The NYT today ran a large op-ed titled What Went Wrong? listing an array of reasons why Hillary failed. Likewise, every news outlet from our dear friends at FOX to the dominating posts right here at dkos have been obsessed with the question "why Hillary lost?" Not only do I find the "Hillary lost it" narrative inaccurate, but I find it strategically unwise as a frame. The "Hillary choked" frame vastly overlooks the extent to which Obama's refreshing message, extraordinary organization, and unique style won this election. Below are a few reasons why Obama won and why, regardless, the "Hillary lost it" narrative is unwise.
"What's the difference?" you ask. In reality, Obama is the nominee because of a mixture of his strengths and her weaknesses, but the language used to frame the primary results has vast implications for the fall (i.e. tax relief and tax cuts are the same, but evoke different responses). We should stop framing this how Republicans would have it – as a Clinton choke – and start recognizing it as a strong and vigorous Clinton campaign facing the most unique, appealing message and well run campaign in a long time.
First, why this frame is strategically unwise. On the Saturday edition of Hannity and Colmes, they spent a near eternity shooting it out with Hillary's best friend Dick Morris about why Hillary lost. The consensus was that she is too political, too divisive, and overlooked a bunch of things she should have done. This frame is not only inaccurate in my opinion, but paints a picture that Hillary choked instead of Barack truly winning. This approach is severely wanting in giving credit to Barack's ability. Republicans are masters at framing things their way and we, as Democrats, should frame the narrative of what happened in the primary as a positive choice for Barack instead of a negative rejection of Hillary. That is to say, Barack's supporters followed him because of his appeal, not because of dislike for Hillary. Likewise, we should reject the premise that Barack "lost" the so called "white, working class" vote. They voted for Hillary because they liked her, not necessarily because they disliked Obama. We should be talking about why Obama won such a great and historic race, not why Hillary choked. Here are a few reasons why Barack WON:
- Message. I was originally a Hillary supporter, but over the course of this campaign, I could not ignore the unique appeal Barack's message has had to millions of Americans. I talked with a group of friends in Colorado who voted for Bush twice and have maxed out their donations to Barack in the primary and general. His message of change, progress, bipartisanship, and bringing the country together resonates with people. Barack simply appeals to a broad range of Americans. His supporters have followed him because this message is appealing not because Hillary's isn't appealing.
- Campaign organization. On a fundamental level, Barack put together a grass-roots campaigns, the likes of which have not been seen since the re-entry of conservative Christians into politics in the 80s. Any political observer that saw the bottom up support his state campaigns enjoyed can tell you how well run his campaign organization was and the vast amount of human capital supporting him. He won because his campaign was above average, not because Hillary's was below average.
- Personal style. Even Karl Rove will tell his lemming FOX audiences that Barack's ability as a speaker and retail politician are truly unique. He is a political personality that is superior in a group of peers already distinguished by their political skill. His ability to appeal to people on a personal level is what won him Iowa and eventually the nomination.
Those are three, there are many more. These are more important than why Hillary lost because, in the theme of a positive campaign, we should count of winning through Barack's strengths not through his opponent's weaknesses, however numerous.
Yes. The perceived race baiting was offensive to both black and white voters in S. Carolina and elsewhere, but the Iowa victory and Barack's viability in predominately white electorates had a far greater impact on the psychology of the African American demographic than the race comments did. Barack would still have won the south without the race comments, but would not have won it without Iowa, comments or no comments. Likewise, saying Hillary is too divisive is equally false. Politics is divisive. Bush was as divisive as they come and he won twice. It was the superiority of Obama's message and the fact that he isn't divisive that is important.
Either way, whether you think these points are valid or not, remaining in this narrative that the main story of this primary was Hillary's Fall and not Barack Obama's Rise is poor strategy. We should make this about all the extraordinary things the Obama campaign did, not the Clintons' mistakes.
I hate to revert to the cliche of a sports analogy, but I never miss a chance to rep the Sox. Think of it as if this were the 2004 American League Championship Series and Obama is the Red Sox to Hillary's Yankees. His was a performance of a lifetime rather than hers being the choke of a lifetime. Plus, either way, like the Sox, we're going to sweep McCain in the proverbial World Series.