« RFK: Tears for a Tough Guy
Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr on The Colbert Report »



11 Observations On Clinton’s Crash & Burn

June 5th, 2008
By SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist

Print Print

01aaclintonfamily.jpg

(1.)

First and foremost, Hillary Clinton never seemed comfortable with herself in stark contrast to Barack Obama, who as one speech analyst put it, can sound rousing while being conciliatory. Clinton’s discomfort sometimes translated into a sense of phoniness and was exacerbated by her mood swings – from crying on cue early in the primary season to angrily pounding the podium as she became increasingly beleaguered.

(2.)

Clinton’s early and enthusiastic approval of the Iraq war dogged her throughout the campaign. Hypersensitive to being viewed as a flip-flopper and apology averse to begin with, she never made a clean break with the war and might not have wanted to. What she did do is dodge the issue by saying that she would not vote for the war if she had it to do over again.

(3.)

When Clinton’s initial strategy of campaigning as an incumbent flopped in the face of Obama’s seductive hope-and-change mantra, there followed a series of ill-conceived course corrections. The first was her as Ms. Policy Wonk, then as Ms. Race Baiter and finally as Ms. Voters Are Idiots in which she pandered by backing a gas-tax holiday scheme that no economist will touch, emptily threatened to destroy OPEC, and prattled that elitists are what ails America.

(4.)

Clinton relied on insiders who were out of touch with the mood of the electorate. This was especially egregious in the case of strategist Mark Penn, a pollster who used his own data as ends to justify predetermined means much like Bush used ponied up intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Penn eventually embarrassed her campaign almost as much as the other big insider — her husband.

(5.)

Clinton painted herself into a corner by stressing her Washington experience in a campaign in which many change-hungry voters viewed that has a handicap and a some already suffered from Clinton Fatigue. Compounding this problem was that some of her experience, notably the Tuzla Incident, were figments of her imagination.

(6.)

Clinton got creamed at the grassroots level. While Obama had substantially more money to spend, his staff went to extraordinary lengths to understand the lay of the electoral land all the way down to detailed profiles of each of the 435 congressional districts, and had a substantial volunteer presence in all 50 states. Clinton concentrated her ground operations in a few large states, didn’t bother to organize in caucus states and had to continually play catch up.

(7.)

Although Clinton and Obama took substantially similar positions on most issues, she failed to make the case that she would be an agent for change because she often blurred her message, Bill Clinton stepped on her lines and, as the primary season dragged on, Obama became adept at quickly responding to her increasingly bellicose pronouncements, including using nuclear weapons against Iran.

(8.)

Clinton never was comfortable with her role as the first serious woman presidential candidate, which may have had something to do with the fact that her feminist credentials are suspect. In any event, she used her gender more as a cudgel than a talking point, and the feminist notion of liberation — which was one of Obama’s memes, was AWOL from a campaign that was run like a patriarchy.

(9.)

Clinton was not a natural campaigner but grew into that role. But compared to Obama, she simply did not inspire. This would not have mattered against a less charismatic candidate and less capable speaker as a primary foe.

(10.)

Becoming a vice presidential running mate is not something that is negotiated like a labor contract, but from appearances Clinton is determined to do just that. Problem is, Obama would be foolish to ask her to come on board because a belated endorsement would seem insincere after all of the bile that she has spilled and adding her negatives to his own would not be a winning combination. Giving her another go at heading up a health-care reform initiative is a much better idea.

(11.)

Beyond her own negatives, Clinton’s biggest handicap was her inability to come to terms with Bill Clinton both as husband and campaigner, and he with his own role. It almost seemed as if he was out to sabotage her campaign with his angry outbursts, and it probably will only be a matter of time before he becomes enmeshed in another sex scandal. We can be thankful that it did not happen during the primary season. Or, God help us, if Hillary Clinton became president. Or becomes vice president.

Photograph by Carolyn Cole/The Los Angeles Times



This entry was posted on Thursday, June 5th, 2008 at 3:59 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 Elections. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 30 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I hardly think Hillary Crashed and Burned.

    She was battled to an essential tie by a very good Orator and a party that wants desperately to swing farther left.

    Barak Obama did NOT win. He was crowned. He secured MORE delegates then did Hillary but he did not win enough to by the rules win the nomination. The party therefore gave it to him even though in the end it appears that Hillary won more popular votes then did Barak.

    Which of course we all know that when Obama was leading the popular vote it was one of their major talking points, now that he has been slightly passed in the popular vote its a bogus contention now.

    So I reject your entire thesis. Hillary was supposed to win and did not.

    One thing I will grant you. The party has made it very obvious that they have grown tired of the Clintons and their more moderate stance and want the party to move farther to the left while pretending to be moderates.
    • ^
    • v
    She was battled to an essential tie by a very good Orator and a party that wants desperately to swing farther left.

    The center has moved so far to the right these last 20 years, partly because of the Clintons. The results haven't been pretty.

    Barak Obama did NOT win. He was crowned.

    Uh yes he did win.

    He secured MORE delegates then did Hillary but he did not win enough to by the rules win the nomination.The party therefore gave it to him even though in the end it appears that Hillary won more popular votes then did Barak.

    The election is decided by delegates not popular vote. There is no use in being purposefully dense.

    Which of course we all know that when Obama was leading the popular vote it was one of their major talking points, now that he has been slightly passed in the popular vote its a bogus contention now.

    It was one of his major talking points? When? You still counting the non-elections in Michigan and Florida? How about the caucus voters?

    So I reject your entire thesis. Hillary was supposed to win and did not.

    You can reject his thesis, but you didn't even begin to refute it.

    One thing I will grant you. The party has made it very obvious that they have grown tired of the Clintons and their more moderate stance and want the party to move farther to the left while pretending to be moderates.

    If you think Obama is much further to the left of Clinton, I don't think you've done your homework. And I don't think the Clintons ruled as moderates, they ruled as centrists. And centrism is dangerous while the Republicans insist on being so radically to the right.
    • ^
    • v
    I think many of your statements are inaccurate and/or delusional. Perhaps you drank the kool-aid?

    - "it appears that Hillary won more popular votes then did Barak." NOT TRUE. Not only does it not appear that way, it isn't the case at all after Tuesday;

    - regardless of the popular vote, candidates are elected by delegates. I suppose this whole "popular vote" issue started with Gore, but the fact remains, as any high school student knows, the delegates/electoral college decide elections, not the popular vote;

    - "Hillary was supposed to win" - what does this even mean? I, like many Americans, apparently did not get the memo indicating that Hillary was the presumptive nominee before any vote was cast. Do you REALLY believe she was entitled to the nomination?

    - I think there are million reasons the party is tired of the Clintons, but I don't think "their more moderate stance" has a single thing to do with it.
    • ^
    • v
    Chris

    Perhaps I am being dense but no less so then the Obama supporters who are taking from this primary season a victory when this primary season has been a defeat for democrats in general.

    Delegates that each candidate WON via the primary process.

    1766.5 Obama.
    1639.5 Clinton.

    Delegates NEEDED to SECURE the nomination. 2118.

    Popular vote. Obama pulls out a win on the popular vote if you include the caucus states as well as the uncommitted votes from Michigan BUT This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results.)

    If you use the primary numbers which are official and not the caucus numbers which are guesses and not official then Hillary wins the popular vote.

    We can go round and round about this all day long. The point is that who ultimately decided who was going to represent the Democrats was not the voters. It was the Democratic big wigs lead by a DNC leadership that wanted to punish voters for not following their rules.

    The punish mentality is running the democratic party. They have railed about the war so long that they have actually poisoned their own party as well by splitting it right down the middle.
    • ^
    • v
    I think many of your statements are inaccurate and/or delusional. Perhaps you drank the kool-aid?

    This speaks for itself. If you do not agree with Obama and his supporters you are a "fill in the blank"
    • ^
    • v
    You can reject his thesis, but you didn't even begin to refute it.

    Chris perhaps you could point out his thesis.

    Definition of a thesis. A proposition that is maintained by argument.

    I believe his thesis is the title since his post was simply 11 points.

    Therefore 11 reasons why Hillary Crashed and burned was his thesis and my rejection of his thesis was not a rejection of his points. I simply rejected the assertion that she crashed and burned.
    • ^
    • v
    Look, there was no election in either Florida or Michigan, so give up trying to use those numbers.

    I could come out and say "Hey, I'm Davebo and I'm holding an election for the democratic nominee, come vote" but no one would consider it a valid election.

    Judging by the turnout, voters in Florida and Michigan didn't consider it a valid election either. What about all the voters who chose not to vote because they had been told it wouldn't count?

    Spin it anyway you want, but Obama won the primaries. It was indeed an incredibly tight race, but he won.

    It's like saying, 'Well, the Giants ended the game with a higher score, but the Patriots had more total yardage so the NFL just gave the win to the Giants".
    • ^
    • v
    Therefore 11 reasons why Hillary Crashed and burned was his thesis and my rejection of his thesis was not a rejection of his points. I simply rejected the assertion that she crashed and burned.


    On this we can agree. Throughout the Primary process Hillary's support remained steady according to aggregate polling data. See below.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2192952

    What happened is not that Hillary lost, but Obama won. The numbers bear this out. His support increased steadily throughout the primaries with the exception of a small drop in May.
    • ^
    • v
    Watch out for one of the Republican talking points - that Obama is "the most liberal senator". To put it quite simply, this is factually untrue, and easily disproven by checking his actual votes.

    Based on his 2007-2008 voting record, Obama is the 40th-most-liberal senator (compared to 29th for Clinton and 82nd for McCain, by the way). Over his entire lifetime senate record, he ranks 24th (compared to 18th for Clinton, and 60th for McCain). And when you just look at party-line substantive votes, Obama ranks 43rd (compared to 30th for Clinton and 69th for McCain).

    For all the details, check out here: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/05/oba...

    Bookmark the site, and bring it up the next time you run across a Republican shill who is trying to push the "most liberal" meme -- because I'm sure we'll be hearing it trotted out dozens of times in the upcoming months.