Why did Hillary Clinton lose the nomination?

Michelle Cottle recently wrote a fascinating and thorough account of where Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign went wrong. Click that link to read the whole article at The New Republic, which is the “exclusive story of Hillary’s fall, as told by the high-level advisors, staffers, fundraisers, and on-the-ground organizers who lived it.”

Markos has a simpler explanation:

If Clinton hadn’t voted for Bush’s war, and compounded that grievous mistake by voting for that Iran bill, she’d likely be the nominee.

John Judis largely agrees with Markos but adds a few other points. For instance, he notes that Clinton waited a long time to go negative on Obama, and then when she did, she did it in a way that backfired with certain Democratic constituences and the political/media class.

Clinton supporter “lombard” posted his or her own list of reasons Hillary lost at MyDD.

I think there is some truth to all of these explanations. It could not be more obvious that Mark Penn believed his own spin about Hillary being so far ahead almost everywhere that the nomination would end on Super Tuesday. The Clinton campaign had no game plan for the nomination battle going beyond February 5.

Meanwhile, Obama started out so far behind, and had such good fundraising, that he was working on building an organization in every state to counteract Hillary’s advantage.

I think Iowans were bound to go for an alternative to Hillary, which is one reason why I was saying all last year that she would finish no better than third here. We knew that if Hillary won Iowa, the race was over. The battle was over who would be the “not Hillary” to win Iowa. But if the Clinton campaign hadn’t made other strategic errors, they would have been able to ride out losing Iowa.

I would add that the media strongly favored Obama over Clinton, especially between October and February. The debate on October 30 was one of the turning points in this election. Obama had plenty of missteps in various debates during 2007, but he never got hammered the way Hillary did after that debate. It was her worst debate of the year, but really, she didn’t do that badly.

That was right around the same time the media bashed Clinton on other things too (including the false story that she and her entourage didn’t tip the staff at an Iowa diner). And after failing to gain traction against Hillary for months, Obama started moving up in national polls soon after that October 30 debate.

I wouldn’t say the media were the main factor in Hillary’s loss, but they had their thumb on the scales for sure. (Judis mentions this in his piece as well.) In part, journalists were probably bored with Hillary being ahead and wanted a closer horse race. Also, it can’t be denied that Obama simply appeals more to the pundit class than the Clintons ever did.

I can’t put it any better than Matt Stoller did did in late January (keep in mind that Stoller prefers Obama to Clinton):

For now, Matthew Yglesias, K-Lo at NRO’s the Corner, Andrew Sullivan, and Josh Marshall are all effusively praising Obama.  There’s something of a DC-New York Ivy pundit crush on Obama that I’m seeing all over the place.  The Village is happy as a clam to see Hillary and Bill go down.  And be aware that the Village doesn’t like us and wants us to shut up and stop bothering them about silly things like civil rights and the Consti-whatever it’s called.  And oh yeah, Iraq.

So as you are seeing the primary play out, note that Obama’s coalition is resting on what is potentially a very fragile foundation.  I find Obama’s organizing capacity remarkable and wonderful for all sorts of reasons, and I’ll have more on that soon.  But keep in mind that the weird alliance between the pro-Obama netroots, the DC Villagers and media, the right-wing establishment, business leaders, social justice activists, and black elites is temporary.  These varying interests only intersect on one thing, and that is taking down the Clinton’s.  A Village temper tantrum against the Clinton’s happens periodically, and it is never a good thing.  Ever.  And if and once the Clinton’s have lost, the fraying of this coalition will happen instantly and unpredictably, depending on Obama’s personal allegiances and the various political interests and their calculations.  

Speaking of Hillary, go read American007’s diary about what she may want to bargain for in any negotiations with Obama.

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

  • just like in 2004 for Kerry

    I think the jefferson-Jackson dinner is when obama caught fire. We at the campaign thought obama had really hit a ceiling since his numbers were stagnating in all the polls. But after the JJ things really shifted.

    • many things were happening at the same time

      The JJ dinner occurred not long after the media started pulling very hard for a closer Democratic horse race.

      As good as the Obama campaign’s field plan and execution was, I simply don’t believe it would have worked as well if the media had been overwhelmingly hostile toward Obama (as they had been toward Dean).  

  • When looking back on what went wrong,

    the Clintons and the DLC will have to reassess their mission statement and consider disbanding for the sake of the Democratic Party.

    Hillary took the nomination for granted and thought she had been anointed before the primary began, and stuck with the old-style, top-down politicking that has helped the Dems lose the last two elections.

    OMG: Top-down politicking is so ’90s.

    The DLC has yet to win the majority of the votes, including Bill Clinton, who  benefitted from the spry campaign of Perot to help propell him into the White House.

    Obama, on the other hand, used a bottom-up strategy that at least felt and feels people-powered. He can thank Howard Dean and John Edwards for helping lay and build the groundwork in this type of strategy. And me thinks, or at least hope, the bottom-up movement will be the wave of the future in politics.

    However, I’m concerned that should Obama win, how will he inject the people-powered politcs into the entrenched D.C. power machine that feeds off money, loyalty, payback, and political climbing? I hope he can use the bully pulpit to line these folks up and let the people knock ’em out of office.

    “Power to the people…”

    • good question

      I think it’s highly likely that he won’t inject people-powered politics into the entrenched DC power machine.

      I discussed this not long ago in this post:

      http://www.bleedingheartland.c…

      An Edwards supporter I met during the past year via blogging told this story in an e-mail communication a few weeks ago:

      I had a bad experience with Obama in Illinois as a grassrooter. We strongly supported our Democratic IL Congressional Candidate in the 19th(Dan Stover) who ran against Shimkus. Obama wouldn’t even say anything about him without a poll to show that Dan had any chance. Neither Dan nor my group could afford a $10,000 poll. The IL DEmocrats were disinterested.On the Sunday before th November election, Obama came through our district on the way to MO to rally for McCaskill. He stopped here in a labor hall for an IL judge. I was not allowed to bring any Stover paperwork into the hall and had to keep it outside I was prevented from bringing it in by a neanderthaloid former laborer who was hired for the judge’s campaign. Dan only was allowed on the stage after Obama, Costello and every dogcatcher from the county were interested and after Obama left.  Electing Dems to Congress was important in 2006. It really stung me and gave me a very bad taste for Obama. I will remember this for years!

      Combine that with Obama doing the barest minimum he could get away with for Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman in 2006, and Obama (or at least his Hope fund) giving money to Boswell this year, and I think it’s pretty clear that President Obama won’t be crossing the Washington establishment.

Comments