Debate Politics Forums - View Single Post - The Democratic Party Nomination: Why Senator Clinton Lost

donsutherland1 · 05-30-08, 08:14 AM

At the conclusion of the voting on June 3, the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee Senator Barack Obama will have concluded the primary-caucus stage of the nominating process with a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. By then, a last-ditch Clinton effort to thwart the Democratic Party's nominating rules will have been turned aside with a compromise having been adopted over the Michigan and Florida primaries and the Democratic Party's senior leaders will be rallying behind Senator Obama.

Why then did Senator Clinton lose?

Several quick thoughts:

• Although Senator Clinton's resume was the stronger of the two, Clinton the candidate was the weaker of the two. While Senator Obama's stature grew under the pressure of the Reverend Wright controversy, in which the Senator eventually cut ties with the Reverend, Senator Clinton's stature shrunk. As the finality of the nominating process was approaching, Senator Clinton cracked under pressure leading her to cite the assassination of RFK in a convoluted and unconvincing rationalization as to why she was staying in the race.

• Senator Clinton offered ideas, but Senator Obama offered a vision. Senator Obama's offering a coherent and concise vision of an America that transcended racial divisions of the past and partisan divisions of the present inspired participation by Democratic primary voters who might otherwise have remained idle. Visions are more memorable. Senator Obama's charisma allowed him to effectively market that vision to Democratic primary and caucus voters. In comparison, Senator Clinton's ideas were transformed into little more than incomplete building blocks with much work left to be done.

• Senator Obama was able to rebut Senator Clinton's advantage in experience by highlighting what Democrats felt was his advantage in judgment on the Iraq war. He convinced Democrats that he could be relied upon to make sound judgments and that experience alone provided no guarantees that his opponent could do the same.

Now, as the campaign process winds down, the Clinton campaign and its supporters appear to have entered into a twilight zone of profound denial. A column by The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Jr. captures some of those sentiments. Dionne recounts:

"From the beginning, she's been treated very badly," says Therese Murray, president of the Massachusetts Senate. "No woman would have run with Obama's résumé. She wouldn't have been considered." But Clinton has been "demonized by the press and the talking heads. How do you get away with that?"

...Added Murray: "Obama wouldn't have gotten to where he got today if it weren't for the bias of the male media -- no offense."

Is that right?

No, says an exhaustive study of media coverage through the March 9 conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. That study found that Senator Obama's positive coverage comprised 69% of media accounts. For Senator Clinton, the figure was 67%. The report explained:

From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns.

In the end, Senator Clinton's defeat arises on account of the candidates' attributes and how they waged their battle. Media coverage did not prove to be Senator Clinton's "Waterloo." Instead, at least from my having followed both the Republican and Democratic Party campaigns, Senator Obama's charismatic leadership, strength under fire, and coherent vision made the difference. Assisting Senator Obama's well-earned victory was that the campaign process exposed the reality that Clinton the candidate was inferior to Clinton the resume.

05-30-08, 08:14 AM	#1 (permalink)
donsutherland1 Moderator Mod team member Join Date: Oct 2007 Last Online: Today 04:17 PM Location: New York Posts: 2,439 Thanks: 802 Thanked 1,556 Times in 868 Posts Lean: Centrist Gender: Awards:	The Democratic Party Nomination: Why Senator Clinton Lost At the conclusion of the voting on June 3, the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee Senator Barack Obama will have concluded the primary-caucus stage of the nominating process with a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. By then, a last-ditch Clinton effort to thwart the Democratic Party's nominating rules will have been turned aside with a compromise having been adopted over the Michigan and Florida primaries and the Democratic Party's senior leaders will be rallying behind Senator Obama. Why then did Senator Clinton lose? Several quick thoughts: • Although Senator Clinton's resume was the stronger of the two, Clinton the candidate was the weaker of the two. While Senator Obama's stature grew under the pressure of the Reverend Wright controversy, in which the Senator eventually cut ties with the Reverend, Senator Clinton's stature shrunk. As the finality of the nominating process was approaching, Senator Clinton cracked under pressure leading her to cite the assassination of RFK in a convoluted and unconvincing rationalization as to why she was staying in the race. • Senator Clinton offered ideas, but Senator Obama offered a vision. Senator Obama's offering a coherent and concise vision of an America that transcended racial divisions of the past and partisan divisions of the present inspired participation by Democratic primary voters who might otherwise have remained idle. Visions are more memorable. Senator Obama's charisma allowed him to effectively market that vision to Democratic primary and caucus voters. In comparison, Senator Clinton's ideas were transformed into little more than incomplete building blocks with much work left to be done. • Senator Obama was able to rebut Senator Clinton's advantage in experience by highlighting what Democrats felt was his advantage in judgment on the Iraq war. He convinced Democrats that he could be relied upon to make sound judgments and that experience alone provided no guarantees that his opponent could do the same. Now, as the campaign process winds down, the Clinton campaign and its supporters appear to have entered into a twilight zone of profound denial. A column by The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Jr. captures some of those sentiments. Dionne recounts: "From the beginning, she's been treated very badly," says Therese Murray, president of the Massachusetts Senate. "No woman would have run with Obama's résumé. She wouldn't have been considered." But Clinton has been "demonized by the press and the talking heads. How do you get away with that?" ...Added Murray: "Obama wouldn't have gotten to where he got today if it weren't for the bias of the male media -- no offense." Is that right? No, says an exhaustive study of media coverage through the March 9 conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. That study found that Senator Obama's positive coverage comprised 69% of media accounts. For Senator Clinton, the figure was 67%. The report explained: From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns. In the end, Senator Clinton's defeat arises on account of the candidates' attributes and how they waged their battle. Media coverage did not prove to be Senator Clinton's "Waterloo." Instead, at least from my having followed both the Republican and Democratic Party campaigns, Senator Obama's charismatic leadership, strength under fire, and coherent vision made the difference. Assisting Senator Obama's well-earned victory was that the campaign process exposed the reality that Clinton the candidate was inferior to Clinton the resume. Last edited by donsutherland1 : 05-30-08 at 09:12 AM.

Inline Ads