Post Mortem on the Clinton Campaign
Now that Senator Clinton has suspended her campaign, conceded to Senator Obama and endorsed him the name of the game is analyzing why Clinton lost.
I've got a couple of links to the analysis of the NY Times and CNN. Neither of them is really saying what I think happened. Instead much is made of a superior candidate with superior organization. While that assessment may be true, it doesn't tell an important story.
When John Edwards reduced the Democratic candidates to two, that was a pivotal moment. For voters determined not to see a continuation of Republican occupation of the White House, this focused the race on one essential question--Which of the two remaining candidates was most likely to win in November?
I have written here before that the contest I want to see in November would focus on competence and issues, not culture wars and mud slinging. Apparently, I'm not alone in that desire. If you want a focus on competence and issues, then your candidate is not Hillary Clinton. I have long maintained that had Democrats nominated her, then they were shooting themselves in the foot and admiring their marksmanship.
In fact, to be blunt, I saw many similarities between the tactics used against Obama and the tactics used against Senator Kerry in 2004. All of which makes me wonder if one of the reasons those tactics were used was to provide Senator Clinton the opportunity to run in 2008. Had Kerry won, then he would be running for reelection this year and the first opportunity would be in 2012.
Additionally, let's recall that the Reverend Wright controversy took place during this period. If you are a Republican and had access to this information, wouldn't you hold onto it until the General Election? The fact the information came out during the Primaries and Caucuses would lead one to beleive the information was found for the use of a Democratic candidate. I have written before about the incredible amount of research needed to find those offending segments of taped sermons. In short, appearances are such that someone can be curious as to what links, if any, exist between the Clintons and the use of these kinds of tactics in two separate elections.
At any rate, many more people than normal took my advice and made their influence felt in the Primaries and Caucuses. Those additional people, combined with the proportional awarding of delegates and superior organization, gave Senator Obama the victory.
What remains to be seen now is whether the damage done to Obama in the primaries can be repaired among Democratic voters who voted for Clinton in sufficient numbers to win the General Election.
Here are the links to the other articles.
From the NY Times--What Went Wrong? Twelve Experts on the Clinton Campaign
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/opinion/08intro.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
From CNN--Why Clinton's Bid Failed
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/clinton.race/index.html
I've got a couple of links to the analysis of the NY Times and CNN. Neither of them is really saying what I think happened. Instead much is made of a superior candidate with superior organization. While that assessment may be true, it doesn't tell an important story.
When John Edwards reduced the Democratic candidates to two, that was a pivotal moment. For voters determined not to see a continuation of Republican occupation of the White House, this focused the race on one essential question--Which of the two remaining candidates was most likely to win in November?
I have written here before that the contest I want to see in November would focus on competence and issues, not culture wars and mud slinging. Apparently, I'm not alone in that desire. If you want a focus on competence and issues, then your candidate is not Hillary Clinton. I have long maintained that had Democrats nominated her, then they were shooting themselves in the foot and admiring their marksmanship.
In fact, to be blunt, I saw many similarities between the tactics used against Obama and the tactics used against Senator Kerry in 2004. All of which makes me wonder if one of the reasons those tactics were used was to provide Senator Clinton the opportunity to run in 2008. Had Kerry won, then he would be running for reelection this year and the first opportunity would be in 2012.
Additionally, let's recall that the Reverend Wright controversy took place during this period. If you are a Republican and had access to this information, wouldn't you hold onto it until the General Election? The fact the information came out during the Primaries and Caucuses would lead one to beleive the information was found for the use of a Democratic candidate. I have written before about the incredible amount of research needed to find those offending segments of taped sermons. In short, appearances are such that someone can be curious as to what links, if any, exist between the Clintons and the use of these kinds of tactics in two separate elections.
At any rate, many more people than normal took my advice and made their influence felt in the Primaries and Caucuses. Those additional people, combined with the proportional awarding of delegates and superior organization, gave Senator Obama the victory.
What remains to be seen now is whether the damage done to Obama in the primaries can be repaired among Democratic voters who voted for Clinton in sufficient numbers to win the General Election.
Here are the links to the other articles.
From the NY Times--What Went Wrong? Twelve Experts on the Clinton Campaign
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/opinion/08intro.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
From CNN--Why Clinton's Bid Failed
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/clinton.race/index.html
What happened to the Clinton campaign?
In many ways, the Clinton campaign was similar to our entry into the Iraq War.
Questionable information was used to make initial decisions, assumptions were made, the campaign was started with confidence in a quick victory, and when unexpected conditions appeared, there was little or inadequate adjustments to the initial plans.
In Iraq, we all know about faulty intelligence, false assumptions, and inadequate response to unexpected conditions.
In the Clinton campaign, they planned the campaign with initial confidence as a frontrunner. The assumption was that the nomination would be clinched by Super Tuesday, and they raised funds and made plans accordingly.
When Obamamania appeared, they did not have an effective plan after Super Tuesday. Aside from a money crunch, their lack of an effective plan, especially in the caucuses, allowed Obama to win about ten primaries in a row. That's where the slamdunk nomination was lost.
The campaign recovered from that string of defeats, but then it was too little, too late.
If you buy this theory, it was a case of overconfidence and an inability to respond to unexpected situations. Like Iraq.
Just my opinion.
Reply to this