Clinton: Dazzling turns to fizzling
By DAVE HELLING and STEVE KRASKE
The Kansas City Star
Did Hillary Clinton’s fall begin with a driver’s license question? The end of a long debate. Philadelphia. November 2007 — the lightning round.
“Do you, Sen. Hillary Clinton, support driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants?” Maybe. It makes sense. Is it the best idea? No. Perhaps …
At the time, Clinton’s rambling non-answer seemed like a medium-sized gaffe — a fumble, to be sure, but not fatal.
She was, after all, the Democratic Party’s obvious choice. She had money. She was organized. She was a Clinton.
Today, in the rearview mirror — as her finely tuned campaign engine coughs and wheezes — Democrats for and against the former first lady wonder if the question and answer were the first sign that This Could Go Wrong.
Clinton’s campaign isn’t over. And, by almost any measure except the nomination, it’s been a smashing success: The nation’s first female candidate to gather more than 16 million primary votes, more than $200 million in contributions and enough delegates to carry the battle to the Denver convention if she chooses.
But among Democrats, a lingering thought: It was hers to lose, and she lost it. Here are some reasons why.
The candidate
Clinton began with virtually every advantage — endorsements from party leaders, plenty of money, more experience in the spotlight and the chance for history. It glittered. But it wasn’t gold. “The sense of inevitability overshadowed strategy, overshadowed not being prepared for caucuses, not being prepared for the long haul … she thought she had it in the bag,” said consultant Jim Bergfalk of SGB Communications in Kansas City. “I do think that there was a sense of entitlement,” said Julie Gibson, a former top aide to U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt. “I think a lot people thought she and Bill would stop at nothing.”
And while the Clinton name helped — it could hurt, too. “She is the most polarizing candidate I have ever seen,” said Mark Bryant, a former Kansas City councilman and now superdelegate.
The opponent
Enter Sen. Barack Obama: A first-rate speaker, fundraiser extraordinaire, a fresh face in a year of change, a media darling with his own chance to make history as the first major-party African-American candidate. “A once-in-a-generation candidate,” Joe Carmichael, a former Missouri Democratic chairman, dubbed him. “They just didn’t take him seriously enough at the beginning.” “I’ve never seen the response that I’ve seen for him,” said Jill Docking, an Obama backer and 1996 Kansas Senate nominee. “I think in another time she would’ve won.”
The spouse
Bill Clinton was a weapon no other campaign could match. He was adored by large parts of the Democratic base; tireless; a master strategist; an instant draw. But he couldn’t stop talking. “Give me a break,” he said of Obama on the eve of New Hampshire’s primary. “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” Then South Carolina — comparing Obama’s support to Jesse Jackson’s too often. The weapon seemed pointed in the wrong direction.
“Bill was a big advantage in that he had a very successful presidency, at least in the eyes of Democrats,” said Steve Smith, a political science professor at Washington University. “His tendency was to attribute blame, to come up with excuses. What she needed to do was to rise above that.”
The strategy
1. Win Iowa and New Hampshire.
2. Sweep the big states on Super Tuesday.
3. Plan for the fall months.
The actual results: Third in Iowa. A white-knuckle first in New Hampshire. A Super Tuesday split decision. “I don’t think she had a Plan B,” Bergfalk said. “When she cried, that was sort of Plan B,” Gibson said. Plan B did not include caucus states such as Kansas, which allowed Obama to scoop up pledged delegates at low cost — a lead he never relinquished. “He was getting wide margins in caucus states where she wasn’t even on the map,” said Republican consultant Jeff Roe. And activists in those caucus states were angry at Clinton’s dash to the middle. Her straddle on Iraq, compared with Obama’s get-out-now approach (and lack of a voting record) was a particular concern.
“She wanted to preserve her options as president and not make too many promises about bringing the troops home by a certain date,” Smith said. “That’s not what Democrats wanted to hear.”
The message
I’m ready from day one. I’m the real change agent. I’m electable. I’m a fighter. “It seemed very disjointed early on,” said Carmichael. “It was almost like she was listening to one adviser one day and another late that afternoon.” In the final weeks, Clinton did find traction with a populist approach. “Even her staged one-hand-on-a-beer, one-hand-on-a-shot — I think she was trying everything she could to appear more human, because she didn’t know which way to go,” Gibson said. Some Democrats give her points for energy and perseverance against a meteoric foe. “I honestly didn’t know she had that in her,” Carmichael said.
The money
If Clinton was a sleek vacuum cleaner sucking up campaign cash — and she was, Obama was a giant car wash, smashing all records by raking in Internet donations in $25 and $50 chunks. Clinton relied on money from the party’s heavy hitters. When the fight extended into April, she was maxed out. That meant personal loans to the campaign, and a crucial lack of cash at the end. Multimillion-dollar payouts to consultants and pollsters didn’t help either. “They kept going back to the same old people,” Bergfalk said. “If I get the call now (for a donation) … why would I do it? So I can pay off the guy who didn’t know California wasn’t winner-take-all?”
The staff
What? Who didn’t know about California? Chief strategist Mark Penn, according to published reports. He was part of a staff in constant turmoil. Chief of staff Solis Doyle? Gone after Obama swept three contests on Feb. 9.
Deputy campaign manager Mike Henry? Out shortly thereafter. Penn? Out in April, after meeting with Colombian officials pushing a free trade agreement Clinton opposed. No clear line of authority. Thin on experience. Arrogant. As Clinton’s losses mounted, so did criticism of her staff.
“This is just another example of Hillary Clinton being ill-served by her campaign,” Democratic strategist Peter Fenn told The Boston Globe after Penn’s exit.
The endgame
Well, that still isn’t clear. Every time Clinton hints that the end is near, new signs emerge that she isn’t budging. Case in point: On Wednesday in Florida, where she suggested, once again, that she may take the nomination fight all the way to the August convention. “Look at the states I’ve won,” she said. “Look at the states I’m leading in. Look at the electoral map. It is clear I’m the stronger candidate. “Stay with me,” she said, her voice struggling to rise above the cheers. “Let’s make history together.” The final primaries, in Montana and South Dakota, are June 3. After that, only the battle over the remaining superdelegates is left. Then, Clinton seems to be saying, you can write your what-might-have-been stories. |
