As Hillary’s quest for the Democratic nomination which once seemed inevitable now seems impossible, a number of people are speculating why she lost.
I have long believed her personality would make it difficult for Mrs. Clinton to win. In this campaign, as Karl Rove put it she “came across as calculating, contrived, stiff and self-concerned.” Contrast that with Obama’s charismatic presence, making it even more difficult for her to convince people of her ability to lead and unie the nation.
To be sure, in the debates (and some of her TV interviews–a format she had shunned in the early days of the campaign), she impressed many (including yours truly) with her intelligence and command of the issues. But, it didn’t seem to make much difference.
That may have a lot to with the kind of campaign she ran. In Time, Karen Tumulty identifies the Five Mistakes Hillary Made. This is a good essay, where Tumulty identifies only the flaws in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. There was far more to her loss than mistakes on the trail.
To be sure, had Mrs. Clinton run a better campaign, she might have been able to pull it off. In addition to her personality, I think two other factors accounted for her loss, the first related to her character, that being the issue of trust. And the second being the media.
As to this issue of trust. I’ve explored this before (on many occasions). Combined with her shifting campaign themes, her misrepresentations of her own record created, then reinforced an image of a politician who would do or say anything to get elected.
Finally, there’s the issue of media bias. Newsweek‘s Evan Thomas once said it gave the Democrats a 15-point bump in a general election matchup against the Republicans. The media tilt toward Obama may not have given him a bump that large, but it certainly made his path to the nomination easier.
It’s not just that the media helped Obama, it’s also that the Clintons have used to kid-glove treatment from the media and weren’t prepared for running a campaign with the media against them.
Would Hllary be the presumptive Democratic nominee had she run a better campaign? Had she had a fall back strategy had she failed to deliver a knockout punch on Super Tuesday and been organized n the caucus states? Probable, but not certain. For, she still has the problem of her prickly personality and the public perception of her honesty.
ADDENDA: In a post on Hillary’s loss, Glenn Reynolds links Mickey Kaus’ “two -factor explanation:”
after Pennsylvania, she seemed to be surging. The CW became that she could win big in Indiana and come close in N.C. She had the opposite of mutnemom–actual momentum. That’s a killer! Voters were forced to contemplate her actualy (sic) becoming President (instead of worrying about Obama as President)
Let me repeat to emphasize: she lost when people contemplated her becoming president. Factors into my personality analysis. Charles Krauthammer echoed that point:
With no important policy differences separating them, the contest became one of character and personality. Matched against this elegant, intellectually nimble, hugely talented newcomer, she had no chance of winning that contest.
I thought you may enjoy this comedic Red State Update if you haven’t already seen them. Check out the whole series on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mc3GQmGGms
The one about Spitzer is a howler.
I have to disgree with that belief about those last states, since she won the late breaking voters once again. So its not that people turned their backs on her, its just she had unfavorable demographics…this primary has always been about demogrphics. I think that is why neither one of them could really capitalize enough to win this thing outright. Obama just got lucky that he had states with high black turn out, more educated, higher income whites through Feburary. Hillary should have organized better, it would have kept the margins lower until she could get to her states. If Ohio, Penn., TX, WV, Kentucky, and Florida had been a month earlier…this race would have probably gone her way.
She ran the wrong campaign in the end, the change thing became a huge driving factor. Obama and his campaign were able to make her into….Bush lite. They basically connected her to everything that was wrong with DC, which was Bush and his administration at first. I just find it amazing when I am reading other left wing blogs and basically they keep repeating that she is just like any Republican. That is the stupidest thing ever uttered. What Republican has pushed universal health care, pretty much staked their reputation on it? And the policy differences are so small between Obama and Hillary..so that means Obama is also a Republican?
I basically realized how stupid and crazy the left wing is from this election.
In all honest, can anyone really stop Obama? It would be really hard to win that battle with his demographics in a democratic primary. He seems to constantly bounce back and its seems nothing affects his support, but then I don’t see what will stop African Americans from voting for him. I don’t know, he seems unstoppable to me.
A while back, some of us were talking about how Hillary is like that psycho ex-girlfriend (or boyfriend) that refuses to take the hint and leave you alone. Along those lines, we also hypothesized that Hillary could easily be like a Freddy or Jason that you cannot just kill but will have to vanquish.
Well, lo and behold, one Dhimmicrat lawmaker is already comparing Hillary to Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction.”
I swear you cannot make this stuff up. The DNC is fast becoming a parody of itself.
Regards,
Peter H.
Put aside all the fluff (like Hillary’s unfavorables, media bias, cash on hand etc.), there is one overwhelming reason Hillary lost the nomination to Obama: her campaign had no strategy to compete in the caucuses. Subtract Obama’s caucus delegates and Hillary is the nominee; she won a majority of delegates available in primary states.
When a history of the 2008 campaign is written there are two questions I hope are answered. First, how did Obama put together such a skilled campaign organization in such a short time? (He didn’t take his seat in the U. S. Senate and really become a national figure until January 2005.) Secondly, once it became apparent that Hillary wouldn’t wrap up the nomination early, why did her campaign fail to recognize the significance of the caucuses?
I think my third question is answered. It is why the media has closed ranks so tightly to protect Obama’s carefully constructed image. My answer: Leftists in the Democratic Party and leftists in the national media are cut from the same cloth. When it became apparent that the Democrats would make history, nominating either the first woman with a good chance of becoming President or the first black with a good chance of becoming President, there was no debate. The black’s election would make a bigger statement, make the left feel better about itself and it was easier to slap a woman around than make blacks mad.
I still wish it was Hillary against McCain. These debates with Obama are boring! I don’t have confidence in Obama and I’m afraid for our economy under McCain. How can we win?