clinton pre-mortems: from Sekhar

There is a lot of analysis on why Clnton lost, but it is mostly about
details. Time has "The Five Mistakes Clinton Made," but there is no mention of Iraq. Others have discussed her refusal to apologize for her vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq.

But it is still about tactics. That she authorized Bush because she would want similar powers if/when she became President, that she continued to support US occupation - these are not mentioned.

Even on a tactical level, that she relied on large donors instead of using the Internet, and that she focused on large primary states instead of smaller states and caucus states are viewed as tactical errors. Thisanalysis is fundamentally wrong. Over a year ago, I met friends of my daughter who were already working full-time for Obama, willing to travelfrom state to state, spending a few weeks in each place. There have been repeated stories in the media about graduate students (including Indians) who have suspended their careers to campaign for Obama, and about people in different communities spontaneously organizing support groups (with advice from barackobama.com). It is this groundswell of support that made it possible for Obama to rely on the Internet and to campaign in every state, small and large. The media completely overlook the movement aspect of the Obama campaign, focusing instead on details, as if Clinton could have matched Obama on the Web if only she had a better site, succeeded in caucus states if only she had spent some money there, etc.

I also found the NY Times story I posted earlier very interesting - that the tactics associated with Bill Clinton in the 90's were often executed with Hillary's enthusiastic participation. That explains the ruthlessness of the present campaign as not just Bill's doing. It also explains her continued negative campaign. She has released a letter to Obama on resolving Florida and Michigan, but it has more attacks than any actual solutions. More significant is the USA Today interview with the explicit racial comment (below).

From the letter:

When efforts were untaken by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party's rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported.

Your commitment to the voters of these states must be clearly stated and your support for a fair and quick resolution must be clearly demonstrated.

But not just any resolution:

It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver.

The Michigan Democratic leadership, which supports Clinton, have made a proposal but Clinton has rejected it. Clinton is urging not only that delegations from those two states be
seated, but seated in full (and without Obama receiving any delegates
at all from Michigan, where his name was not on the ballot).

USA Today has an audio link to the racial comments, which are remarkable for suggesting that (1) all hard-working Americans are white, and (2) poor whites will not vote for Obama. Jon Stewart had a good segment on it last night. Daily Kos has a post challenging the factual basis of Clinton's comment that Obama's vote share in any white group is declining, but I am skeptical that he has the right subgroup data. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Clinton supporter, is saying the same thing:

Senator Clinton continues to demonstrate that she has what it takes to win the Presidency ... while Senator Obama does well in areas and demographic groups that the Democratic nominee will win anyway. She has my full support, as she is the best candidate ... and would be the best President of the United States.

This is the argument reduced to its essentials. Blacks will always vote for a Democrat, so you worry only about the white vote. One commenter at the tboblogs site says:

Posted by Justin Randolph, Miami, FL on 05/09 at 11:26 AM

Rep. Wasserman-Schultz is very confused if she thinks that African-Americans will vote for Clinton if she walks into Denver trailing by every measure and walks out the nominee because enough people buy her argument that America is just too racist to vote for the black guy. Not only wouldn’t African-Americans come out to vote, the next generation of Dems who are lining up in droves to vote for Obama wouldn’t come out either. Democrats would lose the ability to win the presidency for at
least a generation.

Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post also writes about Clinton's arrogance.