Hillary Clinton: What went wrong
June 8th 2008 19:23
On Saturday, Hillary Clinton finally conceded in her race against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President. Obama already had secured enough delegates and Hillary was getting pressure from even her most stalwart backers to make a statement of support for Obama and start the process of reunifying the Democratic Party. In doing so, she ended her long and protracted effort to attain the presidency and she may have ended forever the presidential ambitions of the Clinton family. What went wrong? How could such a formidable frontrunner lose in such an unlikely fashion to a candidate who was virtually unknown? Here are my theories as to why she lost:
* The media turned on her -- If you'll recall, Hillary was the media darling early in the process. Back in October, though, I predicted that the media would develop a case of buyer's "pre"-morse and that they would turn against her. Well, I fully believe that's what happened. CNN was especially pro-Hillary, but their bias was roundly criticized and they parted ways (at least temporarily) with their pro-Clinton pundits. Then, MSNBC went on the attack against Hillary. This was most evident through the antics and rantings of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. Ironically, Fox News was the most pro-Hillary cable news network. However, I think their more favorable coverage was mostly in the interest of prolonging the Democratic race. There's no doubt, though, that Hillary lost her status as the media favorite -- and that de-coronation hurt her.
* The money became a problem -- Hillary raised a FORTUNE during this election season. During the heart of the primary season, she was setting all kinds of personal fundraising records. What was the problem? Well, the problem was that Obama still outraised her by a tremendous amount. Because of this, he was able to outspend her in almost every contest. It didn't always translate into victories for him, but it made her job that much harder.
* Her strategy was faulty -- Hillary claimed to be the candidate with the experience needed to be the president "from day one". She thought that was what the voters wanted. The problem, though, is that this was/is a change election. Hillary's support of the war in Iraq blunted completely her claims of experience and allowed Obama to question her judgment. She became the establishment candidate in an anti-establishment election. It was a fatal flaw.
* Bill Clinton proved to be an albatross -- Bill Clinton has long been revered in Democratic circles. However, his support of Hillary in this election was ham-fisted at best. He made a number of blunders and he came across as mean-spirited and bitter. Yes, he drew large crowds at times, but his mistakes largely overshadowed any benefits he brought with him. Also, his mere presence reminded voters that Hillary was just more of the same. We had four years of George Herbert Walker Bush, eight years of Bill Clinton, and eight years of George W. Bush. Did we really want to follow that up with eight years of another Clinton (leaving us with 28 straight years of two-family rule in the country)? Apparently not.
* She ran into a movement candidate in Obama -- Hillary was the favored candidate at first, but only until someone better came along. Once Obama appeared and started drawing huge crowds, Hillary's appeal started to dim. After Obama won in Iowa and proved that he could really compete, Hillary's task became exponentially more difficult. Even though Hillary held out to the end of the primary season, Iowa opened the door for Obama. When she ultimately faltered, he was there to pick up the mantle.
Hillary made other mistakes as well. However, the ones listed above stand out the most to me. Is that it for the Clintons? Could she run again? Well, if Obama loses in November, she could very well be back in 2012. If he wins, though, I think she's done in terms of presidential runs. Theoretically, she could run in 2016 after an Obama presidency, but I think the country will have moved on by then. There will be other actors on the stage who will step up by that time. You never count out the Clintons, but I just think that the country is ready to move past the Bushes and the Clintons. I know I am.
* The media turned on her -- If you'll recall, Hillary was the media darling early in the process. Back in October, though, I predicted that the media would develop a case of buyer's "pre"-morse and that they would turn against her. Well, I fully believe that's what happened. CNN was especially pro-Hillary, but their bias was roundly criticized and they parted ways (at least temporarily) with their pro-Clinton pundits. Then, MSNBC went on the attack against Hillary. This was most evident through the antics and rantings of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. Ironically, Fox News was the most pro-Hillary cable news network. However, I think their more favorable coverage was mostly in the interest of prolonging the Democratic race. There's no doubt, though, that Hillary lost her status as the media favorite -- and that de-coronation hurt her.
* The money became a problem -- Hillary raised a FORTUNE during this election season. During the heart of the primary season, she was setting all kinds of personal fundraising records. What was the problem? Well, the problem was that Obama still outraised her by a tremendous amount. Because of this, he was able to outspend her in almost every contest. It didn't always translate into victories for him, but it made her job that much harder.
* Her strategy was faulty -- Hillary claimed to be the candidate with the experience needed to be the president "from day one". She thought that was what the voters wanted. The problem, though, is that this was/is a change election. Hillary's support of the war in Iraq blunted completely her claims of experience and allowed Obama to question her judgment. She became the establishment candidate in an anti-establishment election. It was a fatal flaw.
* Bill Clinton proved to be an albatross -- Bill Clinton has long been revered in Democratic circles. However, his support of Hillary in this election was ham-fisted at best. He made a number of blunders and he came across as mean-spirited and bitter. Yes, he drew large crowds at times, but his mistakes largely overshadowed any benefits he brought with him. Also, his mere presence reminded voters that Hillary was just more of the same. We had four years of George Herbert Walker Bush, eight years of Bill Clinton, and eight years of George W. Bush. Did we really want to follow that up with eight years of another Clinton (leaving us with 28 straight years of two-family rule in the country)? Apparently not.
* She ran into a movement candidate in Obama -- Hillary was the favored candidate at first, but only until someone better came along. Once Obama appeared and started drawing huge crowds, Hillary's appeal started to dim. After Obama won in Iowa and proved that he could really compete, Hillary's task became exponentially more difficult. Even though Hillary held out to the end of the primary season, Iowa opened the door for Obama. When she ultimately faltered, he was there to pick up the mantle.
Hillary made other mistakes as well. However, the ones listed above stand out the most to me. Is that it for the Clintons? Could she run again? Well, if Obama loses in November, she could very well be back in 2012. If he wins, though, I think she's done in terms of presidential runs. Theoretically, she could run in 2016 after an Obama presidency, but I think the country will have moved on by then. There will be other actors on the stage who will step up by that time. You never count out the Clintons, but I just think that the country is ready to move past the Bushes and the Clintons. I know I am.
| 109 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L. Bradish
As you pointed out, the Clintons don't generally take "No!" for an answer. Perhaps we can "look forward" to candidate Chelsea one of these days. Scary thought, isn't it?
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate