Time Magazine: How Clinton Lost Her Invincibility

[ariesgem]

When Hillary Clinton launched her campaign nearly a year ago, the media buzz deemed it near impossible for the likes of Barack Obama and John Edwards to overcome her daunting campaign machine. The endorsements, the money, and the cream-of-the-crop strategists combined with the former First Lady's incumbent image to make her the clear-cut choice of the Democratic Party establishment.

But the onset of the Iowa caucuses finds Clinton aides racing to lower expectations, bracing for a possible loss there and contemplating a dwindling lead in the polls in New Hampshire and South Carolina. So, what has stripped the mighty Clinton campaign juggernaut of its image of invincibility?

For one thing, it has been a victim of the media hype it helped create. The campaign's warnings that Iowa was going to be a tough state for Clinton fell mostly on deaf ears. "Iowa was always going to be a challenge and we consistently said that," says Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson. "Nobody hands anyone a presidential nomination." But her campaign also failed to invest in Iowa until it was nearly too late. While Obama and Edwards spent the better part of the year moving in hundreds of staff and building relationships with grassroots Democratic constituencies, Clinton in the last month belatedly added a hundred staffers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"She has never really been ahead here in Iowa," says Arthur B. Sanders, a politics professor at Drake University in Des Moines and author of Losing Control: Presidential Elections and the Decline of Democracy. "Her national lead made it easy to assume she would win here as well, especially since her national campaign gave off an image of her 'inevitable' victory. And a national press that had not spent time here, did not really understand how different the situation was here."

Clinton has also shaken up her message in recent weeks, trying on different hats: angry Hilary; warm-and-fuzzy mommy Hillary; commander-in-chief Hillary; insurgent change-candidate Hillary. "It's a very close race in Iowa, and quite naturally, the Clinton campaign has decided to throw in everything it's got, plus the kitchen sink," says Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "She's both the candidate of change and the candidate of experience, the candidate with a hard side and a soft side, and the candidate of the establishment past and the progressive future. Maybe voters are getting confused, or maybe she's patching together just enough voters to win or tie. We'll all find out together on January 3rd."

In the last week, Clinton straddled both the past and future. She's paraded an impressive stream of former Clinton administration officials — including former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, former Veteran Affairs Secretaries Togo West and Hershel Gober, former NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark and, of course, her husband, President Bill Clinton — through Iowa while declaring herself an agent of change. "Somebody said at one of my events a little while ago, You know it looks like it take a Clinton to clean up after a Bush,and I'm ready for the job if that's what it takes," Clinton said at a town hall event in Johnston, Iowa last week.

In harkening to the 1990s, Clinton risks alienating voters who want change. The majority of likely Democratic caucus-goers, 56%, believe change is more important than experience, according a December 19 ABC News/Washington Post poll of likely caucus-goers. Of those, half said they support Obama and 23% are committed to Edwards. Clinton only garnered 15% of the change vote. Conversely, 33% of those polled said they preferred experience over change, and Clinton lead amongst those voters 49% to Edwards' 15% and Obama's 8%.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1698063,00.html

[Quixote1818]

1. She picked the WRONG year to play to the center!

You don't play to the center after 8 years of Bush and the darkest, most insane, depressing, hopeless period in American history since the Civil War.

Whoever is running her campaign simply blew it! She could have wrapped it up if she had played to the base then ran back to the center.

Big Fuck Up on their part.

[Carrieyazel]

5. And you know what that tells you? That she is basically a mediocre politician at best.

To make the mistakes that she's made, shows that she didn't get it, didn't want to get it, and decided to run a general election campaign a year before the primaries!!!! It's taken down many others before her.

And her campaign staff; these people don't even have a clue. Wolfson, Lewis, Solis-Doyle, Penn. They have little political savvy. Name recognition only gets you so far.

[Quixote1818]

10. No kidding.

They must have thought they could live off of Bill's Reputation, however the Democratic party is in a different place right now than we were in the late 90's. She could have tapped into our anger just a little and run away with this. Her campaign is clearly is out of touch with most Democrats at this point.

[regnaD kciN]

17. Well, it tells me she's no different from the Democratic establishment...

If the past Congressional term has shown us anything, it's that long-time Democratic pols have a loser mentality -- no matter how much support the polls may show for Democratic and progressive principles, they still remain stuck in the belief that "America is a conservative country," and the only way to gain power is to lull said presumed conservative majority into thinking that you're really just a harmless centrist who buys into almost everything the Republicans have been espousing since the election of Ronald Reagan.

In years when the public does tend conservative, that may be a workable strategy for gaining power...although not one for being able to govern effectively should they gain power. (Case in point: the first two years of Bill Clinton's term.) But, in a year when the public does want change, it's a recipe for disaster. Yet it seems to be the modus operandi for established ("experienced") Democrats -- which is why I'm coming to believe that the only way we're ever going to move forward is with a nominee who was not part of the Democratic establishment during the years of The Great Triangulating...someone new like Barack Obama.

[Carrieyazel]

18. You're absolutely right, but I have serious doubts that Obama can get elected

to enact his agenda for change. You still have a general electorate that looks at things like, "are you conversational, can I sit down and have a drink with you" etc. Obama's a great orator, but he seems distant. He's also been quite cautious on the campaign trail; on numerous occasions he's had chances to give bold responses and he looks like he's worried about making a mistake. And being a sitting Senator is a liability when you're running for chief executive. These obstacles are there and are exceedingly difficult for him to overcome.

[merbex]

29. When someone runs as the "incumbent" when they are not

that shows tremendous ego and chutzpah and that in and of itself is offensive to people/voters who realize that this is the year where there is no incumbent running.

The voters were implicitly insulted- especially in Iowa and NH, she essentially wasted a summer by not taking their questions in open Town hall style formats - and the poll numbers of her not doing so well might just reflect some small part of a "not so fast Sen. Clinton" smackdown

[College Liberal]

28. I agree

The Third Way is not what America needs now. I like Clinton but Mark Penn blew it big time.

:popcorn:

[Hardrada]

2. Sweet!

[BenDavid]

3. Of course the media takes no blame in this. I know for a fact on

one program that airs daily on CNN, the situation room, from October 30th through December 4th, HRC received only 3 days of positive reporting during the Modnay through Friday airings. The 3 days I speak of was November 16th, 18th, and 19th......but a strange thing happened on the 19th not only to CNN but to Fox, nbc, cbs and abc.....All networks on the 19th ran the ABC/Washington Post poll that showed Obama ahead in Iowa by 3 points. What was strange that all networks disregarded their own polling that showed HRC still ahead but resorted back to the ABC poll....I cannot recall this ever happening, but it did not surprise me.....

I find the HRC is still in some polls ahead in Iowa and NH and SC and that is based upon her message and tot he folks that are seeing she is the best choice for the dems to win in 08.... It will be fun to watch over the next several weeks how this all turns out but I still say that by the middle or the end of February HRC will have a majority of delegates to become our nominee.

Ben David

[creeksneakers2]

9. Hillary is still way ahead nationally too

The media, like Time Magazine here, is writing her obituary. Of course, if Hillary wins the media will laud her as the woman who pulled off a big comeback, even though she wasn't behind in the first place.

All the media coverage now makes it look like Obama is the front runner. Because of that, if Obama doesn't win, I'm pretty sure there will be lots of people here on DU who will claim the primaries were fixed.

[madrchsod]

12. the major east coast paper newspapers

were beating up hillary this weekend and i think time has an article about her this week. i think she could and should do much better but there is something that is`t working as well as it should. she just may be the next president so i sure hope she does know what should be done,someone needs to save our asses...

[live love laugh]

42. It's totally the media that is propping her up and simultaneously tearing her down.

And those who fight over it are being played like an autoharp--rising a falling with every note.

In fact, the media was criticizing Hillary in 2000, 2001, 2002...it's been a nonstop effort.

She bears some responsibility--she's made some foolish choices lately. But the media effort outweighs anything she has done and it's why she is such a polarizing candidate.

[K Gardner]

4. Like I said, Hillary starring as Sybil. Time nailed it :-) K&R

:toast:

[sandnsea]

6. She's a lousy damn candidate

with lousy policy and a mean-spirited team. That's how she lost her "invincibility".

I love how this article says the Clinton machine is "racing to lower expectations", and then proceeds to spin every piece of bullshit her campaign has put out to lower those expectations. Too funny.

[Kahuna]

22. She's Kerry in a skirt, only worse. Kerry had more charisma.

Think about THAT!

[Yuugal]

23. I don't agree

I actually believed Kerry when he said he wanted to help the working class.

[Kahuna]

33. True that. nt

[sandnsea]

26. You obviously don't pay attention at all

Who do you think has been fighting for a withdrawal timeline, environmental protection, alternative energy, SCHIP, small business money, Katrina money, labor rights and on and on. You need to go look at his web site because he's the one who has been leading the way on all of this for the last 4 years, and all his life before that.

[Kolesar]

31. Kerry's message really fell apart in 2004

Can you recollect what issue he was really running on?

[Kahuna]

32. Nobody knows except that he ran on what he did 35 freakin years ago...

:crazy:

[Kolesar]

34. That "show" at the convention leading up to his speech ...

... With Max Cleland speaking about how John Kerry had inspired him when he was a depressed and distraught disabled veteran. I thought that was a colossal lost opportunity.

[hibiscus]

41. Fell apart?

Kerry won in 2004. They stole his votes in Ohio. He was and is still THE REAL DEAL :patriot:

[Cha]

36. She's a damn lousy

senator too if you're a Democrat! Very mean spirited "team"..so it must be really hard for her to be "all warm and fuzzy".

[maximusveritas]

7. Good article

This tells most of the story (in Iowa at least):

A month away from the caucuses, Clinton had spent 52 days in state, visiting just 38 counties compared with the 99 visited by Edwards and the 68 by Obama.

I think the number of counties visited will end up being proportional to their final standing.

[Carrieyazel]

11. Don't forget the 99 counties visited by Richardson

Hillary in the last 5 days, did a "helicopter" tour to finally get to all 99. That right there I found totally amusing. I wonder how many minutes she spent in each county.

[madrchsod]

8. although i detest her

i really expected her to do much better than she is doing. if she wins then i was wrong but in my opinion i think she is listening to really bad advice.

[countmyvote4real]

14. Bad advice = no confidence from me.

I don't like the Clinton machine precisely for their need to pander to polls. If a decision was in their gut, I might be more open, but I'm done with them. (I hope that I don't have to choke on my vote if she is the Democratic nominee. And if she is, there is still the unlikely independent alternative I could pull the lever for in the General.)

We don't need another dynasty presidency. Especially after *. We need to turn the system upside down and shake out all the bad influence of the * years.

Obama's dream of a bipartisan approach is a pipe dream. It can never happen. Impeachment anyone? Not going to happen under their current representation.

Edwards is the true candidate for change. I believe that he will fight for all of us and make us a better nation that is not ruled by inside the beltway corporate lobbyists.

[Jane Austin]

15. I don't think Obama's approach is necessarily bi-partisan.

His real strength is not making an enemy of everyone first and then trying to salvage something.

He approaches people with respect and he listens and he doesn't use language that instantly alienates his opposition.

The next issue will be easier to navigate, too, when you haven't made enemies of your opposition in the previous encounter.

[JackORoses]

13. ouch, Time waits for no Hillary.

[nealmhughes]

16. I've not had to go to the dentist for some time, but maybe I will start to read Time on line if they

keep this tack going!

[loveangelc]

19. peaking too early... never a good thing. nt

[Perry Logan]

20. Time raiseth up. Time casteth down.

[Kahuna]

21. My take is that she was too glib. I've always said that from the beginning.

For a long time the media praised her as a skilled politician when she gave glib and evasive responses. But during the debate when she was wishy washy on the drivers licenses for illegal immigrants she exposed herself as someone unwilling to take a stand. That really made people take a hard cold look at her and realize that this was a pattern, not just a one time flub.

[HughBeaumont]

24. Here's all the reason anyone needs as to why she lost her "inevitability" among voters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3873196

Not just jgraz's post, but look at others on the thread. Her positions that affect many working Americans are, let's face it, less than democratic. Americans need CHANGE, not "Business as Usual".

[Cha]

37. Thanks, Hugh! I don't think jgraz will

mind me listing his reasons for not voting for hillary here..they're almost identical to the ones I have had to put up with hillary as my senator.

jgraz's reasons not to vote for hillary.
Here's my list. I may have a few facts incorrect -- it's much more difficult to research lack of action. I'll happily make any corrections (or additions) to the list if people point them out.

~~~~~~~~

Senator Clinton said and did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft.

Senator Clinton said and did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales.

Senator Clinton said and did nothing regarding the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton.

Senator Clinton voted FOR cloture on the nomination of corrupt corporatist Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Senator Clinton voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified fascist Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals.

Senator Clinton voted FOR cloture on the nomination of religious zealot and homophobe William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Senator Clinton voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Senator Clinton said little or nothing during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito.

Senator Clinton missed the Senate confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey.

Senator Clinton said little or nothing during this summer's vote on the Iraq War Supplemental.

Senator Clinton said little or nothing during the vote to extend FISA.

Senator Clinton said little or nothing on the Walter Reid scandal, even though she sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator Clinton has said little or nothing during the current debate on Telecom Immunity.

Senator Clinton has said little or nothing on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney.

Senator Clinton has said little or nothing on the possible impeachment of George Bush.

Senator Clinton has said little or nothing on the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration. (Yeah, I'm too lazy to list these one-by-one)

Senator Clinton campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont

Senator Clinton proposed legislation to ban flag burning.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment."

I just don't remember senator hillary taking any action in the last five years that took a stand against the bushit fascism.

[jgraz]

39. Please, feel free to paste this as much as possible

After all, the pro-Hillary crowd has no problem spamming us with that phone book of every slightly progressive fart she squeaked out over the past 8 years.

We should also include some of the truly damning items that others added in that same thread -- for example, the vote in favor of allowing the US to continue cluster-bombing civilians.

[HughBeaumont]

40. Yeah, that's another thing I can't stand from them.

The whole "more-progressive-than-your-guy voting record" thing - what are we supposed to give her, a fucking medal for a) doing something she's supposed to do and b) not doing much in the way of making/taking a strong STAND on anything. She takes damning, less-than-democratic positions on issues like free trade, national security over civil rights and support for yet another ill-advised cowboy-and-indian bullshit excursion by Bewsh and we're supposed to kneel before this ridiculous sell of her by her minions as an agent of change and experience?

Here's something they don't get. Experience doesn't = "right". She's right for corporate America. As for the rest of us, it's business as usual and there isn't much she's been spewin' lately that changes that perception.

[Cha]

43. Yeah, corporatewhores

are her buds and she's also become quite the little groupie for the military complex which never met a war they wouldn't conjure for the sake of the bottom line. Fuckers.

[Yael]

25. Ouch. Thats going to leave a mark

The Queen of the Triangulating DINO Democrats is called out on talking out of all 4 sides of her mouth.

Nice.

[TeamJordan23]

27. k&r

[Kolesar]

30. Richard Holbrooke was an enthusiastic supporter of the bush, er, Iraq War

And he went on TeeVee to promote it. He flushed all the accomplishments he made with the Dayton peace accords.

[Cha]

38. hillary was talking

about having colin powell having something to do in her admin, too..and of course bill's suggesting the granbushit of them all, ghwbushit.

[Cha]

35. "..a clinton to clean up after a bush".

Is that why she voted with bush policies for 5 years cause she feels he needs cleaning up after? Or was she tone deaf and now some message is getting through that NO the country really doesn't like bushit anymore?