Favorite

Why Hillary lost 

How did it come to pass that the shrewdest and most talented political team in a century lost a presidential nomination after enjoying some of the most daunting advantages in history?

Hillary Clinton enjoyed the money, the fame, the connections and a public nostalgia for a presidency that had brought the nation a far better fate than it had endured under the intervening worst presidency in history.

What could account for the long slide that brought her to the point this week that her candidacy rested on the very compelling premise that no one dared articulate plainly but that was demonstrated by state-by-state polls: She was more likely to win an electoral-college victory than Sen. Barack Obama because bigots across the South and industrial Midwest were more apt to vote for her than for a black man. Political analysts said Obama had not been able to craft a good message for blue-collar workers, but it's really coarser than that.

Ninety percent of the explanation is the magnetic charm of Obama, the first inspiring young political leader in 40 years, since the young Kennedys. But the other critical 10 percent belongs to Sen. Clinton, or rather the Clintons, and their surprising strategic and personal failings.

Persuaded by the universal wisdom of the pundits and analysts that the nomination would essentially be decided by the big states on Super Tuesday, she invested everything there and virtually nothing in those reliably red and thus meaningless states of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains with their absurd caucuses and feeble primaries. But those states and the Republican South were where the Democratic nomination was won. Obama saw what should have been plain to everyone a year ago, that the vote would be distributed enough that a big-state strategy would come up short. She did invest heavily in the early Nevada caucus on Jan. 19 and won, which suggests that she might have done well in the others, too, if she had tried. Merely narrowing the margin in a half-dozen of them would have altered the dynamics and yielded her the nomination.

A telling story is the early prediction by Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, in a brainstorming session that the nomination would be hers after she won the California primary and its 370 delegates. That strategy worked for John McCain because the winner took everything in the big-state Republican primaries, but every Democratic primary and caucus distributed delegates proportionally. That truth still didn't change the strategy.

But the tactical and personal gaffes by the Clintons were more perplexing. Yes, nearly all the talking heads on all the networks transparently wanted them to fail and celebrated and magnified every blunder and insensitive remark — the Clintons have always triggered that impulse — but that had a trivial effect on the race.

Her mistakes were of a compounding nature, shifting messages (experience counts, or should it be change?) and positions in a way that reinforced the suspicion that she was a political weathervane who always looked for the most currently tenable position. She had voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq in the fall of 2002 and spoke urgently for it, which was the albatross of her campaign. She tried to explain it as something else, a subtle way to actually avoid war.

Then came the critical blunder that sapped the campaign of momentum. In the biggest debate of the campaign, at Drexel University at Philadelphia on Oct. 31, she seemed to embrace New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens and then to back off when all the other candidates pounced on it. She insisted that she had not intended to endorse the idea but merely explained why he proposed it. She refused to say whether it was a good idea or not.

Two weeks later, she heartily supported Spitzer's decision to scrap the plan, according to some reports after her campaign had prevailed on him to bail her out. It neutralized the immediate controversy but she was no longer invulnerable.

Bill Clinton supplied the other lethal blow, his comment the day of Obama's victory in South Carolina that, so what, Rev. Jesse Jackson had carried the state, too. The reaction was overblown — he may not have been saying, as the media portrayed it, that Obama was just another black niche candidate — but Clinton has always had a finely tuned ear for the public mood and he would have been more careful in better days.

An Arkansas doctor who was a passionate supporter of the Clintons was shocked by the remark because he believed it showed that even the Clintons would try to exploit prejudice, if ever so subtly. He could not be persuaded that they intended anything else by that and other delicately tinged remarks about race, and his family became Obama supporters. They were not alone.

They will now have to endure the regrets not only about a lost presidency but also about the damage inflicted on a great legacy.       

Favorite

Sign up for the Daily Update email

Comments (2)

Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment

More by Ernest Dumas

  • Inhuman America

    Our history has included some evil passages — slavery and white supremacy, the forced removal of Native Americans from their homes, the imprisonment and dispossession of Japanese Americans during World War II, the torture of prisoners in latter-day wars — but it is also a part of our history that we came to officially regard them all with shame, as offenses to the human rights that were our original values.
    • Jun 21, 2018
  • Legislative boodlers

    Which sounds like the best use of your taxpayer dollars: helping pay for medical care for unemployed people, or bribing and lobbying legislators and other government officials to bestow millions of your tax dollars on a corrupt organization that claims it helps poor people who have drug problems or disabilities?
    • Jun 14, 2018
  • Scary Granny Pelosi

    Nancy Pelosi has replaced Barack Obama as the all-purpose bete noir of Republican politicians, including Arkansas's, but will she be as potent as the black president?
    • Jun 7, 2018
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Along the civil rights trail

    A convergence of events in recent days signaled again how far we have come and how far we have yet to go in civil rights.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • The Oval outhouse

    One thing all Americans finally can agree upon is that public discourse has coarsened irretrievably in the era of Donald Trump and largely at his instance.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • Shrugging off sulfides

    The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported a shocker on its front page Sunday. The rotten-egg odor from the Koch brothers' sprawling paper plant at Crossett is still making people sick, but the state's pollution control agency is unaware of the problem.
    • Mar 29, 2018

Latest in Ernest Dumas

  • Inhuman America

    Our history has included some evil passages — slavery and white supremacy, the forced removal of Native Americans from their homes, the imprisonment and dispossession of Japanese Americans during World War II, the torture of prisoners in latter-day wars — but it is also a part of our history that we came to officially regard them all with shame, as offenses to the human rights that were our original values.
    • Jun 21, 2018
  • Legislative boodlers

    Which sounds like the best use of your taxpayer dollars: helping pay for medical care for unemployed people, or bribing and lobbying legislators and other government officials to bestow millions of your tax dollars on a corrupt organization that claims it helps poor people who have drug problems or disabilities?
    • Jun 14, 2018
  • Scary Granny Pelosi

    Nancy Pelosi has replaced Barack Obama as the all-purpose bete noir of Republican politicians, including Arkansas's, but will she be as potent as the black president?
    • Jun 7, 2018
  • More »

Most Viewed

  • Trump doctrine

    Let's face it: President Trump enjoys hurting and humiliating people, and that's the thing some of his loudest supporters like about him. Making women and children cry makes him feel manly and powerful. The more defenseless, the better. He particularly enjoys punishing racial minorities.

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: The cult of Trump

    • That isn't what I said, and you know that pretty well, Oaf. Just lies and…

    • on June 23, 2018
  • Re: The cult of Trump

    • Rabbi, you probably don't know Steven. He's the head Kool-Aid taster for the Trump cult…

    • on June 22, 2018
  • Re: The cult of Trump

    • Those traits sound like most any politician in DC, mostly the Dims.

    • on June 22, 2018
 

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation