The Indy Star published a Gannett News Service column by Chuck Raasch purporting to give 7 reasons why Clinton lost. I would lead with the fact that Obama is a formidable candidate with solid policy ideas. Raasch focused more on Clinton’s failures. More interesting, however, was his selection of analysis by Fox News regular Dick Morris and arch-conservative Gary Bauer.
I call.
What solid policy ideas?
Revitalizing the Voters Rights Act of 1965; tax cuts and simplified tax filings for middle class families, trade policy that stresses labor and environmental standards, amending NAFTA, increase funding for basic research and workforce development, invest in green technologies and energy independence, deploying broadband through more effective use of wireless spectrum, ensure and protect the freedom to unionize, index the minimum wage to inflation, reverse the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, reinstate PAYGO, ensure competitive bidding for federal contracts over $25,000, eliminate subsidies to oil and gas companies and to the private student loan industry, give the Treasury Dept. the resources it needs to enforce laws against tax havens and close a $350 billion gap between taxes owed and taxes paid, all that healthcare stuff, harden chemical plants from attack, keep track of spent nuclear fuel, plan for evacuating special needs populations during emergencies, upgrade monitoring and security for drinking water, require the public to be informed about radioactive releases, bring the troops home, press the reconciliation of Iraqi factions, launch a diplomatic effort in the Middle East that engages all of Iraq’s neighbors including Iran and Syria, humanitarian relief for Iraqi refugees, expand Americorp and similar organizations to facilitate national and community service, engage retiring Americans to contribute their skills and knowledge to the community . . .
Obviously “solid” is a matter of interpretation.
As Doug says, it’s amazing how the narrative is still, after all this time, that Obama won because Clinton lost. Even after the upset in Iowa, the only relevant question to the media was how Hillary blew it. Even after the record crowds, the record donations, the many blockbuster endorsements… he’s somehow still not allowed his due.
I wonder how much of that is because the cable news operations, particularly as they exist today, grew up around the Clintons. Back in 1991, you had CNN, but I recall it mostly reporting the news without so much of the punditry. By 2000, the pundit format was in full bloom, spending much of its time talking about the Clintons.
After the Clinton administration ended, a significant number of people associated with the administration moved on to various punditry assignments of their own.
With the Clintons forming an institutional center of gravity, perhaps the fixation on Hillary despite what Obama has done isn’t all that surprising.