Did Media Bias Cost Clinton the Nomination?

My friends from the Clinton campaign in New England are still sharing their feelings about the campaign and remain bitter about the result. Their bitterness is understandable, but we should also critically evaluate Clinton's campaign strategy. Media bias aside, the Clinton campaign made several costly miscalculations. Most importantly, the campaign did not make adjustments after Obama won several caucus states. In a previous post, I reported on a "Conversations with Hillary" event in Boston, where Hillary unapoligetically and defiantly defended her strategy to focus on populus "blue" states. I reported at the time that I belived this attitude would cost her the nomination.

Why didn't Clinton change her blue state stategy after Obama won the Iowa caucuses? She had plenty of time then to compete in remaining caucus states. I'm not sure why the campaign didn't treat Obama's victory in Iowa as a wake-up call and make adjustments. The great irony of the primary campaign is that Clinton had the support of a significant number of state and local officials across the country but did not effectively organize this support to ensure that her surrogates represented her in caucus meetings. For example, Massachusetts State Representative Ruth Balser went to a Maine caucus site to represent Clinton (In Maine you don't have to be a resident to speak at a caucus). The caucus meeting Ruth attended supported Hillary, but the Clinton campaign did not have surrogates at each caucus site, which might have made a difference. Clinton's losses in caucus states, to be sure, cannot be attributed to her campaign alone. The caucus process, I believe, disenfranchises women for two reasons. Firstly, caucuses require a time commitment that many women cannot make because of work and family responsibilities. Secondly, the debate-style caucus deliberation process can be intimidating. I reported in March that young, white male Obama volunteers were fairly aggressive in Maine. Did the Obama campaign silence women? I believe so.

Even Howard Dean conceded when he meet with a group of female elected officials from Massachusetts in early May that the caucus system was undemocratic. Dean told the group that one of his goals as DNC chair was to try to encourage all states to adopt an open primary system. It is my guess that one outcome of this past primary season will be the end of the caucus. Good riddance.

Another miscalculation was the decision to keep too many paid staff in the Northeast. (She also spent too much time in the Northeast. I know that she needed to come through Boston and New York to raise money, but she should have spent far more time in the Midwest before Super Tuesday). The campaign had a well-organized volunteer group led by elected officials throughout the Northeast, and, in my opinion, could have relied on volunteers to do the organizing in certain areas. She did not need five staff in Rhode Island. Maybe the campaign did not have the money to send staff to crucial primary states a month or two before each election, but I think that would have made a difference. Campaign offices in crucual primary states weren't set up early enough. She did so well despite this because she could rely on the field staff of governors supporting her. This was especially crucial in Ohio and Pennsylvania where she could rely on Governor Strickland and Rendell's political networks.

It is understandable that Hillary supporters remain angry about the sexism in full display during the past year. However, let's keep in mind that Clinton missed opportunities to turn things around. She refused to change her strategy or her message. It is tempting to make Hillary a victim but to do so ignores the power she had to make changes.