|
2.10.08 The Clinton autopsy by Jon Worley I'm sure most people will see this column as extraordinarily premature. They're probably right. Nonetheless, it seems apparent that Hillary Clinton will not win the Democratic nomination for president. This should come as no surprise to regular readers, as I called the general election for Obama a couple of weeks ago. Nonetheless, here are three indisputable reasons for the apparent demise of the Clinton campaign:
He's stomping her by 20 points or more in most of his wins. She couldn't beat him by 20 points in her adopted home state of New York, which she serves as senator. While some commentators say that there is no such thing as momentum in this race, I think they're wrong. Obama has been steadily climbing in national polls since the Iowa primary, where he sat some 15-30 points down in most surveys. Today, most polls call the national race a tie or even give Obama a slim lead. The trend has been slow, at least by presidential primary standards. But the pace of Obama's upticks haven't changed much in six weeks. You see this all the time in World Cup qualifying. Teams that aren't doing well (or merely aren't playing up to expectations) kick their manager to the curb and try to inject "new blood" into the team. It usually doesn't work. There are myriad reasons, but it boils down to this: Desperation moves are made when your situation is desperate. Most folks do not succeed in desperate situations. Clinton sees her position in the race as desperate, and I think she's right. Which is the most recent, and best, reason for counting her out of the race. I don't care if you think Hillary can still go all the way. We'll find out soon enough. But I've identified a few key mistakes she made along the way. I'm not sure she would have won if she didn't make these mistakes--Obama is a phenomenon, and those are tough to beat--but she'd be in better shape today. Without further ado, here's list number two!
I worked on the Clinton campaign in 1992 in the Kansas City office. I met Hillary Clinton a few times. She's smart, funny and quite personable. She's also tough and has the will of a real fighter. All that comes across in person, and I found her very attractive. Back then, at least, she let her guard down from time to time. The reason so many people made so much about her version of "tears in the snow" is that she hasn't let her guard down in, well, 16 years or so. She's not a robot, but she plays one on TV. And when you're running a race against one of the most personable candidates since your husband won the presidency, you ought to display a fair amount of flair yourself. She simply buttoned herself into her suits and showed everyone the Rumsfeldian side of her personality instead. If Obama doesn't win Iowa the way he won it, he's not where he is today. That win convinced black voters across the country that he could, in fact, win a general election. Clinton's numbers among black voters have crashed since then. And we shouldn't be talking merely about black voters. After Iowa, all voters saw Obama as eminently electable. If Clinton had stomped him in Iowa, he might still have come back, but he wouldn't have had the week of free publicity he got after that win, and he would have had a much tougher time after losing New Hampshire. Especially if he's your husband. Bill Clinton is one of the most gifted politicians in American history. Hillary Clinton is not. Plenty of average campaigners have won the White House (the elder Bush, most recently), but not with the shadow of a president hanging over them. Eisenhower's tepid endorsement was an important factor in Nixon's 1960 loss. Taft took the Bull Moose by the horns in 1912 and finished third--and he was the incumbent! Ex-presidents can be handy, but tend to have minds of their own and don't always use the playbook. When John Edwards bowed out, he said he didn't want to stand in the way of history. While slightly egotistical (if he wanted to be accurate, he might have said he didn't want to be run over by history), this statement is a fair observation of the Democratic race. And when two attractive candidates can both claim history, then you aren't going to get much traction on that issue. There are plenty of women (and some men) who will vote for her because she's a woman. Less focus on her position as the first woman to have a real shot at the White House and more on who she is as a person would have helped. But I kinda already said that. It's all about who makes them feel good. I've talked to all sorts of people who say that voting for Obama makes them feel good about themselves. Yeah, it's partly a liberal guilt thing, but the other side is that by voting for Obama you are voting for the hope of a better tomorrow. Of a better America. Of working to make ourselves and our country better. Obama doesn't actually give any specifics on this sort of thing, but I have to admit I feel that way a bit myself. Clinton is by far more experienced and quite possibly more competent as an administrator of the country. I like many of her policy ideas better than Obama's. But I'm voting for Obama on Tuesday in large part because I'm excited by the very idea of voting for him. In short, Clinton had to stomp Obama early if she wanted to win. She didn't, and so she is going to lose. All those "superdelegates" who have "committed" to her? Once the tide seriously turns toward Obama they'll change their tunes. While I would love to see a brokered convention (talk about fun!), this race will be over after Obama takes either Texas or Ohio (or both) on March 4. And as much as I'd like to say she only has herself to blame, that may not be true. Maybe Obama was really too much, even from the start. Nonetheless, she'd be doing a lot better right now if she'd run a better race.
|
e-mail Jon Worley
return to the Shut up, I'm talking page
return to the LIES home page
return to the A&A home page