changing. what I find destroys the experience argument is that old chestnut:'Often experience is just stupidity hardened into habit' and in the case of MRS Clinton whose main experience lies in lying and still can't get it right.