Inevitable Loss

The inevitable Democratic presidential nominee Senator Hillary Clinton is currently campaigning as the candidate with solutions. For her sake, the Senator should hope her math skills have not eroded because her biggest problem will be obtaining the necessary 2,025 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination, and defeating the insurgent campaign of Senator Barack Obama who is currently frontrunner for the presidential nomination. The path to the nomination is now a math problem.

According to the Associated Press (AP), Senator Obama’s delegate projection is 1,275. Senator Clinton’s delegate projection is 1,220. She trails the Illinois Senator by 55 delegates. The Illinois Senator needs 750 delegates to win the nomination. Obama needs to secure 57% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination. Clinton needs 805 delegates, or 61% of the outstanding delegates to win the nomination. During the presidential campaign, Senator Clinton surpassed the 55% margin six times, including American Samoa. Senator Obama has exceeded the 55% threshold 14 times.

Currently, Senator Clinton is mired in a prolonged slump, losing eight straight primaries/caucuses to Senator Obama. The Illinois Senator won 22 states. Clinton won 13 contests, however the Senator from New York argues most of the states Senator Obama has won are small and insignificant. Clinton chief campaign strategist Mark Penn argues, “Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states outside of Illinois.”[i] According to the Clinton campaign, Missouri, Virginia, and Maryland are insignificant. Senator Clinton defeated her opponent in California and New York; therefore her victories are more valuable.

At their current pace, neither candidate will have the required 2,025 delegates needed to secure the presidential nomination, however Senator Obama will have a slim lead (1931 – 1876) over Senator Clinton, assuming the candidates split the delegates equally in the remaining contests. It is a generous calculation because the charismatic Senator from Illinois is beating the pantsuit off Senator Clinton. During his current winning streak, Senator Obama’s percentage of the vote routinely exceeded 55%. In the last 10 contests, Clinton surpassed 40% twice. It is a safe bet Senator Clinton will not win the nomination if she loses 30-35 states.

The Clinton campaign devised a new winning strategy. Just stay close to Senator Obama until the Democratic National Convention in August. President Clinton will attempt to seduce the undecided super delegates with his unique oratory skills. The super delegates will provide Senator Clinton with the margin of victory.

The concept of the super delegate is a creation of the Democratic Party establishment to correct a flaw in the nominating process. The flaw is the power of the voters to choose a satisfactory candidate who they believe is most likely to win the general election.

In 1968, the Democratic Party removed the party bosses from the process of selecting the nominee. The liberal, activist base of the Democratic Party seized control of the process. However, the party establishment became disenchanted with the nominees in 1972 and 1976. Blowout loses tend to create disenchantment. President Nixon trounced Senator McGovern. Ronald Reagan routed President Carter in 1980.

The super delegates were introduced in the 1984 campaign. Vice President Walter Mondale was the immediate beneficiary of the new process, defeating the insurgent campaign of Senator Gary Hart. Super delegates are supposed to be a reliable method of preventing unelectable liberal candidates from becoming the Democratic Party nominee.

Depending on super delegates is not “Plan A.” The Clinton campaign was predicated on the notion that the nomination process would be completed by the Super Tuesday primaries. In December, Senator Clinton declared, “I have a campaign that’s poised and ready for the long term. We’re competing everywhere through February 5th… So I’m in it for the long run. It’s not a very long run. It’ll all be over by February 5th.”[ii] Senator Clinton was the odds on favorite to capture the Democratic nomination. With President Bush’s disastrous presidential term coming to an appreciative end, she was practically planning what pantsuit to wear on Inauguration Day.

It was the Spanish poet, essayist, novelist, philosopher George Santayana who uttered the famous quote, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Senator Clinton adopted President Bush’s winning strategy in 2000, to have someone other than the voters decide the outcome of an election. In 2000, it was the Supreme Court. In 2008, it will be the “Super Delegates.”

Perhaps Ms Clinton was so obsessed with her own election to the United States Senate in 2000 that she forgot the repercussions of the Supreme Court selecting Governor Bush as president. Senator Clinton is risking the legitimacy of her candidacy by having the Democratic Party elite select the next presidential nominee. She is in danger of alienating new voters, African Americans, independents, moderate Republicans, and the liberal base of the party. The Democratic National Convention is in August. If she walks away with the nomination even though she lost the popular vote, the majority of the states, and is behind the delegate count, then will face a hostile electorate in November. Senator Clinton may not have enough time to repair the damage caused by usurping the will of the voters.

The Clinton perception of campaigns as adversarial, nasty, and brutal affects their political judgment. Their strategy is to win with 50% + 1 of the electorate. Just win with a simple majority, get elected, then govern with the same mindset. Work enough to just win, instead of trying to overwhelm the opposition. Politics is a constant struggle – a jihad to use another term. The Clintons approach to governing is the constant struggle between them and the opposition.

The Clinton War Room was based on the need to quickly respond to attacks from the Republican Party. Granted the Republican Party is prone to manufacturing controversies, but the War Room served another function. Bill Clinton is an accomplished politician, but a flawed human being. Allegations of womanizing were expected. The War Room served to counter the allegations of womanizing.

To the Clintons, landslide victories are anomalies. That is why Senator Clinton can blithely dismiss Senator Obama’s victories in smaller states with insignificant Electoral College votes because these states are unworthy of attention. Bigger states matter more than smaller states because the reward is greater. She would gladly concede these smaller states to the Republican Party as long as she can win the bigger states in the general election. Their primary concern is winning 270 electoral votes.

However, Senator Clinton does not understand the electorate. Voters expect more. It wants unity instead of constant struggle. Senator Obama is running a presidential campaign in all 50 states. Every vote matters to his candidacy. As an African American candidate, Senator Obama needs to demonstrate he can get votes anywhere. In contrast, the Clinton campaign opened offices in Texas and Ohio this past week.[iii] Their campaign methodology did not extend beyond Super Tuesday. This is a challenge the Clintons were not expecting and are not prepared to contest.

Senator Clinton’s journey to the White House has not been smooth. She lost the Iowa Caucuses, was almost reduced to tears in New Hampshire, then witnessed former President Clinton inject race into the South Carolina primary, and she lost in 22 insignificant states. Senator Obama wants to introduce a change in attitude in Washington DC. Senator Clinton is reduced to constantly changing campaign strategies.

Desperation leads to bad judgment. Senator Clinton is running an anti-hope campaign to counter Senator Obama’s positive campaign for change. Senator Clinton argues Senator Obama just sounds pretty, but does not propose solutions to our problems. “Speeches don’t put food on the table. Speeches don’t fill up your tank. Speeches don’t fill your prescription or do anything about the stack of bills that keeps you up at night. That’s the difference between me and my democratic opponent. My opponent makes speeches, I offer solutions.”[iv]

Clinton campaign flack Howard Wolfson advanced a new negative tactic by labeling Obama a plagiarist in an attempt to tarnish the gifted Senator’s image. His candidacy is fundamentally premised on the strength of his rhetoric and the strength of his promises… So when he is found lifting the rhetoric from another politician, it calls into question the premise of the candidacy.”[v]

In addition, Senator Clinton argues that talk is cheap. Being married to President Clinton makes her an expert on politicians who like to talk and make promises. Remember, “I feel your pain?”

Senator Clinton ignores American history when she claims talk is cheap. President Roosevelt was not being a Pollyanna when he said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” President Kennedy was not being cynical when he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what can you do for you country.” The Reverend Martin Luther King was not being naive when he delivered the iconic “I Have a Dream” speech. In his last speech as president, Eisenhower was not being an alarmist when he warned against the growing influence of the military industrial complex in the political process.

Speeches matter because it sets the tone of the debate. Ms Clinton argues she has 35 years of experience. She is ready to be president from day one. The Senator fails to understand that she is not interviewing for a job. She is campaigning for the presidency. Proclaiming, “I am ready” does not set a tone, or a mood. Leaders need to inspire.

Talk is cheap only when you are unable to enunciate an idea clearly, like Senator Clinton’s inability to create an effective campaign slogan. Even campaign flack Howard Wolfson agrees that Senator Clinton is rhetorically challenged. “Senator Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric.”[vi]

Now she is the problem solver “because there’s a big difference between making speeches and offering solutions.”[vii] Offering solutions is the latest is a series of bumper sticker slogans the Clinton campaign has recited like “Big Challenges, Real Solutions,” or “Working for Change, Working for You” or “Ready for Change, Ready to Lead,” and lately “Solutions for America.”[viii]
Senator Clinton presidential campaign recently encountered financial difficulty. Maybe that is where the Clintons spent the money. Printing new bumper stickers and placards can be expensive.

Senator Clinton continues to make errors during the presidential campaign. She intends to make a valiant stand in the Texas and Ohio primaries in March. The Senator should consider a campaign rally in The Alamo for metaphorical effect.

Her strategy is flawed because she is ignoring Wisconsin, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont. This error is not unprecedented. Mayor Giuliani thought he could start his presidential campaign in Florida after bypassing Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina. This strategy did not work for America’s Mayor.

Attacking Senator Obama is another failed strategy. It started in December 2007 when the Clinton campaign attempted to argue Obama was disingenuous when he said he never planned to run for president. Through hard work, the Clinton campaign uncovered essays titled “I Want to be President” written by the precocious Barack Obama as a child in the third grade and in kindergarten.

Negative attacks make her campaign appear petty. Attacking Obama reinforces the notion that Senator Clinton is incapable of changing “politics as usual” in Washington. Recently she joined Republican presidential candidate John McCain in attacking Obama. Both claim the Illinois Senator is changing his position regarding public funding during the general election. A Democratic candidate is coordinating attacks with the Republican nominee against her Democratic rival. According to Senator Clinton, the enemy of my enemy is my friend

Senator Clinton needs to employ a different strategy. She should run a positive campaign, emphasizing the policy differences between Obama and herself. She needs to run competitive races in Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Ms Clinton cannot afford to concede the smaller states to Senator Obama. At best, Senator Clinton may secure 300 to 350 delegates in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. She will still need another 455 delegates to secure the nomination. Obama will win the nomination if Clinton disregards the remaining 962 delegates.

Senator Clinton overestimated her inevitability as a candidate. Inevitability has limits. She indubitably accepted the premise that the nomination was hers. The Clinton campaign took the process for granted. That was the biggest mistake, besides her inability to add.


[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 15, 2008.
[ii] Meet the Press, February 17, 2008.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 14, 2008.
[iv] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 14, 2008.
[v] Thomas DeFrank and Michael Saul, “Hillary Cries Plagiarism and Barack Sez She Has Borrowed Words From Him,” New York Daily News, February 19, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 18, 2008.
[vii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 15, 2008.
[viii] E.J. Dionne, “How Inevitable Got Outmaneuvered,” The Washington Post, February 15, 2008.