Coming Back

It's worth saying that I find Patrick Ruffini's Hillary Comeback scenario pretty plausible. The Iowa and New Hampshire primaries were really, really, really close together. After tonight, even if she loses, things slow down a bit and give her ample opportunity to mount her comeback.

However, a few caveats.

The widespread assumption seems to be that the path to victory for HRC involves tearing Obama down. That seems a bit doubtful to me. She has a lot of institutional support, endorsements, etc. that were acquired back in the "inevitable" era. Those people will presumably keep standing with her even if it looks like she'll probably lose. What they won't want to do is keep standing with her as she smears the front-runner. Lots of Clinton's supporters were backing her for essentially careerist and opportunistic reasons, and they're not going to want to be associated with harsh negative campaigning against Obama if it looks probable that Obama will win anyhow.

What she needs to do with her opportunity is do what she didn't do in the nine months before Iowa: Establish an affirmative rationale for her candidacy. She's had the advantage for most of the campaign of playing front-runner, parrying attacks, and basically being the default option. That advantage has now become a disadvantage, however, because it means she never really established a core sense of what was supposed to be exciting about a Hillary Clinton administration. She still has time to do that, though, and since most Democrats, unlike most reporters, basically like and respect her, I think people would be very open to her argument. I've just never heard what the argument is (and, no, it's not "experience" ask Bill Richardson and every other "I'm qualified" candidate how that worked out).

Comments

She needs to show some humility and lay low while the pundits' infatuation with Obama blows over. In a few weeks, the "experienced insider" identity could work for her just as it did for Kerry. But instead, she continues to steal the media spotlight, flounders without a strategy, and ends up looking desperate and panicked.

Posted by Joseph Clarke | January 8, 2008 5:04 PM

She needs to drop the abstractions ("experience" "change") and tell a story: a story about the history and development of the Democratic Party, and of progressive ideals, and how she is part of that and the natural next step. She has to not be ashamed of her connections to Bill, and not hide her feminist significance; she should highlight them, but in the context of a progressive, historical narrative.

As it is she offers us no story at all, just a resume and lots of statistics. Yawn.

Posted by lampwick | January 8, 2008 5:06 PM

Care to suggest an alternative central narrative or "affirmative rationale" for her candidacy? It's awfully easy to say she should take a different approach in light of the Iowa results, but what the heck should that approach be? What is the keystone justification for Clinton's campaign other than "experience?" In a world where substantive policy differences between the leading Democratic candidates are few and far between, what uniquely attractive attribute does Clinton offer the electorate?

Posted by Will | January 8, 2008 5:06 PM

One thing I hope Hillary drops for her own sake is the "I have 35 years of experience working for change" line. Hearing this just reminds me that a large portion of this "experience" came as first lady (either of Arkansas or the US), which does not constitute experience as a "change agent" without more detail about what, exactly, she changed.

As someone who never bought into the "experience by osmosis" theory, I think she needs to get into a little more detail about what she's done in her non-wifely jobs (ie: as a senator, and as a lawyer).

Posted by Ben | January 8, 2008 5:07 PM

As you note, there never was an argument for a Hillary Clinton candidacy other than inevitability. And the reason gets back to a fundamental truth about BILL Clinton's candidacy.

A lot of people like to talk about the love that the Democratic base, especially blacks, had for Bill Clinton. That may be true, as far as it goes. But the truth is that Bill Clinton was chosen basically by the party establishment and he was chosen because he was a Southern White Conservative and it was perceived that that was the only electable Democrat (e.g., Jimmy Carter), whereas candidates who were from the Northeast (Dukakis) or were liberal (Mondale) would lose.

Nominating Bill Clinton was always about nominating someone who did not share the core beliefs of the party, someone who was for the death penalty, willing to throw the poor and minorities off of welfare, willing to sign free trade agreements, willing to take big contributions from business, willing to bomb and invade other countries, etc.

The problem is that in 2008 we have a combination of: (1) an opportunity to win an election with a real liberal, because the Republicans are so down; and (2) a pissed off base which thinks that one of the reasons the Bush Administration was so bad was because feckless conservative Democrats kept going along with its bad policies, whereas the base, which was right about these things, was repeatedly portrayed as stupid and naive.

In that circumstance, why would the Democrats ever nominate a conservative? The only possibility was if it was so inevitable that people would go along with it because Hillary Clinton would take her revenge on anyone who didn't once she got into power. Take away the inevitability, and you have left a conservative Democrat running not in 1992 when Reagan had succeeded in shifting the nation to the right but in 2008 when Iraq and Katrina have shifted the nation to the left.

That is Hillary's problem, and I don't see how she can repackage her way out of it.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 8, 2008 5:08 PM

I'd find Ruffini's scenario more plausible if John Edwards didn't exist, since Ruffini basically assumes his nonexistence.

Unfortunately for Ruffini's scenario, Edwards is alive and well, and can make at least as good a case to those Las Vegas hotel workers as Hillary can. Here's a guy who just recently walked a picket line, and in general has been the most strongly pro-union of the three major candidates. Plus he's been surging in the national polls.

I don't know if Edwards will win there. But I don't see it as being inherently Clinton territory. And for reasons that I don't understand, she's polled the weakest of the three major Dems in the mountain West in the head-to-heads with the major Republicans: she might be the most likely to win Ohio in a general election, but the least likely of the three to win Nevada, New Mexico, or Colorado.

I don't know what's going on there, but it's there. I think Clinton can stake her whole bankroll on Nevada, and still have slim chances of winning.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 8, 2008 5:14 PM

The problem is that you guys living in the 'Beltway' and spending all your time with other Beltway people just can't see what's happening here.

Obama is taking off because he represents the future. I know that sounds trite but it's true and not just for Democrats. No less than 5 of my Republican friends have expressed interest in Obama.

I've met Hillary before and am fond of her. But seeing her on the Iowa stage with Madeline Albright spoke volumes.

The Country (Blue and Red) is desperate for change and the Clintons are not change.

Posted by Don | January 8, 2008 5:14 PM

she never really established a core sense of what was supposed to be exciting about a Hillary Clinton administration

I don't think a core sense like this can be pulled out of the hat now. The formula was party apparat plus woman POTUS as extra sizzle. She's the female Bob Dole.

I'd say the best chance she has is for some outside, non-campaign event - Iran, Iraq, something domestic of course - on which Obama missteps or "missteps".

Posted by otto | January 8, 2008 5:17 PM

I think Ruffini, and by extension, you, are wrong in the central premise of the comeback scenario. He is pretending that each state stands in isolation and that there isn't an inherent dynamisim in this process, much of which consists of the story that the media tells about events. In case you haven't noticed the media don't much like Clinton and will be unable to resist sticking the fork in her so to speak.

Once Obama wins New Hampshire, what is the rationale for the Clinton candidacy? She is no longer inevitable and many people, even those sympathetic to her, have always been leery of her as a general election candidate. Moreover, where do you think the 15-20% of the Democratic voters who support Edwards are going to go? To Clinton -- I don't think so. She is going to lose Nevada and South Carolina if she loses New Hampshire.

In other words, if she loses tonight (and I think she will) it is all over.

Posted by Sir Charles | January 8, 2008 5:20 PM

"Those people will presumably keep standing with her even if it looks like she'll probably lose."

They might not give her money, though, and rumor has it that she needs money.

Posted by ostap | January 8, 2008 5:20 PM

If she wants to do something dramatic, maybe she should divorce Bill tomorrow. That would certainly win her some respect from the Camille Paglia's of the world.

Posted by lampwick | January 8, 2008 5:21 PM

Essentially what you're saying is that the she needs to get people to take another look at her. The problem with that is she is a known quantity. Most of the public has taken its assessment of her and formed its opinion. Getting them to change their minds about her is unlikely to happen, no matter what her message is.

The only real path open to her, I think, is to get the public to take another look at Obama and change its mind about him. But the problem with that is she's not in a position to make that happen, which is why Slick is so angry that the press isn't more critical of Obama.

In any case, people are right in suspecting that something much deeper is happening here. The public is ready to close the book on the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush era of confrontational, partisan, identity-group politics, to which HRC is inextricably linked. It is thirsting for a new direction, and fair or not, ready or not, Obama is the beneficiary of this desire. If that's the case, then we're witnessing a real earthquake, the kind that remakes the substance and landscape of American politics (1932, 1968, 1980, 1994, etc.) Barring some real gaffe on Obama's part, nothing will stop it.

Posted by Claudius | January 8, 2008 5:22 PM

That advantage has now become a disadvantage, however, because it means she never really established a core sense of what was supposed to be exciting about a Hillary Clinton administration.

Her advantage as a candidate had nothing to do with "what was supposed to be exciting about a Hillary Clinton administration" -- with some justification, voters have assumed that any of the major Democratic candidates would pursue similar goals and legislation.

Instead, her advantage was as a prospective nominee, she could claim to have been vetted against the GOP smear machine in a way that Edwards and Obama haven't, thus making it more plausible that there would be a Democratic administration to be excited about.

There's still a hypothetical chance she could re-establish that argument against Obama if he commits a gaffe (as Ruffini speculates he might). But each stumbling shift in strategy and each defeat for Clinton makes it harder for her to strike a positive contrast in that regard.

Posted by Swopa | January 8, 2008 5:25 PM

If the post below is accurate, a further blow to the prognosticatin' skills of you and Mr. Ruffini.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/08/clinton-allies-may-dump-m_n_80460.html

If Hillary decides not to contest Nevada and South Carolina, as Edsall suggests, she is done. She can't lose the first four contests and recover -- why would anyone who knows anything about politics think otherwise?

Posted by Sir Charles | January 8, 2008 5:28 PM

One of my co-workers (who is pushing 50) said today: I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I'm going to vote for Obama." Obama's broad appeal is for real, and Hillary has nothing like it. Unless he steps on his dick in a serious way soon, Obama's nomination is the only inevitability in the Democratic race.

Posted by john o. | January 8, 2008 5:37 PM

She has a lot of institutional support, endorsements, etc. that were acquired back in the "inevitable" era. Those people will presumably keep standing with her even if it looks like she'll probably lose.

This is hardly likely. These people want and need things from government, and will climb onto whatever bandwagon seems headed for the winner's circle. I can already hear the fax machines humming, overnight mail packages rustling and cell phones ringing as former Clinton backers start racing to patch things up with the Obama campaign and reserve their places in line. The scale has started to tip back and is just about to drop down on the other side, and then the inevitability factor all shifts to Obama.

But you're right about one thing. Starting up a new Swift Boat operation will only wreck the already shaky Clinton legacy permanently.

There is a lot of crazy talk in the press today from confused and panicked consultants and free-lance opinion givers. She should do this; she should do that. This is a denial stage. Fairly soon that talk will shift to "she should bow out gracefully, and avoid more damage to her reputation."

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 8, 2008 5:41 PM

Matt,

Yes, it is true that after NH things slow down a bit, but remember this also has the potential to work in Obama's favor. This will give the Obama campaign the time to continue doing what they've done in Iowa (and perhaps NH*) over the past 11 months- which is building/expanding an impressive ground game, and pulling in new voters.

In this sense, Clinton will not only have to battle Obama for the support of traditional Democratic voters (and prevent switches from her campaign to Obama's), but she will also have address his ability to (so far) excite and pull into the process new voters.

In other words, they are not simply battling over who gets a bigger piece of the electoral pie in say, a state like California; they will also be battling for who can more successfully expand that pie.

*I guess we'll see in a couple of hours.

Posted by Aaron M | January 8, 2008 5:41 PM

This is dumb advice she either has to fight against or switch for Obama...or convince Edwards to drop out.

One she thing she regardless...she should expose all of Richardson's dirty little secrets and make him pay for his betrayal of her.

Richardson is a creep, he should gain some nationally remembered recognition...not just as a self-serving jerk...her revenge should include some Richardson's darker past coming to light.

Posted by S Brennan | January 8, 2008 5:44 PM

RE John O's comment "Obama's broad appeal is for real, and Hillary has nothing like it. Unless he steps on his dick in a serious way "
==========
ha ha ha
Well, if that is a possibility, it certainly explains his "broad appeal" and why women are deserting Hillary to vote for him.

Posted by Don Williams | January 8, 2008 5:48 PM

I don't think Hillary will attack Obama directly but some of her supporters/financiers are another matter.

As Sun Tzu noted 2500 years ago, there are the obvious forces and there are the mysterious forces. Plus, he noted that "All Warfare is based on Deception" --which certainly hit the nail on the fucking head.

Posted by Don Williams | January 8, 2008 5:52 PM

"Change agent" is the most obnoxious phrase to emerge out of this election.

Posted by blah | January 8, 2008 5:53 PM

From time to time Matt writes these posts, which you can only shake your head at. Clinton's not likely coming back. Do you hear all those stories about the massive NH turnout, following on the massive Iowa turnout? Hillary Clinton isn't the one making that happen. This is a transformational election coming up, and whatever Hillary is, she isn't transformational.

Fairly soon that talk will shift to "she should bow out gracefully, and avoid more damage to her reputation."

Being U.S. Senator ain't chopped liver. It's a better place for her anyway.

Posted by jimBOB | January 8, 2008 5:58 PM

...she should expose all of Richardson's dirty little secrets and make him pay for his betrayal of her.

Whose betrayal of whom? Richardson has bent over backward to support her, at least as much as he could without sabotaging his own campaign.

When I heard the rumor that he was directing his Iowa delegates to Obama, I wondered wtf was going on. Then I heard that Hillary had made it clear her choice for Secretary of State was Richard Holbrooke.

I don't know if Richardson actually told his people to vote for Obama, and I don't know if Hillary told him thanks but no thanks. But I'm confident that phone calls had been made, and communications were clear.

This isn't personal; it's just business. Richardson may have a chance to be SoS in an Obama administration, and it's not like he owes Hillary anything.

Posted by merciless | January 8, 2008 6:15 PM

I know that one component in my thinking has been the remarkable unpreparedness and ineptitude of the Clinton campaign in the five days since Iowa. I really didn't think they'd react this badly.

If they turn that around, and if Obama makes a big slip, things could change. Right now, though, for everything they're doing right it looks to me like they're doing five things wrong. Even Bill seems off his game. Maybe they'll regroup starting tomorrow.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 8, 2008 6:17 PM

lampwick said the smartest thing about Clinton I've seen all week and then said something I don't agree with at all:

She needs to drop the abstractions ("experience" "change") and tell a story: a story about the history and development of the Democratic Party, and of progressive ideals, and how she is part of that and the natural next step.

That's so true. Obama took his impossible story (son of a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother) and called it "improbable", something that "could only happen in America" and somehow made it a selling point.

Clinton has an equally impossible and American story -- Wellesley graduation speaker, there for Watergate, moved to Arkansas with hubby, now a grown-up ready to govern. But instead of making her story compelling, she ran away from it. In a nation where we love the personal story and an election where the Dem candidates have platforms so close it's hard to distinguish them, that may be what killed her.

But this is crazy:

If she wants to do something dramatic, maybe she should divorce Bill tomorrow.

I think a good fraction of the people voting for her are voting to get Bill back in the White House. Plus he's her hugest fund-raiser and crowd attraction. Without Bill she wouldn't be here.

Posted by Rachel Q | January 8, 2008 6:17 PM

I thought David Corn's comment nicely summarized HRC's dilemma:

I'm not making any prediction. But I would be stunned if Obama does not end this day with a commanding lead. And the key question of the Democratic race will only become sharper: what is she to do? I keep saying this: he's selling vision, she's selling vegetables. You can't beat vision by saying my vegetables are better than yours--especially if the consumers are in the mood for vision.

Posted by blah | January 8, 2008 6:27 PM

The idea that Obama has won two primaries that allow non aligned voters to inject themselves into what should be a choice left up to the party's registered members is somehow 'post partisan' is beyond stupid.

Obama benefits from fifteen years of negative campaigning against Hillary directed from the right. so naturally independents, who cannot make up their minds to support the good guys when times are tough, choose Obama over Hillary. No one has directed any negative campaign effort his way, yet.

Negative campaigning works. For further proof just look at what is going on in the Republican primary right now. Everybody is going negative on everyone else. The one who has the lowest negatives at the end of the day will win their nomination.

Hillary, Edwards, or someone SHOULD try to drive Obama negatives as high as possible. And the sooner that happens the better off he will be, if by some miricle he survives the firestorm.

Obama's message of hope is one that starts and stops at the hope that he gets elected. His plan to change America is to short-change your chance at a decent retirement by privitizing social security while raising your taxes.

Meanwhile while millions of Americans are being forced to plan a move out of a foreclosed home, Obama is planning to move his family into the White House with nary a care about what is happening to ordinary Americans.

Anyone willing to spend tens of millions of dollars on months of such negative ads, or worse, can quickly demonstrate the hollowness of the idea that their exists a 'post-partisan' Obama worthy of the Presidency. If he sticks with his kumbaya campaign and don't fight back and fight back hard he will join the list of wanna be losers like President Gore and President Kerry.

Posted by ken | January 8, 2008 6:30 PM

"I know that one component in my thinking has been the remarkable unpreparedness and ineptitude of the Clinton campaign in the five days since Iowa. I really didn't think they'd react this badly."

The incredible dysfunction of the Clinton campaign long pre-dates Iowa.

Any thoughts whatsoever of Clinton actually coming far enough back to win the nomination must be predicated on them figuring out how to run her for President, which they certainly have yet to show any evidence they can do.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 6:32 PM

Ah, Petey, about time.

Can we have your estimate of Edward's showing today?

Posted by otto | January 8, 2008 6:35 PM

"Can we have your estimate of Edward's showing today?"

While I understand the press expectations are for him to come in fifth or sixth, I think he's going to receive an outpouring of support from the left and from independents looking for big, bold transformation change that will unexpectedly lift him into third.

Not only will that surge be a triumph for Edwards' ideas, but the fact that he's been able to help a candidate of change win the primary over the candidate of status quo is a triumph for Edwards' core message.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 6:41 PM

Okay - but do you have a guesstimate % for the Edwards vote?

Posted by otto | January 8, 2008 6:45 PM

"Okay - but do you have a guesstimate % for the Edwards vote?"

While the press expectations are for Edwards to get 6% to 8%, I think he's going to receive an outpouring of support from the left and from independents looking for big, bold transformation change that will unexpectedly lift him narrowly over 10% of the vote.

Given that he's running against two candidates with deep pockets and great celebrity, anything beyond that 10% level would be a sign that Edwards message is beginning to deeply resonate with those who get a chance to hear it.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 6:50 PM

Shorter Petey: Edwards is toast.

Posted by Swopa | January 8, 2008 7:07 PM

"Shorter Petey: Edwards is toast."

I think this 40 second video clip is more illustrative of my actual feelings.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 7:08 PM

"Shorter Petey: Edwards is toast."

According to Ambinder:

Edwards raises $1.6M since Iowa; Obama campaign raises nearly $3M

-----

Going forward, I'm happy about a three way race. It helps keep Clinton from coming back, it allows Edwards' message of lefty change to be aired, and it provides a narrow opportunity down the line if the frontrunner stumbles.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 7:15 PM

I think Edwards could announce he's quitting the race, be indicted for mass murder and get hit by a meteorite, and Petey would still try to put a positive spin on it.

Let go, Petey. Your guy is soooo over. Really.

Posted by Mixner | January 8, 2008 7:53 PM

"I think Edwards could ... get hit by a meteorite, and Petey would still try to put a positive spin on it."

Edwards is a very magnetic candidate. The meteorite must have had a metal core, and been attracted by Edwards strong progressive message for big, bold, transformational change.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 8:01 PM

Hillary could get back to the Senate and move articles of impeachment on Bush and/or Cheney.

You know, do her job.

That would certainly mark her as the candidate for change.

Posted by NYT | January 8, 2008 8:08 PM

Enough. She can't go fast enough for me. If they cheat Obama out of this- 4,000 new militia movements will spring up.

Posted by Trevor | January 8, 2008 8:50 PM