No. Hillary is not actively losing the battle for the nomination. Rather, Obama is actively winning it. And believe it or not, I think there is an important difference which supporters of either candidate should note. [This diary is the reformulation of a comment in RenaRF's earlier diary, per a suggestion by TrueBlueMajority. I apologize for being too lazy to add much more to it.]
Why does it matter? Well, in part because I agree with the notion that under another set of circumstances, Hillary Clinton would be quite a good candidate. I also feel that there is a reason that Obama is deserving of both the nomination and the Presidency, and that the Hillary camp's decision to portray him as unelectable, or worse (and most ridiculously, given the current occupant of the White House) incapable of being President is both unfair, stupid and missing the point--Obama is winning because he is absolutely capable and the one candidate who represents the change most Americans crave.
Hillary is not currently losing the nomination because she is not deserving as a candidate. She is not losing because of real or perceived gender bias. She is not losing because of any set of clearly identifiable demographic trends. She is certainly not losing because the DNC and primary rules favor her opponents. She is not even losing, IMHO, because she has run a dreadful campaign (the campaign hasn't been that bad, despite her stooping to pretty low tactics).
Hillary is not winning because...
- In a year with Obama (and to some degree Edwards) as candidates, she represents the status quo, not change. Her refusal to disavow her Iraq vote probably hurts her somewhat, but largely, this is not her fault.
- After 7 years of Bushit and corporate propaganda driving every observable measure of American values, quality of life, standing in the world, economic prosperity and so on down into the ground, change is the only issue that matters. While it is arrogant for Hillary and her team to imagine that they represent "real" change, being part of the problem, they are not entirely aware of it. This is also not her fault.
- After years of not only an administration, but a wholesale media onslaught and related cultural consequences), repudiating the importance of truth, integrity, respect and common decency, these are the qualities that matter most right now. Hillary got where she got by playing a game that had different rules. This is not her fault.
- After 2 decades of misrule by other people named either Bush or Clinton, the American people are desperate for the symbolic, yet very real, progress of electing someone with a different name. Smith would do, but Obama is practically ideal. This is her "fault" to the most infinitesimal degree, inasmuch as she has not found a way to counter this. I'm not sure there is a way, in which case it's entirely not her fault.
- When the vast majority of the people see their current President as an ignorant, contemptuous, selfish, psychotic brat, the remedy they want is a President who represents the polar opposite, with no existing baggage. Hillary is responsible in part for the baggage, because she dances with the one who brung her, as they say. And in point of fact, on many occasions her campaign has sought to emphasize the baggage, rather than move beyond it. This is bad strategy, and this IS her fault.
So, IMHO, Hillary is not so much losing the candidacy, but rather, Obama is winning it for a host of obvious reasons. What I DO blame Hillary for, however, is failing to recognize any of these things, act with selfless dignity, grace and concern for the American people, get out now and become an Obama supporter herself. I don't believe that she truly believes he is either unelectable or incapable, so I don't see this as a problem with Obama, but with her own ego. That she thinks she can win is unclear to me; that she thinks she can "take down" America's best hope to move forward is stark as day.
For this primarily, Hillary must take an awful lot of blame. Until she started running a scorched-earth campaign, she had nothing to answer for. In the end she will either help destroy her own party, or bring about it's rebirth. Right now, she seems to be opting for destruction, and I very much hold that against her. Despite whatever personal qualities and experience she has.
UPDATE
- In addition to the 5 points above, copithorne points out quite astutely that there is another change this year: the DNC has been pursuing a 50 state strategy which is working, while the Clintonistas are continuing to follow a very uninspiring pre-1996 strategy of pursuing only "winnable" states. It's not only foolish strategically, but it's insulting and harmful. I do blame Hillary for this, and for not giving Howard Dean the respect he so deserves. The two are linked.