Politico seems to have broken the embargo on the Atlantic’s big Clinton story for next week. It’s an interesting read, and seems to confirm the rumors that were floating around at the time about how disorganized and divided the Clinton campaign machine was. It also seems to confirm that they gave no real thought about what to do if Clinton didn’t walk away with the nomination out of Iowa, and that by the time they realized the size of their mistake, it was too late to regain their footing.
One thing that does surprise me though, is the extent to which the worst impressions of the Clinton campaign that I had during the primary are confirmed: the sense of entitlement, the internal instability and the half-hearted, incoherent response to the Obama campaign. According to the article, Mark Penn continually advocated the kind of “other” attacks on Obama that he was said to favor at the time. One of the impressions I get reading it is that Clinton and her advisers were torn – they couldn’t decide if they wanted to run with the kind of nasty, base attacks that would drive Obama’s favorability down and allow Clinton to sneak into a victory after they had almost completely wrecked their chances.
Of course, they didn’t do that – at least not to the extent that they could have done. In a lot of ways, the whole thing is amazing for watching how the Clinton campaign went from being the inevitable nominee to losing it almost exclusively through unforced errors. Obama ran a magnificent campaign. He and his advisers seemed to get everything right, to meet every crisis with a well thought out response. Clinton, it seemed, bumbled from one mistake to the next, and even when they saw one possible way to still win – attacking Obama as un-American – screwed it up by not committing.
At the start of the campaign, I felt like Clinton would make for an excellent president, although she certainly wasn’t my first choice. But as the campaign went along, like a lot of Obama supporters, I began to like her and how she was conducting her presidential bid less and less. This article confirms my impressions of her and her campaign, but it also improves my view of her. She saw one path to victory, by going wholly negative against Obama in more conservative states, but didn’t follow through with it (I still think the “3AM” ad and their response to Wright was pretty sleazy). There has to be something positive said about someone who sees the worst possible path, and even if they take a few hesitant steps down it, are still unable to walk down it boldly. Clinton’s performances on Obama’s behalf have been great so far, and I can see no effort on her part to undermine Obama to set herself up for 2012. While I think that Clinton’s campaign deserved to lose, if for no other reason than their clear internal incompetence, I’m pleased with the impression I’ve gotten of her since then.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"...and I can see no effort on her part to undermine Obama to set herself up for 2012..."
What about the recently released video (so mirthfully pilloried by Jon Stuart) of her more or less asking her die-hard supporters to try to get her on the ballot for the convention? It seems to me that few moves could more effectively turn media attention away from the campaign the Democrats should be running toward the fall and force them to revisit one that was over long before it was actually concluded.
I have to agree with John Cole here, I just don't see it in that clip. What I do think is that Hillary Clinton has a number of extremely committed supporters, and she's trying create a delicate compromise. She's trying to make it so that they feel like their voices are being heard, and she's trying to tell them that, whatever they do, Obama is going to be the nominee.
We have to remember, Clinton is a politician, and eventually she's going to do something else: have to run for Senate again, or governor of New York, or whatever. She has a vested interest in not saying to her supporters, "It's over, we lost, move on." Beyond that, I don't think a woman as obviously intelligent as Hillary Clinton is likely to attend rallies for Obama, give the kind of speeches for Obama that she has and try to concoct a backdoor campaign for the nomination (especially not after this speech), especially one that is clearly being recorded.
Thanks for the link to the longer video, I must admit it does put her comments in a much more nuanced light- but doesn't it seem like she was still holding the door open a little there? Why mention that, "...the delegates decide..." rather than just launching into some variation on Sherman's "If nominated, I will not run..." speech?
Further, having had a larger taste of the event and its crowd- if you have the pull to get Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to show up at your pool party, shouldn't you have the political sophistication to understand that the presidential nominating process has rather evolved since the Eisenhower years, and that if you really want your voice to be heard at this point, the truest path to policy-making relevance is a 5k check to Obama for America and attendance at a string of outrageously expensive "dinners?"
I acknowledge the power of identity politics, but it's hard to see what anyone hopes to gain by continuing to back this, or any, candidate in Hillary's position.
I agree with you, it would be better for Clinton to come out and simply say, "It's going to be Obama, no question." But, I can understand that she's trying to keep her supporters engaged and not be seen as ignoring them. I dunno, I think it's reasonable that she'd take this tack, if not exactly the one I'd prefer.
As for the kind of Clinton supporter who is still agitating for Clinton to try and get the nomination, I doubt they're going to find a whole lot of influence in an Obama administration, no matter how many $5000 dinners they buy.
Post a Comment