« A campaign without a Clinton is like…what, exactly?
Attention Hillary Clinton: Step Away From The Nomination Race »



Why Hillary Clinton is Losing

February 12th, 2008
By MARK DANIELS

Print Print

_klj_lkj_k.gif

Hillary Clinton has lost tonight to Barack Obama in Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Maryland. I believe–and have for some time–that Clinton will lose the nomination fight to Obama.

Why will she lose?

Some will say that America was more ready for a black president than for a woman president.

Some will say that people bought flash over substance.

But to understand why Hillary Clinton is likely to lose her race for the Democratic nomination, you need look no further than to her speech in El Paso tonight. Striving to energize her campaign and make an Alamo stand in Texas, the senator from New York spoke to an enthusiastic crowd of true believers.

But even if you agree with Clinton’s positions on the many issues on which she touched this evening, at her best, she is what I call a “laundry list” candidate. Her speech was a laundry list of concerns and campaign promises.

Laundry list candidates may have superior knowledge of the issues. They may be right on those issues. They may even have experience on their side. There are some years, when all seems to be going well, that laundry list candidates, some of whom are policy wonks while others are management technocrats and still others are mere panderers, are just what the American people want in a president.

But in times of crisis, laundry list candidates or laundry list presidents won’t do.

In 1980, with hostages being held in Iran and the country slogging through an unprecedented economic miasma called stagflation, people took little comfort in having Jimmy Carter in the White House. Carter was a competent and undeniably good man, a master of details who at one time even micromanaged use of the White House tennis courts. That’s why Ronald Reagan, a seemingly simple man who knew how to connect with people at a human level, beat Carter.

In 1992, George H.W. Bush sought re-election after having won the Persian Gulf War, at one point enjoying a 90% approval rating. But when the economy went into the doldrums, Bush, the president probably most knowledgeable of the inner workings of the federal government since Dwight Eisenhower, got beaten by a young upstart from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who, like Reagan, connected with people and could, when he avoided his penchant for verbosity, make the English language sing.

People perceive that the United States is in a time of crisis. Parts of our country, like my home state of Ohio, are suffering from job loss and a resultant lack of hope. The war in Iraq is in its sixth year. Foreclosures on home loans are up. The rise of China is, at the least, an economic threat to the country. There are concerns about the environment. Millions of people live each day without health insurance.

The laundry list of concerns is mind-numbing. But what voters are looking for in times like these isn’t someone who simply lists their problems with attached solutions. They want a president who seems to connect with them and who can inspire them.

Think Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. Think Ronald Reagan in 1980. Think even Bill Clinton in 1992.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t belong on that list. But Barack Obama may. And that, more than anything is why the one-time front running senator from New York is in a desperate battle to win the nomination for which she’s fought so hard this presidential election season.

[This is being cross-posted on my personal blog.]



This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 12th, 2008 at 7:21 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 11 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I'm just stunned by the cartoon's reliance on an obscure early Spielberg flick that may have been a TV movie, if I remember correctly.
    • ^
    • v
    um...you listed a laundry list of things that need fixing, yet you wouldnt choose the person who knows how to deal with that laundry list, you would choose the flowery, pretty but in the end completely vapid oratory? Interesting. You know JFK connected with people with his pretty words and back slapping happy man style, and had next to no legislative achievements at all. I love JFK but its true. FDR used great rhetoric too, but he wasnt elected for it, and he had to use all of the power wielding machiavellian skills at his disposal to get his programs through. Reagan? You may believe he was inspiring. I thought he was a dolt.

    But hey the people get what the people want. I just have this nagging doubt that the JFK analogy may well be a fitting one. And I think you will be shocked at how little the Republicans give a damn about your thoughts of crisis and how little they will give a damn about cooperating with Obama.
    • ^
    • v
    Hillary still has a good chance of winning- I don't count her out. We've have more than half the states vote and Hillary is essentially tied with Obama for delegates.

    But certainly she is losing not only because people like Obama more, but also because people dislike her. Up to half the American people have said they would never vote for her, so when she was leading she could only go down in the polls. Whether she can rise up and challenge Obama is yet to be seen. But for either candidate to get to that magical delegate number will be difficult and I wouldn't be surprised if the super delegates will make the final decision. Since she and Bill are both very powerful and influential, it will be a very interesting convention.
    • ^
    • v
    Jammer:
    I said that there was a laundry list of things to be completed. But being able to list the problems--or even one's proscribed solutions--isn't what voters look for in election years of crisis.

    I've never said who I would vote for. I believe that if you surveyed all of my posts on political issues, you would be unable to detect who my preferred candidates have been.

    Hillary Clinton is an intelligent and, in many ways, savvy person. She may still win. As Stock Boy says, she can still win. (And my skills as a prognosticator are far from omniscient!) But, at present, she is losing and it appears that the calendar, momentum, and financial war chests are moving to make Obama the Democratic Party nominee.

    By the way, JFK, who was, in many ways, a restrained patrician in his public persona, never slapped people on the back.

    Thanks for your comments.

    Stock Boy:
    I think that you identify one thing that causes people who might even be disposed to voting for Clinton to instead go for Obama. I've never known a candidate disliked so consistently by so high a percentage of voters to be nominated, let alone elected, president. Democrats are hungry to win this election season. Obama isn't perceived so negatively by the electorate and has the chance to build a new Democratic coalition.

    pacatrue:
    You're right that the cartoon presents an obscure film reference. The thing carries the freight without the allusion. But perhaps the artist felt it was important to give attribution.

    Thanks so much to you for your comments.

    Mark Daniels
    • ^
    • v
    Have you actually read any of Senator Obama's speeches? It is not that he does not have a laundry list of entitlements but that he mentions them as problems without making any policy proposals to solve them.

    Senator Obama talks about affordable health care while knowing that many people are hearing free health care paid for by the government (meaning white white folks).

    Senator Obama is promising higher pay without discussing how the federal government can make wages increase faster than inflation.

    Senator Obama promises free college education without discussing the dismal preparation that most public school students receive and without mentioning that the first and second tier universities (the types that he attended) have admitting 10 to 20% of their applicants.

    Senator Obama talks about balancing the budget (while starting massive new entitlement programs) without discussing either budget cuts or tax increases. Isn't that something that the Bush Administration is very guilty of?

    Senator Obama wants the government to guarantee pension promises from private employers without discussing the mechanisms and without discussing the mechanism.

    Senator Obama wants to discuss increasing the average pay of job and increasing employment opportunity without discussing how open borders and unlimited immigration adversely impact jobs, pay, and working conditions.

    If you look at the text of Senator Obama's speech, it is full of very vague promises without a single word about how to accomplish any of it. After 7 years of the Bush Administraiton, shouldn't the citizens of the U.S. except a president who does his homework and makes specific proposals instead of empty promises?
    • ^
    • v
    Bill has had the time of his life and now he finally gets to "screw" Hillary in this campaign. Sorry HILL , it's all about BILL!
    • ^
    • v
    superdestroyer:
    Yes, the texts of Obama's speeches can be tedious and vague. But people don't vote for or against texts. They vote, especially in times of crisis, for the candidate who connects to them. Watch the same Obama speech you read and you get an entirely different feel for the thing.

    This may not be fair. I'm not endorsing or condemnin people's sentiments, only analyzing them.

    In 1960, as has been noted many times, people who listened to the Kennedy-Nixon debates on the radio gave the edge to Nixon. But those who watched the debates, a far larger group of people, said that Kennedy won. Somehow, in spite of his patrician remoteness, Kennedy connected with the viewing audience.

    Who comes across as an effective, caring communicator may have little do with how effective that person would be as president. (Although I do believe that being a good communicator is a tremendous asset for a president or would-be president.)

    Hillary Clinton, for all her undeniable gifts of intelligence and perseverance, is not connecting with enough people and is coming across as a conventional politician in a year in which voters are thinking unconventionally.

    I hope that this clarifies what I was trying to say here.

    Mark Daniels
    • ^
    • v
    Mark,

    The Argument was that Senator Obama was not promising a grocery list of goodies from the government when he is doing exactly that. He however says it in such a way that it does not sound like a shopping list. It goes along with his promise to work together.

    I think people should remember he is a Harvard trained attorney who has learned to say things that can be misinterpreted by others for his benefit. He is in the same league as Bill Clinton in that respect.
    • ^
    • v
    This is not a time of crisis and people shouldn't be so immature that they feel Someone has to Do Something about a non-crisis. There is, again, no crisis.

    But you are onto something:

    "Some will say that people bought flash over substance."

    "The laundry list of concerns is mind-numbing. But what voters are looking for in times like these isn’t someone who simply lists their problems with attached solutions. They want a president who seems to connect with them and who can inspire them."

    In other words, buying flash over substance.
    • ^
    • v