Now that Barack Obama has "officially" secured the Democratic presidential nomination, numerous media outlets are taking their turns asking the obvious question: How did Hillary Clinton -- once seen as the inevitable nominee -- lose her party's primary?
In a front page think piece today, The Wall Street Journal asserts "the mistakes boil down to mismanagement, message, mobilization failures and the marital factor." The Financial Times simplifies it even further, placing the blame almost entirely on her husband. The Washington Post focuses on Obama's "insurgent strategy" that ceded some important battlegrounds while blitzing states where "Democratic candidates rarely ventured." All solid analyses of a complex campaign that lasted 18 months and hinged on countless decisions, strategies, and votes.
But how can you diagnose Clinton's downfall without mentioning her vote on the war? As Atrios writes in his characteristically succinct style, "No Iraq, no way to challenge Clinton." And it's frustrating to see so little discussion of this factor in the post-mortems. The Journal mentions the vote only in the context of motivating anti-war Iowans to turn out in the crucial contest while the other two pieces make literally no mention of the war at all.
Simply put, Clinton made her critical error in 2002. Five years later, with the country mired in this immoral and disastrous war, Democrats were ready to turn the page.
Post new comment