Why Hillary Lost? Posted by Michael Cohen

So there has been a great deal of speculation today about the various reasons why Hillary Clinton lost a race that a year ago seemed to be hers for the taking. Not surprisingly, much of the blogosphere points to her vote in support of the war in Iraq. I think there is something to that, but let's be careful in how we interpret this.

For example over at the Atlantic, Matt Yglesias makes the case that the failure to recognize the radioactive nature of the Iraq vote is one more sign of denial among liberal hawks:

Denying this reality seems to be part of the continuing hawk effort to avoid any accountability for the war. At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton had (and has) much more credibility with the liberal base than does the average person who shares her position on the war. If she can be held accountable, and if John McCain (until very recently the most popular politician in America) can be held accountable, then the sky's the limit.

But, I'm not so sure things would have played out this way if the Bush Administration hadn't screwed up the war so badly and, most important, for so long.

In 2004, no Democratic could have won the nomination had they not been a war supporter - indeed, even though John Kerry lost, I think that if Dean had been the nominee he still would have lost and probably by a lot more. Even back then, support for the war was essential for demonstrating foreign policy "toughness." I'm not saying it's right; but I think it's a fact. And of course, even as a war supporter Kerry fell victim to the two generation charge of Democratic weakness.

Now, if Bush had begun to wind down the US commitment in Iraq after the election and begin bringing troops home I imagine the same thing would have been true this cycle - no one could be nominated in 2008 if they opposed a war that was seen as successful (UPDATED: or at the very least, not disastrous). The same "electability" issues that caused the party to nominate Kerry in 2004 would have likely delivered the nomination to a war supporter (like, Hillary Clinton) in 2008. Being an war opponent would have been seen as too much of a liability. So the issue here is less how Hillary voted and more how the war turned out.

But this is one more reason why Barack Obama is one lucky son of a gun.  The only way that an anti-war voice gets nominated as a Democrat is if the country is so incredibly fed up with the war that suddenly that becomes an asset not a liability. After five years this is precisely what has happened.

It's one more sign of exactly how disastrous the Bush Presidency has been for the Republican Party. Democrats spent years trying and failing to build up their foreign policy credibility (see Dukakis in tank) and couldn't do it. And in a sense they still haven't. The reason why Democrats have even a minute advantage on foreign policy is not because of anything they've done, but instead it's based on how badly the Republicans have managed the war - and stubbornly refused to change course.

Indeed, when it comes to terrorism or strengthening the military Republicans are still favored. So before anti-war voices start congratulating themselves (and as a brief reminder, I include myself in that group) they would be wise to remember that it's not about them, or the hawks. It's about George Bush and his effective squandering of the GOP's most effective political trump card.

And something else to keep in mind, Obama's change message never would have resonated the same way if George Bush wasn't such a colossally incompetent and reviled President.

So there you have it; without George Bush, we likely wouldn't have gotten Barack Obama - ah, the irony.

Comments

[Mike M.]

Actually... Dean would have killed Bush because Dean had been constant in his opposition to the war. Kerry lost because he was characterized as a flip-flopper and he was characterized that way... based on his Iraq war votes.

Had Hillary not voted in favor of the Iraq war she would not have lost. Had she not voted in favor of the war, Obama probably wouldn't have run because her vote in favor of the war was really his only way to differentiate himself from her. Aside from that, the two share identical policy opinions.

The only irony is if we'd had nominated Dean in 2004, Hillary wouldn't be running now.

[Dan Kervick]

Now, if Bush had begun to wind down the US commitment in Iraq after the election and begin bringing troops home I imagine the same thing would have been true this cycle - no one could be nominated in 2008 if they opposed a war that was seen as successful.

This strikes me as a very, very, strange assessment. It's a startling statement, actually. It's not like the war only recently turned into a failure. The war was not a success in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 either. The only difference was that in 2004 there were more people around who believed that although the war effort had obviously failed to achieve its aims so far, it had still been a good idea and was still winnable, and so we just had to stick it out a bit longer. But Bush obviously couldn't wind the war down three or four years ago, right after the election, because his war aims had so clearly not been accomplished, and a withdrawal would have meant an unequivocal admission of failure. Bush's disposition has always been to think that as long as he stays and sticks it out in Iraq, the final chapter on the war has not been written yet, and there is still hope for a surprise conclusion. But if he had left at any time during the past four years, that final chapter would then have been written. It would have been titled "HUMILIATING NATIONAL FAILURE", and everyone associated with the Iraq stinker would have shared in the electoral punishment.

If the US had simply left in 2004 or 2005, Iraq would have immediately slid into widespread violence and total state collapse, perhaps bringing some of its neighbors into the maelstrom as well. People would now be screaming "What the hell was that about?! We killed all those people, Iraqis and Americans, spent all that money, broke a state, destabilized a region, found no WMDs and accomplished no discernible security goal. For what?!" And if Bush had figured out a way to stabilize Iraq by brute force by installing some new strongman, or making a partition deal involving Iraq's neighbors and their allies in the country, that would also have been a clear failure to achieve the war's moral and strategic aims, and would have saddled Bush and the country with a humiliating retreat from a situation that was obviously worse than the one that existed in Iraq before the war.

I disagree about the 2004 election. A capable and committed spokesman could have convinced the public even then that the war was a mistake. My recollection is that the poll numbers on the war were just about evenly split. The big security issue in the election was not the war, but terrorism. And the public was already beginning to gravitate to the idea that the war had been a distraction from the "war on terrorism" A lot of people who were ambivalent about the war, or down on it, still thought that Bush was the right guy for the times because he was tough on terrorists. They knew he was locking up, roughing up and shaking down suspected "extremists" - i.e. all young Muslim males he could get his hands on - and a majority of the country approved. Remember all those "security moms", who were apparently still terrified in 2004 that another 9/11 was going to take place any day now?

One final comment: If you and the other people at Democracy Arsenal and related venues would spend one tenth as much time thinking about the real world and real people outside of political communication as you do about "How Democrats Can Win the Security Debate", we might all be better off. You guys are so damn obsessed with overthinking how we should present ourselves, and what buzzwords we should used, that you consistently forget to squarely face the question "What should be done?". The best way to win any debate is to actually be right.

[Michael Cohen]

"One final comment: If you and the other people at Democracy Arsenal and related venues would spend one tenth as much time thinking about the real world and real people outside of political communication as you do about "How Democrats Can Win the Security Debate", we might all be better off. You guys are so damn obsessed with overthinking how we should present ourselves, and what buzzwords we should used, that you consistently forget to squarely face the question "What should be done?". The best way to win any debate is to actually be right."

Dan, everyone here agrees with these words - indeed, that's why we created the National Security Network. What drives all of us crazy is Democrats acting like Republicans because that's what they think voters want to hear - as opposed to saying what we believe a proggresive foreign policy should look like.

[Zathras]

"...what we believe a progressive foreign policy should look like," indeed. That appears to have been Dan Kervick's point. Even the word "progressive" was chosen for appearance's sake, because the word "liberal" was considered politically contaminated.

Michael Cohen has the better of the argument about the 2004 campaign. But consider the context. There was no real opposition in Washington to Bush administration foreign policy after 9/11, not among nationally prominent Democrats who were sound on what the organized interests that dominated the party considered the really key issues, like abortion and blocking tort reform, and thus had any prospect of winning a Presidential nomination. Look at how much mileage within the party Barack Obama got for one piffling speech made to a safely liberal audience back in 2002. He doesn't get to jump the line in Presidential politics if almost everyone else isn't trailing behind Bush's policy.

Opposition to a popular policy tends to make one unpopular. The Democrats' real problem four years ago, though, was that opposition to a popular policy in an area remote from the things one's most valued supporters really care about is even less attractive to any politician, especially showhorses like John Kerry or John Edwards. Foreign policy chops haven't been a ticket to success in Democratic politics for generations; the appearance of Democratic weakness has rested on a solid foundation of Democratic disinterest.

[Dan Kervick]

In late June of 2004, a Gallup Poll found that 54% of Americans believed sending US troops to Iraq was a mistake. I believe that the number fluctuated around the 50% ballpark throughout the rest of the year. This is despite the fact that the Democratic candidate was not himself arguing that the war was a mistake but was only quibbling about the planning and tactics. The public was ahead of the politicians on this one, and a strong advocate of the position that the war was simply a mistake could have won that argument, if he had the courage to make it and stick to it. And the popularity of the war dropped sharply soon after the election. By May of 2005, 57% said they did not believe it was worth going to war in Iraq. 56% said the war was going "badly" or "very badly". So I see no basis at all for Michael's suggestion that if Bush had wound down the war shortly after the election, the war would then have been seen as successful.

[joeskeys]

Kerry lost because he had no vision. I still don't know what he would have done in Iraq, and I voted for him. Dean had a much clearer viewpoint. I don't know if he would have won, but it's better to stand for something than to hedge.

[David Billington]

Dan Kervick,

"I disagree about the 2004 election. A capable and committed spokesman could have convinced the public even then that the war was a mistake."

Since how to disengage from Iraq was also an issue, the question is whether a more strongly antiwar Democrat would have done better or worse on that issue as well. I think you are right that the public wasn't ready to give up on Iraq in 2004. But I wonder if an antiwar candidate who had a clear and compelling solution (eg. partition?) might have done well by forcing debate onto the specifics of a political settlement instead of allowing the campaign to be about staying the course vs. chaos and collapse.

"Remember all those "security moms", who were apparently still terrified in 2004 that another 9/11 was going to take place any day now?"

The late shift to Bush followed the Beslan massacre.

[herefast123]

acer travelmate 2400 battery

[runescape gold]

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy runescape . I do not know how to use the rs gold ; my friend tells me how to use. I will thank for my friends bringing me in this world. I am not regret to buy runescape money . We all love game, if you want to play it, please buy cheap rs gold and join us. Please do not hesitate to have game.

[shaiya online gold]

When you have shaiya gold, you will become strong. With shaiya money, you can upgrade and admire by others. You can use cheap shaiya gold to start the journey of the world. So, do not hesitate, let us move to buy shaiya gold

[runescape gold]

Although I have little runescape money , I will on the way of the rs for long time. At one time or another, I am a pessimistic person, but when I have cheap rs gold , it changes my attitude of life.

[gg]

I hope i can get wakfu kamas in low price,
Yesterday i bought wakfu gold for my friend.

[cheap 9Dragons gold]

9Dragons cater to the taste of young people. With cheap 9Dragons gold, you can get everything you want in this game. So I like to buy 9 Dragons gold.

[Designer Yves Saint Laurent Replica]

I hope i can get wakfu kamas in low price,

[Fake Yves Saint Laurent Bags]

I hope i can get wakfu kamas in low price

[Tiffany replica Ring]

I hope i can get wakfu kamas in low price

[Tiffany replica Ring]

I hope i can get wakfu kamas in low price,

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[mp3 indir]

I want to buy some gw gold , but I do not know where to buy and how to buy GuildWars Gold gratis porno
porno izle teen porn

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[nike air max]

0314
The Nike air max Shoe lives up to its name with plush cushioning and a sleek silhouette. It brings you just what you need to style it up wherever you go. you can look at the Air max 2009,air max 90,Air max 95,Air Max 2010
Features:
* Minimalistic construction of leathers and synthetics in the upper
* Nike Shox technology for optimal cushioning
* Rubber outsole for excellent grip

[NFL jerseys]

Thank you, I got it. o(∩_∩)o

[cheap ed hardy]

Forty years ago, Don ED hardy
blew off a Yale fine-art fellowship to pursue the rogue art of tattoo, a timeless and often taboo tradition that captivated him as a boy in the Orange County beach town of Corona del Mar. By 10 he was drawing cars and eagles on kids' backs and arms with wet colored pencils and Maybelline eyeliner. After that he begun to design the Ed hardy picture

At the San Francisco Art Institute in the early '60s, Hardy mastered the demanding art of intaglio etching under the tutelage of the late Gordon Cook, a no-jive blue-collar guy who instilled in Hardy a love of craft, Asian art and the quiet power of Giorgio Morandi's little still life pictures. Which like love kills slowly
But it worked out well for the plucky Hardy boy, who blurred the supposed boundary between "high" and "low" art and carved a path through the worlds of art and commerce. He has drawn images on torsos
, canvases and giant scrolls with equal conviction and aplomb.

[cheap ed hardy]

Forty years ago, Don ED hardy
blew off a Yale fine-art fellowship to pursue the rogue art of tattoo, a timeless and often taboo tradition that captivated him as a boy in the Orange County beach town of Corona del Mar. By 10 he was drawing cars and eagles on kids' backs and arms with wet colored pencils and Maybelline eyeliner. After that he begun to design the Ed hardy picture

At the San Francisco Art Institute in the early '60s, Hardy mastered the demanding art of intaglio etching under the tutelage of the late Gordon Cook, a no-jive blue-collar guy who instilled in Hardy a love of craft, Asian art and the quiet power of Giorgio Morandi's little still life pictures. Which like love kills slowly
But it worked out well for the plucky Hardy boy, who blurred the supposed boundary between "high" and "low" art and carved a path through the worlds of art and commerce. He has drawn images on torsos
, canvases and giant scrolls with equal conviction and aplomb.

[k247br]

e biodegradablechanel bags when you "stoop and scoop."
Dispose of animal waste according to the campground rules or bury it off-road.
Observe fire coguccinditions and always keep a full jug of water nearby.
Remove flammable brush near fire pits and keep campfires small.
Don't burn plastics and metalshermes.
Use non-toxic, phosphate-free, biodegradable cleaning supplies and sanitary additives.
Reduce the need louis vuitton for air-conditioning by parking in natural shade, opening windows, using awnings or portable sun shelters.
Wash air-conditionidesignerng filters when dirty, instead of buying new ones each time.
Reduce the need to turn on heat designer handbagsby parking in a sheltered spot, out of the north and west winds.