Postmortem: Why did the Hillary lose?

A lot of different reasons but for me the main ones:

1. Over-reliance on the tried and true methods ─ didn’t use the web right ─ for publicity, for advertising, for fundraising. She and Bill had the hubris to believe it was still their world … as Michael Cornfeld stated: “It’s like the Clintons had a ‘Sunset Boulevard’ thing going on. They were silent screen stars who couldn’t make the transition to talkies.”

2. She sounded hollow when she spoke. She didn’t sound authentic. She was Hill-bot. She didn’t speak from the heart enough (some would argue that she needed to seem in control, presidential. I would argue that when you worry so much about what you’re gonna “seem” you’re not gonna be real. People want realness).

3. She went middle of the road ─ right down the middle ─ while Obama took some risks (speech about race, etc.). This also goes back to the authenticity point.

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under uncategorized

15 responses to “Postmortem: Why did the Hillary lose?

  1. She used old technology. Boomers are scared of YouTube and Twitter. She was endorsed by editorial boards but Obama was endorsed by The MyFace kids.

  2. superdave524

    All too true. The times they have a-changed. Seems like a bigger difference between Hillary and Obama than between Hillary and McCain.

  3. She sounded hollow when she spoke. She didn’t sound authentic. She was Hill-bot.

    See, I’ve never gotten this. I’ve heard it from a whole lot of people, but having watched a lot of her speeches and seen one live, I’ve always found her warm, charismatic, and quite often funny. I wonder how much expectations influence perception.

  4. Oh, and I forgot to mention she comes across to me as as genuine as any politician can be (which is to say, barely — and I think that about Obama, too) since your real point was about authenticity.

    Obviously, though, YMMV. Not trying to pick a fight — I’m just sincerely perplexed and kinda fascinated by how people have such totally different impressions of her in this regard.

  5. that’s politics, and media … we all bring our own cognitive biases and predispositions to the table. on a rational level, i REALLY WANTED hil to be more likable … but most soundbytes i heard on the radio or saw on TV sounded (felt) empty to me. it was visceral. brings me back to the whole reason i decided not to go further with journalism — because i don’t believe in objective reality. i believe we all have selective perception.
    just stumbled upon an article/ book on this topic that seems interesting: http://tinyurl.com/4hhub5

  6. Together, these forces have diminished the power of photographic proof. We think that what we see in pictures — or what we hear on tape — gives us a firm hold on fact. But increasingly, the pictures and the sounds we find ourselves believing may only be telling us one version of true.

    This statement could have been made in every post-modern lit class I attended in the 90s, and it seems truer than ever. It’s as if every generation freaks itself out by revealing (to ourselves, to our audiences) that our narratives and our interpretation of the aforementioned narratives may differ from reality.

    Now I have the munchies.

  7. also i have heard hil speak from the heart and it can be great. i think people needed to see more of that. while i totes understand her reluctance to expose that side more … it’s a risky move as to show your heart when women are always getting slammed in the professional world for being “emotional.” our society overvalues rationality and discounts emotion and intuition … and that’s why we have endless wars and escalating violence.

  8. Being rational is a good thing. I’d be happy if more politicians wouldn’t think of the children.

  9. NWO

    In any race, somebody comes in second. In this case, it was a photo finish. I’m not really sure she did anything wrong. In my opinion, it got down to voters reaching for who had the best chance of getting us out of this awful mess we find ourselves in and guessing that Barack would have a better shot at it.

  10. bro bri

    I’m going to sound like Bill Clinton here, but the MSM wwanted Obama to win. The Clinton machine may have been working the editorial boards, and may not have done the new media thing all that well, but soft coverage on Obama (which will continue – apart from the Rev. Wright issue which took the MSM several smacks across the face to finally acknowledge) and harsher coverage of her during the primary was her undoing. In a neck and neck race where her opponent was a very strong orator, and she had the clout, the MSM tipped the scales to their preferred candidate. This will continue, of course, in the general election because John McCain is only a media darling when he’s opposing drilling in ANWR and not when he’s running against “their” candidate.

  11. Kristina

    while i think there was a lot of sexism on display, i also feel like hillary is of the shoulder pad feminism era that doesn’t resonate with younger women. she overcompensated (crown royal and “hillbot” as you mentioned). it says a lot that angry female boomers are now being so ridiculous with passive aggressive threats to vote for mccain because of how hillary was “mistreated,” as if obama is their husband refusing to empty the dishwasher. i admire hillary. i think she’s tough as nails and obviously fought so hard. its been oft said but bill did not help her cause this time and seems bizarre that he can’t seem to let go and realize his glory days are over. i’m glad that someone fresh (obama) who seems to genuinely want to change the way politics are played is on the scene. let’s see what the republican attack machine has in store now…i am hoping with the dire straits we are in with the war and the economy that people won’t be stupid and vote against their interests by, well, voting republican (although i do also admire john mccain, just don’t agree with his policies).

  12. Linda K.

    i believe hillary lost to obama for many of the reasons stated above. i also think:

    1. she received very bad advice, which she could have ignored–but didn’t.

    2. her campaign badly underestimated obama (hrc’s decision to ignore the early caucuses).

    3. hrc should have spoke out about sexism the way obama spoke out about racism.

    my biggest concern–once again the democrats are going to nominate a candidate who cannot win in november. obama did not carry the big states in the primaries, and i don’t think he’s going to carry them in november.

    another 4 years of bushlike insanity–oy!

  13. Linda brings up the main reason why HRC lost. Caucuses. Out of all the states where they held caucuses, HRC won one (Nevada). Texas holds both a primary and a caucus. Hillary won the primary and Obama won the caucus. Ironic that a rather undemocratic way (lack of a secret ballot, disenfranchisement of those who cannot attend) of deciding a winner decided the Democratic winner.

  14. God, I totes don’t care for shoulder pads.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s