The Clinton Post Mortem

Sen. Clinton has now conceded the nomination. She was the "frontrunner", so it is appropriate to ask the question: what happened ?

I have a simple answer: she never had a chance!

Never before has a candidate with such high negatives managed to win an election ~ slightly more than half of the voting public disliked her when we started about 18 months back. And some of this dislike was with an intensity bordering on hatred. Sen. Clinton was "unelectable". A candidate with such high negatives is not supposed to win, and should not be anointed as a frontrunner. That she managed to come so far, and that she almost managed to win, is a testament to her skills and perseverance.

The rationale for Clinton hatred & why she never had a chance

I cannot explain the Clinton hatred: some of it is justified, no doubt, by various acts of omission and commission. You cannot be in the public eye for so long, and not offer genuine reasons for being disliked. And she has offered plenty of reasons over the years.

But the hatred and dislike seemed far more intense than that which can be attributed only to various policy decisions over the years. In part, she is disliked for being a Clinton, and in part she is disliked for being a woman.

It appears that the Clinton name is associated with NAFTA, the failure of health care reform, and the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, at least within the Democratic party. It also appears that the Clinton name is associated with "Don't Ask Don't Tell", DOMA, and welfare reform ~ which are all viewed as evil deeds by the party faithful. It does not appear that the Clinton name is associated with peace and prosperity of the 1990s.

But, inspite of all that, Bill Clinton remains fairly popular in the US, with approval ratings in excess of 70%. His wife, on the other hand, was disliked by slightly more than half. This, despite the fact that she had no real executive power, and did not influence any major policy decisions outside of health care reform (as we were reminded repeatedly during the campaign by her opponets). The only explanation for this can be sexism (or misogyny...call it whatever you want) ~ about 1 in 5 Americans do not like the idea of a woman being on top (I am basing this estimate of 20% on the difference in approval ratings of Pres. Clinton and that of Sen. Clinton).

Sexism is a significant drawback. Sexism is unlike any other form of discrimination because it is sanctioned by God ~ God made man and woman differently, and gave us different roles in life. Thus, it is okay to expect men and women to have different roles ~ it is okay to discriminate on the basis of sex. This cannot be said of skin color, or religion, or any other basis for discrimination. Sexism is unlike other forms of discrimination because women believe in it as much as men ~ and therefore it is not compensated for. If 1 million white men prefer a white man over a black man, then an equal number of black men will prefer a black man over a white man ~ the net effect is somewhat washed out (unless white men outnumber black men, or hold power etc). But, if 1 million men (white and black) prefer a man over a woman, then 1 million women do not automatically prefer the woman over the man ~ women are also somewhat likely to believe that a woman belongs in the kitchen.

Given all that, I would say that Sen. Clinton definitely started off as an underdog. She did not have my vote, or my support last summer (she does now).

So, let us break her campaign down into 5 stages:

Stage 1: The exploratory phase. She steps into the ring, knowing that her negatives are very high. What should she do ?

There are two options available to her: she can run as the "anointed one", or she can run as a progressive. A progressive would go out and seek every vote, even from those that hate her on the basis of her sex. The anointed one would blow away the opposition (at the time, this was expected to be Sen. Edwards) with fundraising, and other metrics.

The right choice would have been to run as a progressive ~ on hindsight, it is clear that the right choice would have also enabled her to prevail. But, she chose to run as the anointed one. After all, the "anointed one" strategy had worked very well for Governor Bush in 1999-2000. Her strategy is to dwarf her rivals (i.e., Edwards) with early fundraising numbers, and to blow them away with early state wins, thereby ending the contest on Feb 5.

Stage 2: Obama becomes the anointed one.

Sometime after the J-J dinner speech in Iowa last year, it became clear Sen. Obama, and not Sen. Edwards was going to be her main rival. He had become the media darling, and was drawing adoring crowds of supporters. He was a master of the spoken word. His fundraising numbers were surpassing that of Sen. Clinton He was the one we had been waiting for.

At this point, Sen. Clinton's campaign should have retooled. She should have abandoned the "anointed one" strategy and should have run as a progressive. She did not ~ largely, I believe, because Sen. Obama was not polling well with black people. Sen. Obama was popular with the college students, and with the liberals, but not with black people. And as long as Sen. Obama did not have the black vote, his candidacy was doomed ~ liberals and college students do not represent a winning coalition.

But this strategy (of essentially ignoring Sen. Obama) was extremely risky ~ and they knew it as well. Pres. Clinton later said that they knew that if Sen. Obama won the white vote (in Iowa), then he would also catch fire with the black vote. Thus, Sen. Clinton had to win Iowa (and NH) to prevent Sen. Obama from winning SC and the rest of the cotton belt. Thus, Sen. Clinton was forced to try and win in Iowa, a state where Sen. Obama had natural advantages (it is a caucus, which favored his liberal and young support, and it borders IL).

She did not win Iowa... and the media declared her dead !!

Stage 3: Clinton starts running as a progressive

Somewhere between her Iowa loss and her upset victory in NH, Sen. Clinton abandoned her "anointed one" strategy, and began running as the progressive that she was all along. After her NH victory, she declared "in listening to you, I have found my voice". It is true that her change in strategy was forced by events, and therefore has less meaning. But, it is also true that not every candidate who is forced by events makes a change in the right direction.

In any case, it is between Iowa and NH that Sen. Clinton got my support.

But, it was too late.

Sen. Clinton had spent a lot of money while losing Iowa ~ and Sen. Obama was raising money faster than she was. He had a natural advantage in all the Febuary states beyond SuperTuesday. Thus, she made a decision to try and end his candidacy on SuperTuesday. Most commentators argue that this was a poor tactical move ~ she should have conserved some cash for the caucuses in Feb. I submit that, given the predicament she found herself in after Iowa, this was the only tactical move she could have made. She was short on cash, she was behind on points, and she needed a knockout.

She didnt get the knockout on SuperTuesday, and we all know what happened during the rest of the month.

Stage 4: Clinton retools as a progressive

This stage involved her retooling her message, and her campaign tactics. I consider this stage to be the most impressive campaign that I have ever witnessed. She ran as a progressive thoroughbred ~ she asked for every vote, even from the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife. She became the darling of the downtrodden, and came to symbolize the hopes and dreams of many.

At the end of this stage, even some Republican foes that had heaped scorn on her previously were singing her praise.

Stage 5: The concession

This is the stage we are witnessing right now.

I think we should all salute a most remarkable campaign. She started off being unelectable ~ she is most definitely not unelectable now.