How Hillary Clinton turned an air of certainty into a losing run

Hillary has always argued that it's not over until the lady in the pantsuit says it's over. But even a cursory glance through today's papers tells you that her obituaries are being written.

One of the best is Suzanne Goldenberg's in today's Guardian, arguing that Clinton's air of invincibility was destroyed by "fibs, overspending, poor organisation - and Bill."

Like many progressives I was willing to back either candidate, and even went as far as to look for ways to rationalise Bill's comments after South Carolina, but it was after her comments regarding Obama's eligibility to have passed some magic marker which showed fitness to be Commander in Chief, a marker which Hillary claimed both she and McCain had passed and Obama had not, that my patience with her became exhausted. I thought it was unforgivable for a Democratic candidate to attack another Democrat whilst giving a free pass to a Republican. And, as I and many others predicted at the time, she was merely giving the Republicans weapons to throw at the presumptive Democratic nominee, weapons that they are already starting to use:

Hours before the polls closed Tuesday in the final two Democratic presidential primaries, the Republican National Committee began circulating a video of Hillary Clinton questioning Barack Obama’s qualifications to be commander-in-chief, and acknowledging John McCain has this important presidential credential.

This was my final point of no return, but Goldenberg lists many other failings in Clinton's quest for the White House:

. A message out of step with an electorate that desperately wanted change.

· Failure to devise a plan B if she failed to knock Obama out of the race in Iowa or by Super Tuesday on February 5.

· Failure to build a grassroots organisation. The campaign, caught up in its self-created myth of invincibility, also lost track of spending, burning through $120m (£61m) so fast that Clinton could not run television ads in several key states in February.

· Mishandling the campaign's greatest asset - Bill Clinton - turning him into one of his wife's greatest liabilities.

She, and her campaign, were also far too slow to adapt when it became obvious that a public yearning for change were not responding to a campaign based on "experience".

The first signs that Obama could pose a serious threat to Clinton's ambitions emerged last summer. Field organisers in Iowa reported back to headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, that voters were cool to her emphasis on experience. Iowans wanted change, and anything associated with Washington was viewed as tainted.

And yet it was not until Mark Penn left the campaign in April that Hillary seriously started trying a different tack, namely that she was the only person who could beat John McCain.

Her campaign took far too long to correct its early mis-steps. Confronted with Obama's megawatt charisma, she wheeled out her campaign's resident rock star: Bill Clinton. But the spectacle of the former president, white-haired and red-faced, ripping into his wife's opponent dredged up memories of scandal and invective - a living example of the "old politics" Obama had promised to end.

While Obama's candidacy was looking forward, Hillary Clinton's just seemed to be looking back. The backlash against Clinton in South Carolina - which she lost by 29 points - carried on through February. In traditionally Republican states Clinton lost by staggering margins: 62 points in Idaho, 48 points in Kansas.

But even after February's spectacular defeats, Clinton showed surprising areas of strength - especially among white working class males. She retooled her message, portraying herself as a populist champion for working people.

As it turned out, Clinton's campaign was as badly prepared on finances as it was to countering Obama's appeal. After outsize spending on polling, consultants, and prime venues for rallies, her campaign was broke by February. Obama outspent her on television advertising in every state - and in some states her campaign ran no ads at all. Even in states where Clinton ran strongly - Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana - Obama's campaign was always better at getting its supporters to the polls.

By April, Clinton was forced to dip into the family fortunes, lending her campaign a total of $11m. Her campaign crossed the finish line $20m in debt.

I think Goldenberg is correct in many of the mistakes which she lists; however, it was the claim that white non-college educated voters would not vote for Obama which eventually destroyed the Clinton brand name in the eyes of many. Her campaign was always going to look as if it had been fashioned in previous decades, as that was Hillary's time, and that was the only way she knew to fight elections. So that was understandable.

What was not understandable - or forgivable - was her argument that the Democratic party should heed the wishes of racists. The role of the Democratic party is to fight against such viewpoints and I never thought I would ever see the day when a Democratic presidential candidate would put forward the views which Hillary claimed to espouse.

Hillary - and her supporters like Taylor Marsh - were arguing for victory at all costs, even if racists had to have their foul views acknowledged in order to accomplish it. That would have been a terrible stain on the Democratic party.

What's really sad is that these people - who are Democrats - simply couldn't see the utter awfulness of the argument which they were making, so blinded were they by their desire to win at all costs.

Obama rose above that, which is why he is so deserving of his victory.

Click title for Suzanne Goldberg's entire article.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, US election 2008, Democratic presidential nominee