Posted on 06/06/2008 9:16:21 AM PDT by The_Republican
THIS time last year it looked as if Hillary Clinton's path to the Democratic nomination would be a cakewalk. She had the best brand-name in American politics. She controlled the Democratic establishment. She had money to burn and a double-digit lead in the opinion polls. And as the first American woman to have a chance of breaking the presidential glass ceiling, she had a great story to tell.
And Barack Obama? He was a first-term senator with few legislative achievements and a worrying penchant for honesty (in his autobiography he admitted to using marijuana and even cocaine, when you could afford it). He knew how to give a good speech. But how could that compare with Mrs Clinton's assetsa well-oiled political machine and a winning political formula that combined a carefully-calibrated appeal to the centre with hard-edged political tactics?
Today, Mrs Clinton has not only lost the Democratic nomination. She has humiliated herself in the process. She has been forced to lend her campaign more than $11m of her own money. She has cosied up to some of her former persecutors in the vast right wing conspiracy, notably Richard Mellon Scaife, a newspaper magnate. She has engaged in phoney populism, calling for a temporary break on petrol taxes, praising hardworking Americans, white Americans, vowing to totally obliterate Iran and waving the bloody shirt of September 11th. The conservative Weekly Standard praised her as a feminist form of George Bush. So how did one of America's most accomplished politicians turn a cakewalk into a quagmire?
From the first most of her biggest advantages proved to be booby-trapped. Mrs Clinton stood head and shoulders above Mr Obama when it came to experienceshe had been one of the two most influential first ladies in American history and had proved to be a diligent senator, a work-horse, not a show horse. But Mrs Clinton's experience included her decision to vote in favour of invading Iraq, a decision that was radioactive to many Democrats. And Mr Obama was the first to grasp that this is an election about change, not experience. Americans have had enough of experience in the form of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Seventy per cent of them say America is headed in the wrong direction.
The Clinton machine only exaggerated this problem. Mrs Clinton surrounded herself with familiar faces from her White House yearspeople like Mark Penn, her chief strategist, Terry McAuliffe, her chief fund-raiser, Howard Wolfson (one of the least helpful spokesmen this newspaper has ever encountered) and, of course, her husband. But these people were all deeply enmeshed in a Washington establishment that most voters despised.
Mr Penn, one of Washington's most powerful lobbyists, continued to lobby for a free-trade deal even as Mrs Clinton was trying to appeal to blue-collar voters by denouncing free trade. These people also summoned up uncomfortable memories from the 1990s. Did America really want to spend another four, or eight, years watching Mr McAuliffe et al catching flack on behalf of the Clintons? Everybody in politics lies, David Geffen, a Hollywood mogul, said last year. But the Clintons do it with such ease, it's troubling.
Bill Clinton was the very embodiment of the Clinton paradox: a huge asset who was also a huge liability. Mr Clinton is a political superstara man who left office with a 60% approval rating and a claim to have delivered eight years of peace and prosperity. Most Democrats love him. But he is also a cad and a narcissist.
His presence on the campaign trail reminded voters that Mrs Clinton is hardly a self-made womanshe rose to power on his coat-tails and endured repeated humiliations in the process. It also undercut her claim to executive experience. Mrs Clinton had made a mess of the health-care portfolio that her husband had handed her in 1993. And it raised the question of what Mr Clinton would do in the White House. Would he be an unelected vice-president? And would he re-establish the dysfunctional politics that had characterised the presidency in the 1990s?
You're out of time The Clinton machine was too stuck in the 1990s to grasp how the internet was revolutionising political fund-raising. Mrs Clinton built the best fund-raising machine of the 20th centurypersuading Democratic fat cats to make the maximum contributions allowable and accumulating a vast treasure trove of money. But Mr Obama trumped her by building the best fund-raising machine of the 21st century.
Mr Obama simultaneously lowered the barrier to entry to Obamaworld and raised expectations of what it meant to be a supporter. Mr Obama's supporters not only showered him with small donations. They also volunteered their time and enthusiasm. His website was thus a vast social networking site (one of his chief organisers was a founder of Facebook)a mechanism not just for translating enthusiasm into cash but also for building a community of fired-up supporters. Mr Obama's small donations proved to be a renewable resource, as supporters could give several times, up to a maximum of $2,300. Mrs Clinton ran out of cash.
The Clinton machine was also too stuck in the 1990s to see how radically the political landscape was changing around them. Here Mr Pennthe campaign strategist who helped to mastermind Bill Clinton's re-election triumph in 1996was particularly culpable. Mr Penn underestimated Mr Obama's appeal. He relied on the techniques that had served him well in 1996microtargeting small groups of voters (he even published a book during the campaign on microtrends) and emphasising Mrs Clinton's middle-of-the-road credentials. But this was a big-trend electionand the biggest trend of all was changing the status quo in Washington.
These strategic errors probably doomed the campaign from the first. The Clintonites were so confident of an early victory that they spent money like drunken sailors (one of the biggest beneficiaries of all this spending was Mr Penn's own political consultancy). The campaign was all but bankrupt by late Januarythough Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign manager, failed to tell her boss the bad newsand the Obama campaign outspent them two or three to one on Super Tuesday, February 5th. The machine was so confident of victory in the big states such as California, Ohio and Pennsylvania that it failed to plan for the smaller caucus states, or for the primaries and caucuses that were to follow immediately afterwards. Mr Obama was thus given free rein to rack up huge victories in places like Virginia. After Super Tuesday, Mr Obama scored a series of 11 wins in a row. Without those, he would never have secured the nomination.
These grand strategic errors were compounded by poor day-to day management. The people who introduced the war room to American politics proved to be slow-witted and gaffe-prone. Remember Bill Clinton's decision to belittle Mr Obama's victory in South Carolina by pointing out that Jesse Jackson had also won the state? The only logical implication of that was the slur that a black candidate somehow could not win. Or Mrs Clinton's claim that she dodged sniper fire in Bosnia? The Clinton machine all but fell apart under the pressure of defeat. Rival factions, grouped around Mr Penn and Harold Ickes, were constantly at each other's throats. Mrs Clinton was forced to sack Mrs Doyle and marginalise Mr Penn.
This chaos left Mrs Clinton without a compelling story to sell to the Democratic electorate. She tried fitfully to co-opt Mr Obama's change message. She alternated between being an iron lady, ready on day one, and a put-upon woman, bullied by mean boys. She reinvented herself as a working-class hero, Rocky in a pantsuit. But this created an impression of slipperiness and opportunism. In some states half of the voters said that Mrs Clinton was not honest.
The chaos also gave the Democratic establishment a chance to ditch the party's first family. Many Democratic politicians had always disliked the Clintons for handing Congress to the Republicans in 1994 and triangulating their way out of trouble. They were only willing to stick with them as long as they looked like winners. Ted Kennedy's decision to anoint Mr Obama as the heir to the legacy of Camelot was an important symbolic moment (this election is about the future, not the past, he said pointedly.) But even before that a striking number of superdelegates had been unwilling to endorse a woman who was supposed to be the inevitable candidate. The silence of Al Gore, Mr Clinton's vice-president, spoke volumes.
A near-run thing The Clinton campaign might well reply that this catalogue of failures ignores the fact that it was a very close run result. Mrs Clinton won almost exactly the same number of votes as Mr Obama (and claims to have won slightly more, though on a fair count she won fractionally less). She won most of the big states. She improved hugely as a campaigner after the reverses of February, and pulled off big victories in the final weeks of the campaign.
But given the scale of her advantages a year ago there is no doubt that the Clinton campaign comprehensively blew it. Mr Obama will now go on to fight the general election with his primary strategy vindicated and his campaign staff intact. Mrs Clinton has big debts and a brand that is badly tarnished.
She faces an uncertain political future. There are still plenty of Democrats who argue for a dream ticket. But Mr Obama probably has other ideasparticularly since she publicly speculated about his assassination. Mrs Clinton still has a power-base in the Senate. But she remains a junior figure in an institution with a famously low turnover, surrounded by colleagues who spurned her in favour of the new kid from Illinois; and Harry Reid is dug in as majority leader. She may find it more attractive to run for the governorship of New York.
And, during the campaign, Mrs Clinton has damaged not only her future but also her past. The Clintons were modernisers who argued that the Democratic Party needed to reinvent itselfembracing free-trade, investing in human capital and reaching out to upwardly mobile voters. During her inept bid Mrs Clinton fell back on all the worst instincts of Democratic politicsdenouncing free trade, stirring up the resentments of blue-collar America, and adding a flirtation with racism to the brew. After such an unedifying performance, it is hard to believe that Mrs Clinton's failed campaign represents a missed opportunity for America.
Oh cut me a break!
Yawn, the Clintons are/were nothing without the MSM/Hollywood/Academia war room. They were a manufactured myth.
Now the war room has simple found a exotic and shiny new fairy tale named, Hussein.
Obama has a “penchant for honesty” because he admitted to marijuana and cocaine use? Maybe The Economist needs to read the rest of his books.
Until I see her toes curl up in the striped sox I am NOT ready to sing “Ding Dong the Withc is Dead”
Obamarama could still revive her chances of being president with a pick for Veep and a trip to Ft. Marcy park.
I still can’t believe that these two were the best the Democrats could come up with. Wasn’t there anyone else?
DO NOT count the clintons out.
As I've been saying for many years, I'm worried about VICE President Clinton.
Think of it:
Two years and one day into her term the first slotter gets arkincided
Under Article XXII, she can still run for two full terms as the incumbent
The Glorious Hillary! Decade begins
Hillary uses the Patriot Act to it's fullest extent, and beyond
At the end of the Glorious Hillary! Decade there is a National Emergency "temporarily" delaying the elections
Under the pressure of the National Emergency, the 2nd and 22nd amendments are repealed
By the time the National Emergency is over all the 'improved' source code for the touch screen electronic balloting will be in place......
Just as an aside, with the Clinton's well known love of 'ethnics', Obama is very expendable, isn't he?
Yeah. The republicans did soooooooooooo much better...
Indeed we did. From the Hanoi Hilton to the White House. We have chosen a true patriot with the guts to take it to the enemy.
The article is dreck. One of the largest piles of conventional wisdom ever.
Yes. Jimmy Carter was good too. He served the country honorably in the Nuclear Navy.
Yes, but the flip side is if the Obama/Witch ticket were to get trounced in November, the Clintons would not be able to go around claiming “We told you so.” She would really be politically dead then.
Nope. Winning means that the Hildabeast can’t run for president in ‘012 (Assuming Obama lives that long).
Losing means that she can.
The clintons would destroy the country if they could rule the rubble.
Wouldn’t they do as much for the DNC?
Who do they think the other one is, Eleanor Roosevelt?
-PJ
Comparing Carter’s to McCain’s service is a real disservice. I can’t believe how some diss the extraordinary heroism of our surviving POWs of the Hanoi Hilton.
No problem.
Would you prefer to discuss how he co-authored a bill to abridge freedom of speech?
Oh wow. This slays her!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.