LUMS Blog

Trying on Obama's Change outfit. It just doesn't fit.
Barack Obama stands in the very epicenter of some of the most divisive issues of the current times; those of race, creed and geo-ethnicity. Borne of a white American mother and a black African father; raised in Hawaii and later in the Far East (Jakarta, Indonesia); possessing a close hereditary link with the Muslim world and being a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church; dabbling in drugs and later becoming Harvard Law Review's first ever black president - these all make for an extremely intriguing mix. And possibly a dangerous one too, for these ingredients make him so far removed from the ideal, pure US presidential candidate that it is a wonder he is still alive and kicking in this campaign. And it is a greater wonder still that he has meticulously channelled these disparities into a very empowering, potent idea - the idea of him being the commonality that binds us all. This is precisely what makes Barack Obama a very special individual.
Hillary Clinton has just not been able to do Change like Barack Obama has done it. She has simply failed to recognize what Obama represents – and what she does not. She has tried on his Change mantle many-a-time during her deliveries – all the while strengthening her image of being a candidate who would flip flop in the bid to amass leverage in the political field. From the very start she has held the miscalculated belief that potentially becoming the first US woman president is, in itself, Change enough for voters – enough to overshadow the baggage represented by her name and the idea that a Clinton is as a Clinton does. This has been utter folly.

Failing to explain how her experience makes her special.
Experience was never going to be a strong selling point in the current presidential race. In fact, Clinton's appeal has never stemmed from the lengthiness of her Washington experience in the first place. And any traction the argument may have had would have eventually dissipated in the event of a nomination and face-off with the veteran John McCain.
Clinton and her advisors have been unsuccessful in realizing that against Barack Obama, it would not be the quantity of her experience that would attract public support, but the quality of it. Intentional or not, her mistake has been conflating the term experience with political age instead of political wisdom. And every time she chides Obama for his political novicehood and flaunts her 35 years of public policy experience, she fans this mismatch further.

Bill Clinton's antics in South Carolina.
Bill Clinton, widely regarded as one of the best public speakers of his generation, suffered an unlikely faux pas in South Carolina while campaigning for his wife. Being astute enough to recognize that Obama's main strengths were also his greatest weaknesses, Bill reasoned he could quell the Change tide by instilling racial politics into the race. Whereas the reasoning was sound, the execution was not – by then most voters had already heard Obama's stirring spiel of unity, hope and Change. Bill Clinton's offensive came too late.
Also, while taking verbal barbarism to unexplored heights, he did not anticipate the damage his belligerent canvassing was doing to his wife's White House bid in terms of the public's perception of her independence and ability to handle an out-of-control husband. It was around this time that the 1992 controversial "two for the price of one" quote and the "Billary" moniker started discovering perverse momentum in the news media. Bill's final assault on Obama - a crass invocation of the "Jesse Jackson" vignette - did not ameliorate matters and all quarters were quick to deride the comment as the dirtiest of dirty politics. By then Hillary's campaign had started showing signs of wobble.

Negative campaigning.
Presidential campaigns are known to repeat blunders more often than learning from them. Hillary Clinton's story is not any different - after silencing Bill and removing him from the equation (post South Carolina), she went on to take the responsibility of roughing up Obama herself. Poorly attempted scripted sarcasm including the "celestial choirs" comment, the "change you can xerox" swipe and most recently, the SNL inspired "ask Barack if he needs another pillow" retort have all made Hillary Clinton look far less presidential than she actually is. She likewise has not helped her cause by heavily criticizing Obama for his NAFTA and healthcare adverts while generously indulging in negative advertisement herself. Letting elements in her camp disseminate 'Obama: The Muslim' literature on multiple occasions has been another campaign blunder she could have done without.
Barack Obama, for his part, is a quick-learner and has meticulously hovered above pointed political-mudslinging ever since learning a tough lesson at the three-way Myrtle Beach (South Carolina) debate – the one where John Edwards ephemerally differentiated himself as a mature candidate against a backdrop of a squabbling Clinton and Obama. Hillary on the other hand has kept succumbing to this temptation to the extent of artlessly overdoing it.

No Plan-B to fall back on.
A few months ago as Hillary Clinton first began slipping from the "inevitability" podium her managers and advisors had hoisted her upon, an intelligent reaction from them to stop and then reverse her demise never materialized. It seems they never had an effective contingency plan to fall back on; as a result of which her campaign has been merely reactive to Obama's rise instead of being in active competition against it.
By her own frequent admission Hillary Clinton is a fighter. However ironically that is the precisely quality her campaign has lacked during this nomination race. They came ill-prepared into this fight, probably looking forward to quickly dominating and dispatching Barack The Wimp before moving on to the more pressing issue of handling the Republican propaganda machine. This was pure short-sightedness and, at worst, incompetence.