The Road Not Taken: How Hillary Lost and Why It Matters

As a fan of Hillary Clinton, it is difficult to look the truth square in the face: the only person Hillary supporters have to blame for her primary performance is Hillary herself.

I am certainly not the first to point out that Hillary's career, reputation, and personality were swiftboated by an interminable deluge of right-wing attacks and a decades-long cultural embrace of Hillary-hating -- a phenomenon that is irrational, self-contradictory, and self-sustaining (if you are new to the lingo, Stanley Fish aptly summarizes the egregious cultural practice in two of his latest NY Times columns and its hundreds of responses). But it was Hillary -- and Hillary alone -- who had the opportunity and the ability to uproot and eradicate this right-wing monster once and for all.

She didn't and, as a result, she will lose the primary.

Since the start of her run, Hillary has failed to systematically address the charges leveled by Hillary-haters or confront the phenomenon of Hillary-hating generally. During the primary, when confronted with a Hillary-hating issue -- likeability, triangulation, ambition, poll-addiction, personality, secrecy -- Hillary would laugh indifferently with her now notoriously vilified cackle. Otherwise, whatever listless gestures she attempted spoke only to a narrative of self-pity (tears in New Hampshire) or overconfidence (her sardonic retort during a debate). Early in the campaign, a series of commercial testimonials titled "The Hillary I Know" were launched to offer a competing narrative: why were these abandoned? The threat of Hilary-hatred as a cultural phenomenon was never really taken seriously.

After the New Hampshire comeback, I had hoped that this pervasive obstacle to her nomination would finally be confronted. It was a false hope. Hillary's tears and her discovery of a new voice were not the first reparative gestures of a new systemic attack, but were lucky breaks that scored a local victory in the Northeast. The tactics were soon aborted and they were never embraced as the winning strategy they could have been.

In short, despite her claims to the contrary, Hillary is not as vetted as she has been protesting. Ironically, Hillary will lose as John Kerry did in 2004: the election will slip through her fingers because she caved to the swift-boating machine. Obama, however charismatic and rhetorically gifted in his own right, thrived because of Hillary's unattended baggage. Obama's nomination is perched upon on the back of Hillary's overturned swift boat.

Certainly there were accomplices in this political death. First, of course, is the conservative machine itself: our first female candidate faced a barrage of misogynistic vilification long brewed by the Right (ever since Hillary's suggestion that first-ladies could have brains) and complacently accepted without a semblance of critique by a large portion of independents and Democrats. The media's insouciant appeasement of and participation in the Hillary-hating phenomenon offered it the vail of legitimacy.

Some might argue that the bulwark of Hillary-hating was just too powerful for the Clintons to penetrate or was rooted in a cultural misogyny too thick for even Gloria Steinem to wade through. Others (and I believe many Obama supporters have argued as much) acknowledge the injustice of the anti-Hillary campaign, but question the need to confront it systematically: why waste time on a protracted debate over an individual's personal and political history when we can focus on attacking the opposition or generate new leadership with limited liability, more hope, and a fresh direction for the future? Indeed, this powerful reasoning will eulogize the Clinton campaign to its grave. But even if Hillary had battled with her haters directly, could her campaign have sustained itself on her personal story alone? As many pundits have asserted time and again: her campaign was all about her, Obama was all about us.

In fact, however, Hillary's story was about us (though, again, to her detriment, she never framed her story this way) and, unfortunately, the real losers in this story are the Democratic Party and progressives and liberals generally. After all, Hillary is just one victim of a much broader right wing assault on American values and institutions waged over the past thirty years. After the most recent eight years of Rovian politics, demonizing of war critics, wars on science, shaming of war heroes (past and present), eroding our civil liberties, and incessant truth-twisting, I had hoped that the most powerful couple in Democratic politics would finally offer a winning strategy to fight the conservative machine. But if Hillary and Bill could not withstand the Republican tar and feathering, what hope is there for American politics? Barack Obama may outrun an aging and meek John McCain in November, but will Obama last a full term against the calumny generated by Limbaugh and Co? How long will Obama be capable of maintaining his high road?

Comments

[Lolalabloggera]

The country's not ready for a woman president--it's that simple. While media personalities get fired for racial comments, sexism reign supreme everywhere.

[Kermugeon]

Agreed...it's her fault, but as a student of history you ignore (probably more the result of bias than ignorance, in either case not good for a historian) the garbage that has roiled in her wake of her own making for most of her adult life. There is no need for a right-wing conspiracy when you've got cattle futures, Castle Grande, travelgate, filegate, a health care fiasco, etc., etc., etc. These are not the creation of Rovian stooges, they are real questions that she has never fully answered for and quite rightly she will be asked again. Furthermore, it's these questions and her (and BJ's) lack of candor that spawn the mistrust that you interpret as hatred. Look, my dogs are long-gone in this race and I agree that this cult of Obama is really spooky, but I can't see how anyone would trust her let alone vote for her.

[Shaunzilla]

Actually, most of those charges were brought forward by a special prosecutor funded and supported by a right-wing machine--all of which came to naught because the charges were groundless.

[Ozarks]

Your blog misses some critical information and reasons why there are so many "Hillary- haters".
She voted for Iraq war, the Bankruptcy legislation ( which credit card issuers loved), She voted in support of Bush's labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard as terrorists, argued by some as a blank check for Bush to go to war with Iran. She skipped voting on the Fisa telecom immunity bill even though she was in Wash. D.C.
More vivid though was her behavior in South Carolina when she realized she was about to lose that primary. And, letting Bill go out and trash Obama ;"fairy tale" statement comes to mind. Her attempts to break rules and validate the Michigan and Florida primaries. Her trial balloon floated to see reaction to a ploy to steal Obama's committed delegates , again a violation of Party Rules.
People apparently become Hillary Haters, as I have over the past month, because of all these displayed attributes of Hillary just over the past several months. Hillary becomes easy to "hate" in a very short time. So there is no wonder why there is such a large back log of Hillary haters. They have been paying attention to her far longer than me.

[finally]

Exactly - and she voted for that war without reading the 95-page Nat. Intelligence estimate no one on her staff had access to. I bet she did read the polls that day. Too much posturing, pandering and looking for that voice... Not able to admit a mistake (Iraq vote) and not learning from it (Iran). And STILL claiming, after super Tuesday - that all is going as expected?! She simply is no longer believeable. On top of that, she was always the most divisive of all the candidates. By raising her own negatives, she will lose support in "her" party, even more indeps. will go to McCain, and the GOP will united against her in droves. It simply can no longer work, and I wish she would put the party, her issues and her own senate (?leadership) future first, instead of damaging our chances in November. Time to unite, and this, she cannot do.

[jrand5248]

This article misses the underlying theme, HUBRIS. There was, is, a dissconnect between her and the voter. Her and reality for that matter.( the baghdad bob routine of her campaign talking heads are HILLiarious,pun intended). She has done nothing on her own, yet she touts 35 years of "expierence" thats non existant. People don't have a problem voting for women. need proof, look at Arizona, Missouri, Kansas. No people have a problem, to borrow a line from her husband, vothing for THAT woman! She called Obama on ethics. Are you serious. 35 years of expierence. Really! I assure you that if a truly qualified woman ran we would not be having this discussion. The blame everybody else but me Clinton pathology is over. People want something done and done now.

[standforpeace]

Don't forget that she also ran the most disorganized campaign that money could buy.
1. Her husband went out to discount Obama's win in South Carolina because after all Black votes really don't mean as much as those cast by white voters. How dumb was that?
2. All last year when everyone knew that Obama was bringing in the kind of cash that could help him to wage an extended battle, the Clinton camp kept betting that they would be able to knock him out quickly. What hubris!
3. She didn't even put up a fight or organize in the Super Tuesday caucus states. And those states ensured that Obama could stay in the game until he could mount an awesome offense later in February. What a miscalculation and sorry financial management.
4. She had to fire her campaign manager down the home stretch as the disorganization of the campaign came into public view.
5. She built her political future on Texas, apparently oblivious to the fact that the way that delegates are apportioned to the state's electoral districts favored her opponent. Someone truly deserves to be fired for that goof.

Hillary Clinton, the candidate running on her attention to detail was bested by a more charismatic candidate running a more disciplined campaign organization. Pure and simple

[finally]

Exactly - she's running on "experience" and "readyness to lead" and her second effort in this (i.e her largely inherited campaig is a distaster - another "leader" shielded from reality in a cocoon on trusted advisors where loyalty trumps competence. They dared not even tell her how bad the finances were?! This is atendency sen. CLinton has shown since day one in the first WH - remember travelgate? Everyone is out to "get us", and that was before the right-wing conspiracy, press conspiracy etc etc... First initiative was health care reform: extreme secrecy, my-way-or-­the-highwa­y approach leading to zero results, setting us back years... And now not foreseeing that this could last longer, that small donors and small states could matter?! What would this group do if Iran or N Korea did something they did not foresee?! She can no longer run on "leadership" nor "experience", as here, past performance would be an indicator of future returns!

[standforpeace]

Also one thing that I want to highlight is how much support Hillary Clinton's f'd up vote to put a loaded gun in Bush's hands cost her. If she had joined John Edwards in taking responsibility for that disastrous vote and apologizing earlier in the campaign season, she might now be the Democratic Party candidate. Instead, she decided to ride that pony to death, and she has paid a heavy price. I believe that it was the left antiwar (from the very beginning) wing of the party that gave Obama the funding to get this campaign going last year. And when this brilliant, charismatic candidate and his disciplined campaign organization got the chance, they ran rings around Clinton.

[eljodio]

Folks in the Democratic establishment are fearful of Obama and the movement he represents because it threatens how they and the Republicans practise politics. That "cultish" quality amongst Obama's supporters that people in the liberal media have been snickering about is really the fear that if this man becomes the President of the United States is not that he will change water into wine but that he'll actually have the support of the American people to do what needs to get done.

[DazedandConfused]

The problem with the Hillary campaign is that she doesn't accept any "blame" for not getting more votes. According to Hillary and her campaign strategists, the "blame" is a result of unfavorable media coverage, the caucus format (which doesn't favor her), the small states (which shouldn't really matter), and, of course, the voters themselves -- who are being duped by the rhetoric of that other candidate.
Don't you think that Biden, Dodd, and Richardson wanted to scream when they listened to Hillary talk about her 35 years of experience? But they refrained themselves because they're adults.
I was considering voting for Hillary. In fact, I'm a woman, and I would have favored a woman. But after her loss in Iowa, I found the behavior of Hillary, Bill, and other surrogates to be juvenile and pathetic. If she had just accepted the loss graciously and moved on, I would have probably voted for Hillary.
I think you can tell a lot about a person when they lose. Obama took his loss in New Hampshire a lot better than Hillary.

[generaldelivery]

"Obama took his loss in New Hampshire a lot better than Hillary. "

Obama took his loss in New Hampshire by accusing her of "race-baiting" in South Carolina. Hillary never made scurrilous charges or personal attacks like that on her opponents. She didn't need to. She was always ahead of everybody on the issues. That's why she beat Obama handily at every debate.

[DazedandConfused]

I make distinctions between what the candidate and/or surrogates for the candidate say and what the media and/or supporters says (such as Mark Penn talking about Obama's drug use). Obama didn't accuse Hillary of race-baiting. Those accusations came from Obama SUPPORTERS and the media. Also, that didn't start until Bill made his "fairy tale" remark.
Let's look at that. A former President publicly accuses someone of spinning a story. (Bill, of couse, has definitely spun a story or two.) Isn't that unseemly for a former President? Apparently, you don't think so. I do. (I have to give it to Bush I -- he has acted much more like a former President --despite all the negative comments about his son.)
And as far as the issues go, Obama and Hillary have very similar policies. Hillary may be more of a "wonk" -- I'll give you that. And Obama may be a better speaker.
In reality, as Lawrence O'Donnell (pundit/ writer of West Wing) points out -- neither one is going to get their health care program through in their first 4 years. It's too hard a battle w/ the Republicans. (Possibly some improvement, depends on # of Democratic Senators after next election.)
So, yes, it mostly comes down to the person. And Hillary is not the person for me.

[Dvmx]

This is true, and we shouldn't have to choose our nominees on the basis of whether or not they can "withstand the Republican attack machine". Hopefully the Republicans will emerge from their coming defeat with a will to go straight, to stop the destructive politics.
In any case, Hill's other problem is that those of us who liked her are liking Obama more. Let's face it- Obama is a phenomenon just when America needs one. His candidacy is an opportunity we can't afford to miss.

And Hillary started looking less like the first female candidate than the first spouse candidate. Bill back in the White House?.... ah, not sure about that...
Eight years is too long to go back. We want to jump ahead now. Hillary's moment may have been in '04. Had she led a rebellion against the war and abuses of the Bush admin, she might have won, and been recognized a great hero. But '04 looked difficult, and '08 looked easy.
But destiny had another idea for '08.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

Hillary needs to withdraw after tonight's debate.

She can only win by destroying Obama and misusing superdelegates (and cheating in Florida and Michigan). And what would that do to black voters-- whom the white Democratic establishment has often taken for granted?

It's not just about Obama's support among African Americans, because whites and Latinos can feel the same outrage about these tactics.

Yet there's a pattern throughout our history of black voters being shut out of the political process, and black leaders being called frauds. The "grandfather clause" in the Jim Crow laws, and the felony purge lists in Florida in 2000. The charges of plagiarism against Martin Luther King Jr. The charge of mail fraud against Marcus Garvey.

If Hillary stays in only to treat Obama like a high school graduate cutting and pasting other people's speeches, she will destroy her own reputation, and-- worse-- jeopardize the 90% support Democrats have among black voters. If they see their votes being nullified by old white men in the party with whom a single vote equals ten thousand votes-- if they see this respected statesman and author being dissected in a way no white politician ever has been (they all borrow words from other speeches), why would they vote for Hillary in November? Why would any Democrat?

Hillary is better than this campaign, and far better than this latest tactic of shoving superdelegates down our throats (see http://www.delegatehub.com/) and calling Obama a plagiarist with no solutions. She is giving the GOP more ammo every day, disgracing her own standing among Democrats, and potentially leading the party to alienate for decades the African American community, a community whose story of struggle and quest for equality define the image of the Democratic Party.

[EspressoAtNoon]

To suggest that there was a right-wing swiftboat against Hillary regarding lies, distortions, and triangulations is to suggest that there were right wing lies about these qualities of hers.

I am far to the left and I witnessed her triangulation just about 70% of the time she opened her mouth in the beginning of this primary. She would try and say one thing to one group and another thing to another group, and then in the debates she'd have to spin around in circles and never say anything, because she knew both groups would be watching.

You are correct that she never tried to tackle the problem. But you seem to think she should have stamped out the untrue characterization. I believe she should have just stopped the triangulation and taken a position.

Once she got caught red handed in the debate triangulating and Edwards ran an ad showing her parsing and saying two different things side by side, it became clear that SHE HAD CREATED HER OWN BED TO LIE IN. It had NOTHING to do with some right wing conspiracy.

[LAJonathan]

There is a laundry list of reasons Americans are rejecting Hillary and yes, its her own fault.

[Fuzzback]

Those who cling to the fantasy that Barack Obama is merely “empty rhetoric” just don’t get it.
That “empty rhetoric” has created the most powerful campaign in history.
It’s revolutionized campaign financing, and is actually steering the narrative of the other campaigns, on both sides.
Senator Obama has already changed the way campaigns have traditionally been run and financed, and he's done it by rousing the people of this nation.
He'll do same as president. He WILL change Washington.
And that's why so many, both in his own party and on the other side, are so desperate to stop him.

[Shortyfuse]

Well, great. So now we get to elect the forth worst president in American history.

[DasBoot]

Great post, because you provide a fair-minded analysis of Hillary's mistakes from the inside and thus without Schadenfreude.

I think your concerns over Obama's ability to withstand the Republican attack machine are understandable. However, you framed the question wrong. It is not whether Obama alone can do it. Of course he can't.

But once Democrats hold the bully pulpit of the White House, we can assume the project of systematically reforming the political culture of this country. There is a real possibility of this happening when everybody chips in. Remember, one reason for Obama's surge is that so many people seem to be tired of Rovian politics. Without a sufficient amount of takers, Rush and Limbaugh et al are helpless and will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

[Anjisan]

What a pleasure to see an intelligent post - as opposed to the endless mindless rants. I agree with you to a certain extent. To think that Rove and his cohort, and all the movement conservatives are going away is - according to Paul Krugman - naive. Although they will be out of the white house - they are the ones with the power and money. It was their corporate media who decided this election.

[slg]

It would be a different America if all the Hillary haters had used a tenth of their vitriol in the last eight years against BushCo.