Decision ‘08

She’ll Run Again…

…but the bloom is off the rose. Hillary Clinton did her best today to put a brave face on her defeat, but in retrospect, her candidacy has to be rated as a giant disappointment. Though her strategy was not as disastrous as Giuliani’s, Rudy left the race with his dignity and reputation intact…his brief flirtation with presidential politics will be permanently overshadowed by his role on one of the two or three worst days in American history.

By contrast, Hillary’s 2008 run will tarnish her inevitable 2012 bid. Her strategy was poorly conceived, and poorly executed, and her tactics were frequently of the ‘gutterball’ variety. Bill Clinton, formerly a hero among black Americans, now has tarnished that legacy permanently, and the vast Clinton machine, considered so formidable by many observers (including this one) in 2007, is in shambles a mere six months later.

When one considers the advantages Hillary brought into this race, advantages that include but are not limited to money. organization, connections, star power, experience - to lose is not only unexpected, but (politically speaking) terminal. Many presidential candidates have gone on to win after losing runs - but given the huge lead she blew, I can’t imagine that she can come anywhere near that prominence again.

In considering Barack Obama’s bid in 2007, I advised against it - because I felt he COULD be president one day, but the decision to run and lose would foreclose that option. I was half right - I just had the wrong candidate…

12 Responses to “She’ll Run Again…”

1 Aaron Says:
June 7th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Think she’ll run even if Obama wins this time around?
2 Mark Says:
June 7th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Well, I think she’ll try…but yeah, 2016 is more of a long shot than 2012…
3 too many steves Says:
June 8th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I LOVE YOU MAN!

More than anything else, Hill as damaged her image in the sense of her leadership skills and public personality. Who hasn’t hated her at one time or another over the past year or so - and I’m talking only about Democrats here? I don’t know how she overcomes that - just as Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry did irreparable damage to their “brand” in their respective campaigns, so did Hillary.

She may plan to run in 2012 - only if Obama loses in the Fall - but, if you ask me, hasn’t a hope of winning the nomination, or anything else.
4 Peter Says:
June 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Hillary receivfed over eighteen million votes, won a large number of states and caucuses, and ended up with a delegate count within 5% or so of Obama’s. Unlike the Republican nominating process, where none of the losers gained much traction and bailed out early, this race went to the eighth or ninth inning. She did so despite a hostile media, an unhelpful husband, and being the first woman to go toe-to-toe with male candidates in a Presidential race.

In what sense is this disastrous or disappointing?
5 Mark Says:
June 8th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
In the sense that she lost…isn’t it obvious? With all due respect, do you think the Clintons are happy with ‘fighting the good fight’?

Obama came into this campaign with little experience, no national organization, and no real power base - and he beat the vaunted Clinton machine…how can you possibly view this as anything but a major disappointment and defeat?…
6 Peter Says:
June 8th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Do you think the Patriots had a disappointing and disastrous year because even though they achieved unprecedented things in the regular season, they lost the Super Bowl?

Of course the Clintons (and the Patriots) wanted to win — but I’m sure they also realized the daunting task of electing a woman who is a polarizing figure, whom 40% of the country wouldn’t vote for even if her opponent were Kim Jong Il. It was never a slam dunk for her, and Bill Clinton (of all people) knows how you can come out of obscurity to get the nomination. Disappointing, sure — but by no means a disaster. (Except maybe for Bill, who came off looking angry and ham-fisted). Who knows about these things, but I have to believe that Hillary feels proud and vindicated for being the first woman to go head-to-head with six male opponents, easily crushing five of them, and coming within a few tens of thousands of votes from the winner out of 35 million votes cast.

One a related note, there is a fine lead editorial in this week’s Economist (”America at its best”) which ends thusly:

“Both candidates (McCain and Obama) have their flaws and their admirable points; the doughty but sometimes cranky old warrior makes a fine contrast with the inspirational but sometimes vaporous young visionary. Voters now have … five months to study them before making up their minds (and The Economist will be doing the same). But, on the face of it, this is the most impressive choice America has had for a very long time.”

I think we can all agree to that.
7 Mark Says:
June 8th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Well, we’ll agree to disagree. I say Hillary blew it, and she knows it, and I doubt lightning will strike twice…but hey, we’ve disagreed before…time will tell…
8 Ryan Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:30 am
I’m not sure I believe that Hillary “blew it”, although it’s certainly remarkable that she lost. Even though she ended up very very close to winning, the simple fact is she didn’t win. One of the largest and most effective political machines in the modern landscape was completely outdone by the skinny kid with the funny name. Her problem, I think, isn’t that she failed in some way (although repudiating her war vote would almost certainly have given her the edge over Obama) - it’s that Obama is really awfully good at this. I think Andrew said her problem is that she’s a good politician whose career has now been bookended by two great politicians. That’s certainly disappointing, but I don’t think it’s right to say she’s failed.
9 Aaron Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 9:00 am
A better “Patriots” analogy would be, at the start of the season, if they were expected to go at least 14-3, winning the superbowl, but, instead, ended up only going 7-8, winning blow-outs at home only against the 49er’s and Texans, but otherwise winning (or losing) by only a few points.

By comparison, sure Hillary won a few blow-outs in places where she was expected to do so — WV, KY — but most of her victories were narrow. Did she do well as any candidate? Sure. But she wasn’t just “any candidate.” She was Hillary Clinton; she was supposed to win everything by a blow-out and be done by February 5th, which is why she didn’t plan on competing after that date.
10 Clint Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Peter -

One point to consider is that historically the Democratic Party has been relatively awful to its losing candidates. While 2004’s #2 GOP candidate is now our 2008 nominee, such returns are far less common in the Democratic Party. Perhaps it has something to do with looking forward and not back.

Consider 2004’s #2 Dem — John Edwards, who also got the second spot on the ticket. He was basically laughed off the stage this year. And the #1 Dem (John Kerry) didn’t even bother to try for the nomination.

Consider 2000’s Dems — Al Gore and Bill Bradley. Neither has been heard from since, in politics, at least.

Consider 1992’s Dems — What ever happened to Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerry, and Tom Harkin?

Consider 1988’s Dems — Michael Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, and Al Gore. Al Gore had the fortune to be politically resurrected by Bill Clinton.

I could go on, but the point is, aside from sitting presidents, it’s been several generations since the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee wasn’t a first-time candidate.

Hubert Humphrey (in 1968) was the most recent candidate to even come close.

Unless the Clintons have a really clever plan, they will probably be old news in 2012 — and the party will be either gushing over President Obama’s reelection campaign, or slavering over the incredibly electable new Governor of ((Fill in a swing state)) just elected in 2010. It’s in the blood — Democrats are always looking for the next new thing.
11 Clint Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Probably should have also made mention of what happened to the Democratic Party’s Vice Presidential nominee from 2000…
12 peter Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Clint: you raise an interesting point. I think the root cause is that the Democratic party over the past twenty or thirty years has been remarkably unimpressive at its highest levels. Some of its Presidential candidates were (arguably) capable of doing the job and others were capable of winning the election, but only Bill Clinton was capable of both. Some were flakes (Brown), health challenged (Tsongas), imbeciles (Jackson), or pretty but insubstantial (Edwards). So I think it’s understandable that the Democrats would avoid recycling their weak candidates, although (until now) they haven’t been able to replace them with stronger ones.

I think Bill Bradley is a good example. I’m biased: he came to my fifth grade class when he was a senior at Princeton to show us how to shoot baskets. (I saw him again recently, as he sits on the Board of the company I work for – reminded him of when he came to Nassau Street School 41 years earlier – “that was a long time ago, huh?”). I think he would be a terrific President. Doesn’t have a chance of ever getting elected: too nice a guy, and too Adlai Stevenson-ish. So we’ve been stuck with candidates like Dukakis and Kerry. Luckily, I think this is the year that it all changes for the better.