What Clinton Did Wrong
The UK Telegraph has an article about Barack Obama’s plans to offer Hillary Clinton a cabinet post as an inducement for her to concede the nomination.
Right now, though, I want to focus on the second part of the article, which tries to answer the question on everyone’s mind: How could such a savvy and, yes, experienced politician have so messed up a campaign that was supposed to be a shoo-in? Why did Sen. Clinton’s famously razor sharp political instincts fail her so badly in this instance?
The answers come down to wrong message, wrong tactics, complacency, character – and, ultimately, the opponent. Even Clinton aides agree that she wrongly sold herself as a candidate of experience, when voters yearned for Barack Obama’s message of change. Her campaign machine then failed to win January’s crucial opening Iowa caucuses, handing lethal momentum to Mr Obama.
Her staff mistakenly believed they could knock her rival out by “Super Tuesday” on February 5, when 22 states voted. When that did not happen, she had neither the resources nor the organisation to compete in the succession of caucuses that followed, allowing Mr Obama to build the delegate lead he maintains to this day.
Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster not affiliated to either camp, told The Sunday Telegraph: “We have known for two years that Democrats and voters in general are much more interested in change. Yet for reasons that are inexplicable, the Clinton campaign chose to be on the short end of that message stick.”
Backed into a corner, Mrs Clinton responded with increasingly outlandish claims about her qualifications, including a ludicrous statement that she had braved sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia.
That, plus her subsequent insistence that she had merely “mis-spoken” rather than admitting she had got her facts wrong, raised new issues about her character.
In any case, Mr Mellman believes the decisive factor in her defeat was the one she couldn’t control. “The most important thing was that she was up against Barack Obama. He is enormously talented.”
June 2, 2008 at 5:29 am
Senator Obama had more sophisticated organizations in place, on the ground than Senator Clinton. His understanding of the organization needed to get the nomination, just to mention one item, was more global than hers.