Why Clinton Lost: Change and the Bush legacy

Tweet

As Hunter has pointed out, Hillary Clinton lost the nomination for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways, some of them seemingly counter-intuitive. For example, as the presumptive front-runner, she adopted a hyper-cautious strategy that offered voters a president-in-waiting more than a candidate. Voters want to know there's a president inside the candidate, of course, but except in the rare year when "electability" settles like a fog over the primary, they're mainly assessing what the candidates have to offer. It has to be said, too, that in an important way Clinton did not lose so much as she was beaten by a more agile, more strategic, and more focused candidate. Most of the weaknesses we're discussing in today's symposium could well have remained unexposed until the general election had she not been tested so strongly by Barack Obama's campaign. All of that said, though, one factor in this election stands out for me: George Bush's repulsive legacy, especially the Iraq war. This feature has dominated the political landscape until now and promises to continue to weigh heavily on voters' minds. That's the reason why John McCain's first general election ad is a defensive one: I hate war. And I know how terrible its costs are. McCain is trying desperately to immunize himself against the war he has backed to the hilt; even he recognizes that unless he can manage to portray himself as a war critic, somehow or other, he cannot win over the public. Iraq and the whole Bush legacy it represents have been extremely unfavorable to Hillary Clinton. She not only voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, she has consistently refused to renounce that vote. Clinton, like Kerry and Edwards, seemed to believe that taking a 'tough' stance against Saddam Hussein was essential to her presidential ambitions. Indeed she reinforced that impression last year by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, whose intent had been to authorize an attack upon Iran, and perhaps as unwisely she dismissed criticism of the vote. It was hard to see how Clinton could win the Democratic nomination after that without drawing against every bit of political capital that she and Bill had amassed. Voters rejected the Iraq war several years ago and have never changed their minds since, no matter how much happy-talk Bush and his apologists serve up. Democrats certainly are in no mood to give Bush another chance to expand his wars. My sense is that voters - including some Independents and Republicans - are so angry at George Bush that in addition to looking forward to new (and actual) leadership, they'd like an opportunity also to hit the "smite" button on Bush's legacy. They want a chance to voice their disgust and to reject everything he stands for as he heads out the door. By trying to straddle a line on using force against Iraq and then Iran, Clinton made it more difficult for them to feel like a vote for her was also an unambiguous rejection of Bushism - however much she differs from Bush in most respects. Goodbye to all that Obama is running upon a slogan of "change", which resonates so strongly with voters that McCain has tried to co-opt it...as Clinton had tried. But "change" is rather vague. What does it mean for voters? Just a change in direction, a turn of the tiller on the ship of state? Again, given the strength of feeling against Bush's legacy, I believe that for many Democrats "change" came to represent a renunciation of Bush and everything he stands for: war, divisiveness, agrandizement, arrogance, lawlessness, corruption, incompetence, lack of accountability. Barack Obama became the candidate of goodbye to all that. That was the foundation upon which he built his success. It was more than a mark of good judgment to have opposed Bush's adventurism. He also made it possible for voters to feel unequivocally that they were passing judgment upon Bush as well - all of Bush's legacy, for which the Iraq war stands as a symbol. Sure, all the Democratic candidates rejected Bushism and there were a few others who'd taken an equally unequivocal stance against attacking Iraq and Iran. But they seemed to lack the political skills of Obama, whose many attributes allowed him to capitalize on the public mood. He was not the only, nor just an anti-war candidate of course. But because of his stance on Iraq, he looked most like the candidate who would leave Bush's legacy far behind. Hillary Clinton tried fitfully to portray herself as the candidate who would efface the ugly Bush legacy. Her argument had promise: That she'd restore an era of good government much like Bill Clinton's presidency. What better way to erase Bushim than to leap backward to the 1990s before he'd ever had a chance to damage the country? For some voters the argument resonated strongly. It was a simple and elegant solution to the Bush-problem. However Bill Clinton was not just an historical figure. He was actively campaigning and notoriously gaffe-prone. He created one flap after another, sometimes angering important constituencies, and generally behaving as if it were unreasonable to challenge his wife, the inevitable and presumptive nominee. Bill Clinton was unexpectedly divisive during the early months of this year. That was the last thing that would help Hillary, because divisiveness is an essential feature of the Bush legacy. Unintentionally, he suggested to some Democrats that what Hillary Clinton was offering might be a return to all that. None of this to suggest that Barack Obama campaigned as if he were running against the past, nor that he overtly styled himself as the opposite of George Bush. His is also a forward-looking and optimistic campaign. But he was the candidate who was best positioned and most able to capture a public mood that rightly sees so much of what has gone wrong in the US as the legacy of George Bush's presidency.