This fundamental defect of her campaign struck me from Day One when during the aforementioned 02.07 TH meeting, she opened with remarks and then took questions. In front of a impressive contingient of regional, national and international media, she answered a few softball questions about health care and tuition assistance with numbing generalities. Disgusted, I raised my hand and asked her: "We all know that the Bush Administration are congenital liars. In the interest of demonstrating that your administration would be more honest and transparent than the Bush administration: What is the true reason(s) the US invaded Iraq? We know it wasn't because of WMD or Al Qaeda, so take this opportunity right now to set the tone of your campaign and future administration by telling us the truth." Her reply, as reported by Patrick Healy of the NYT was:
She responded by asserting that President Bush and his advisers came into power in 2001 with an "obsession" to oust Saddam Hussein and resolve the "unfinished business" of the first Gulf War of Mr. Bush’s father. "From almost the first day they got into office, they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein," Mrs. Clinton said. "I’m not a psychiatrist – I don’t know all of the reasons behind their concern, some might say their obsession." "I guess they must have seen it as unfinished business, for want of a better term," she added. Mrs. Clinton then turned to criticizing the administration’s handling of the war, saying: "If you had been obsessed with doing this, as they apparently were, why were you so incompetent?"
Now, of course, with her security clearances, and those of her husband, she certainly knows at least as much of the truth as we moderately-informed little people. She chose instead an answer that translates as either: 1) No my administration is not going to be any more transparent or honest than the Bush Administration, or 2) Condescending circuitous bullshit.
My question was followed by one from Roger Tilton, subsequently reported ubiquitously, who asked her if she was ready to apologize for her Iraq war vote. She answered no, based on a false claim of ignorance.
I and many other activists and citizens attended innumerable campaign events throughout the early months of the NH Primary, and one of the most common refrains was that most glaringly she, but also most of the other "top-tier" candidates WERE NOT ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS.
This ultimately led to my founding in October 2007 (along with Roger Tilton and other activists who felt that citizens deserved a responsive and substantive dialogue with candidates for public office) a non-profit, non-partisan organization called NH Asks to ask all the presidential candidates in NH provocative and tough questions in newspaper ads throughout the state. Their answers would then be rated for truthfulness, straightforwardness and responsiveness (STR) and published in subsequent newspapaper ads. As Executive Director of NH Asks, Inc., I can state with some authority that Senator Clinton rarely, if ever, supplied genuinely responsive answers to substantive questions, certainly at least when she campaigned in NH. Neither she nor her campaign ever answered NH Asks's questions.
The meeting with General Clark in North Conway, NH in December, 2007 was, for me, one of the most enjoyable and truly informative of the primary season. His candor and honesty was refreshing, and his respect for the intelligence of his audience was genuine. He stated that Hillary shared his progressive policy views, and that we could be confident of her similarly competent and progressive leadership.
I pointed out that whereas that might be true, she had given us no basis to know that. Her public interaction seemed all scripted and/or manipulative, as well as devoid of demonstrative leadership, citing examples including her support of the Kyle-Leiberman Amendment, and her failure to stand with Senator Dodd to defend the Constitution.
I suspect that the other side of the same coin that also doomed her candidacy was an excessive reliance on professional political advisors, rather than trusting her own instincts. However, my suspicion in this regard is largely circumstantial.
Nothwithstanding, her campaign's most monumental blunder was a failure to demonstrate her ability to lead the nation with both her words and deeds. And she squandered numerous golden opportunities to do so.
The real shame is that she could have run an inspiring and historic campaign, and if she had shed all this baggage, she might have been a great president.
2 comments:
This is a very egocentric view of why Clinton lost. As a Clinton supporter, I don't think you quite get it. As a long-time Obama supporter, maybe my perspective will help you understand why the rest of us chose Obama over HRC.
Hillary had many strikes against her from the beginning. Yes, she had the massive and powerful "Clinton Machine" behind her, but to many of us, that was not exactly a positive. As a matter of fact, I break out in hives just thinking about the word "dynasty". I don't like the Bush family and I'm not real exited about Hillary ever following her husband to the WH as POTUS. Nepotism is never an attractive quality. You are kidding yourself if you think that HRC became a senator on her own merits.
Yes, HRC got there because of Bill, but that was a double edged sword. Most of the other negatives HRC carried into the campaign were caused by her husband. Mark Rich (and other sleazy pardons), cattle futures, lack of support for Gore, Bill's library etc. are just a few nefarious episodes that will forever tarnish "the Clinton's" reputations.
About the townhall meeting, no, wrong. I'm sorry, but the NH event and questions you took part in were but a tiny footnote no one heard or remembers. It was not a turning point. It was not a significant event to anyone but you. It was a 15 second clip on one or two cable news shows that evening. However, this event and many others like it, were significant because HRC never apologized for her Iraq war vote.
She had many opportunities to switch her position. Sometimes you have to do the "F" word. If you are wrong or make a mistake, flip flop already. She was so afraid of being called that word that HRC defended her Iraq vote until the end. It's okay to admit you are wrong once in a while, she never understood that.
There were many other small moments that killed her chances. During a debate she was busted big time on a question about illegal alien drives liscenses. The famous old Clinton triangulation was horribly exposed. The word "Clinonesque" became part of the vernacular. Oh, and her sniper story made her look dumb and disingenuous. That video tape of the kid presenting her flowers amounted to at least one of the nails in her coffin. It made her the butt of jokes for at least a week.
And lastly, the Clinton machine was just plain outclassed. The Clintons chose people to run their affairs based on loyalty, not merit. Obama's people out-organized, out-planned, out-fundraised and just plain out-smarted the vaunted Clinton machine. Lets give some credit where credit is due. The Obama campaign ran circles around the Clintons.
So, in conclusion, I don't think anyone can look back and find one issue or one moment. You have to look at the totality of the situation. However, if a gun was at my head and I had to pick one thing, it was the Iraq vote that killed her and her failure to apologize for that vote.
Anyway, that's what this partucular Obama supporter thinks. Take it for what it's worth.
Peace,
Hugh
Tks for your comment.
I wasn't a Clinton supporter. When I went to her 1st campaign event (that I described) I was looking for a reason to support her, and never found it throughout the long NH primary.
Before that, however (Jan 2007) I attended an Obama event also looking for a reason to support him, and still today, have never found it.
Perhaps the reason HRC never demonstrated any leadership, and went for pure scripting and pandering was because she never had it in her anymore than a pig could fly. But I still believe otherwise.
She blew into NH with a traditional top down conventional campaign, and my previous campaign experience told me that at the very least that was absolutely wrong, at least for NH. She ultimately won NH because she put over 6000 campaigners on the ground in the final 72 hrs, and blew everyone else out of the water.
But Obama never really mobilized the real grassroots in NH (that e.g., elected Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)), and I advised (the "infamous") Billy Shaheen (who agreed), that if they ultimately lined up solidly behind any of the candidates, that that candidate would win NH, big campaign organization and money notwithstanding.
"Luckily" for both Clinton and Obama, they never coalesed around any one candidate (although had Kucinich run a proper campaign organization here, he might have been the beneficiary, but that's another long tale in itself).
At the end of the day, of course, you are fooling yourself if you believe that there's discernable policy differences between Clinton and Obama, beyond differences in style.
Oh well, the days of the Republic are waning and the Empire continues. It just may not hurt as bad with Obama (Bread & Circuses) as opposed to McCain (just Circuses).
Post a Comment