I have the following comments about the point by point suggestions for Clinton's strategy:
1. Playing the spin game has made the Clinton campaign look foolish. I think they'd be alot better off admitting they had bad strategy. Playing the expectations game vs the polls would be particularly ludicrous since Super Tuesday, when Obama has outperformed the polls in a big way.
2. Obama would love to have the Super Delegates merely validate the selection of the pledged delegates. Even the Clinton campaign does not think she will catch up in pledged delegates.
3. Clinton has been calling for Florida and Michigan to be seated. Only in Russia would Florida's primary be considered democratic; only in the Soviet Union would the Michigan primary results be legitimate. Calling for new elections in both states would be a good thing for Clinton, as it at least gives her more room to attempt to close the gap, but it's awkward to do that after calling on their delegates to be seated according to their January primaries.
4. Bringing Bill Clinton into it is a 2-edged sword, as he has baggage and you don't want to confuse people about who the president will be. Maybe it's worth the risk for the primary, but it will not help in the general election. Blaming the media misses the point entirely: campaigns need to control the media. If a campaign can't control the media in the primary, it won't in the general.
5. This might help as long as she's not Obama-lite. People will choose the real Obama over the fake one any time.
6. Winning big in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania is her only hope right now. Certainly if she got Edwards' backing that would help.
Unfortunately for Clinton, it may be too late for much of this. If she gets big wins in Texas and Ohio, she might be able to bring in enough cash and change the narrative. It's going to be hard to transform her campaign in the next 3 weeks, though.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 14, 2008 05:05 PM"goals: united party, engaging our base and expanding our coalition"
Yeah, that really describes Team Clinton and its likely effect.
How many "acts" are we going to have in this show? Tragedies usually have five acts. Comedies often have fewer.
A sports analogy might have been better and more appropriate for wonderful sports-head BushAmerica, jeff.
Posted by euzoius at February 14, 2008 05:18 PMI have been drawing everyone's attention to this incredible link on Florida:
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/states/fl.htm
Reminder: Republicans went with stripping Michigan and Florida of half their delegates. Candidates were able to campaign there, spend time and money there, etc. When I realized that, I thought, why couldn't democrats do that?? You may ask the same thing, and you have Dean (Of whom I was a fan) and Donna Brazille to thank for.
From the above link:
State Democrats, facing a reduction in the number of pledged delegates and alternates by 50 percent, considered various options, such as holding caucuses or a convention on Feb. 5, 2008 or later. A proposed vote by mail primary would have cost from $7 to 8 million. On June 10, 2007 the State Executive Committee voted unanimously to use the state-run January 29 primary even at risk of a penalty. Some time later the DNC offered to put up $866,000 help fund a caucus with 120,000 ballots and 150 voting sites. On August 4 the State Executive Committee formally adopted its Delegate Selection and Affirmative Action Plan, setting the date of Florida's Democratic Presidential Preference Primary for January 29, 2008
You got that?? DNC offered Florida (in Summer of 2007) help to hold 150 caucus voting sites!! For the WHOLE STATE OF FLORIDA. fr***ing unbelievable! Note the original rule stipulated for a penalty of 50% reduction in delegates. Enter Donna Brazille:
The Rules and Bylaws Committee held firm, found the FDP plan in noncompliance, and voted to penalize Florida Democrats 100 percent of their delegates to the national convention if they did not come up with a plan within 30 days that complies with the timing requirement. "We're going to follow the rules," said RBC member Donna Brazile.
Yes, you heard that right. DNC (or RBC) punished Michigan and Florida far beyond their own rules stipulated.
Results: benefit to Obama's campaign. But a public relations nightmare for democrats.
Then, Obama got other campaigns organized to put Hillary on defensive and pander to IA, NH at the same time. They removed their names off Michigan ballots. Results: excellent (for them). Hillary's team was on defensive AND WAS deprived of momentum and bounce due to Michigan.
Now, as the last great play, they argue that since they were not on the ballot on Michigan, the results are unfair. Who decided to take their names off the ballot and so-to-speak not show up for a tough game? Them. Who calls it unfair and wants a rematch? Them.
Well played.
Posted by ghost2 at February 14, 2008 05:19 PMIn other words, spin, spin, spin.
My goal in life for the next few months is to ensure that Clinton Team Spin is nowhere near the Oval Office.
Posted by RAM at February 14, 2008 05:50 PMto CA Pol Junkie,
Do you really expect either campaign to be able to control the CORPORATE OWNED media of today?
What are you guys smoking out there in CA, send me some please, I need a short term break form the "reality based community".
Get real, the media is owned by the republicans. As well, the Rethugs just had Harry Reid, supposedly our Dem leader in the Senate approve of Telco immunity, which helps the Rethugs this election cycle as every communication the democrats make by phone, or email, can and probably is being read by these very same rethugs.
Gosh, it looks like the Senate is controlled by the Republican MINORITY, and you think the dem candidate can control the media??
Posted by kcbill13 at February 14, 2008 06:02 PMDo you really expect either campaign to be able to control the CORPORATE OWNED media of today?
Absolutely. Good campaigns are quite successful at it. The media doesn't do their homework and they like to tell a story, so the campaign needs to provide the narrative (and a negative narrative about their opponent). Bill Clinton was good at this (his rapid response was pioneering and not duplicated enough), as was Bush II. Gore and Kerry were terrible with the media. Hillary Clinton did a good job in her first Senate bid. Barack Obama's campaign is doing an excellent job working the media - he's built such an aura of hope, optimism, and renewal around his candidacy that the media probably feels like they are torturing a kitten if they say anything bad about him. The Clinton campaign must scream every time the media compares him to JFK. This is all part of Modern Campaigning 101.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 14, 2008 06:11 PMWell played.
Obama graduated in the top 1% of his Harvard Law class. Hillary graduated middle of the pack and flunked her bar exam twice. Go figure!
Posted by phidipides at February 14, 2008 06:28 PMphidipides,
Hillary had her picture on the cover of Life magazine at the age of 22. Her commencement address got a 7 minute standing ovation. (Oh, I forgot, all-women colleges don't count).
During her time at Yale, I have seen a source (Britanica) saying she graduated first in her class. Though others say Yale had done away with ranking by that time.
At a young lawyer for the Children Defence Fund, she literally knocked on doors to find out why there was disparity between census numbers and enrollment numbers at the schools. She realized that diabled children didn't have access to education.
Hillary's work and research directly led to USA being the first country in the world giving disabled access to public schools. It led to special education and early intervention. (oh, maybe children causes don't count either.)
Hillary Clinton is a born leader.
Jesse Jackson Jr is at it agaiN:
"One black supporter of Clinton, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, said he remains committed to her. "There's nothing going on right now that would cause me to" change, he said...
...In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations.
He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?
"I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded.
Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added."
This was at MYDD.
It's so rare to read a sane blogger these days. Several Obama supporters and I were just having a conversation. Not one of them could name one piece of legislation that Obama had passed or even had his name on (his lie about having nuclear related research passed didn't even penetrate their heads). All they knew was that with Obama they would never get drafted, and that all the money spent on the Iraq War (which Obama also approved) would suddenly reappear to pay for an opt in health care plan.
We have been severely fucked over by the Republicans. Obama has no standing to blame that on Clinton. She is far more experienced and knowledgeable about what to do. I dread thinking about just what Obama would never be able to get done. Exactly what has he changed in Washington in the last 4 years? What does he think he can change? He really doesn't have a clue, and his supporters have to stop smoking whatever they are smoking.
Posted by jeter at February 14, 2008 07:28 PMWith one exception, I didn't see anything in that list that HRC and Co. haven't already tried. The exception: admitting a mistake. Like that's gonna happen!
Her campaign's consistent insistence on a big-state strategy, which continues and is unlikely to change, is what got her into this mess with no ground organization in any post-Super state. That strategy doesn't change, it's too late to change it with TX, OH, PA coming up, and it's a proven loser.
Hillary supporters love to call out CA and NY as "big wins". NY doesn't count for her political prowess any more than IL counts for Obama, being home states. The CA polls just prior to the primary were essentially correct, but 1,000,000 ballots had already been cast as absentee prior to Obama's turning point SC win, so take that win with a big grain of salt.
We're late in the game and she's failed by almost any measure (states, delegates, popular vote, size of wins, preparation for the long haul, money, you name it). Tweaking around the edges is not going to cut it. She's already past the point of no return.
And don't believe any of the current TX/OH polls, as 1) the game's just begun for those states, and 2) they've only polled up to the Potomac primary, and 3) they've only polled Democrat LVs. TX, OH, and PA are open primary states.
The GOP has their nominee, the Dems better get behind one pronto if they want a chance of winning the GE, AND increasing margins in the Congress.
Posted by Casey at February 14, 2008 07:29 PMFirst and foremost, ignore the talk about momentum and Obama sure victory; that's pure garbage spewed by same people who claim after Iowa: "it's over." It's over when one the candidates has an unsurmountable number of delegates.
Don't give up on Wisconsin. Even an almost equal split of delegates is a big victory for Hillary, because it will shut up the half witted (HW) talking heads, including Obama's dogs (actually large herd of mad dogs).
Agree on be yourself; don't listen to Mark Penn - he has no clue. You may have to use 911 to bring Begala and Carville in. Agree on admitting mistakes, but don't overdo it.
Don't listen to the HW, bring in Bill; he has more brains in his pinky than Obama has in his brains. Remember, Obama has a very smart campaign team. They will try to come up with invented gotchas to disparage Hillary in the Latino community; that's their only chance; the working stiff and women don't listen to Obaama anyway. Bring Dolores Huerta and many other Latinos and sweep the Big Three states.
The choice is simple: Hillary must continue and win or we get con men for president for 16 years.
Posted by Koshembos at February 14, 2008 07:29 PMWell Hillary started hitting Obama about the debates in WI and it must have hurt because he responded but his repsonse was weak. I'm afraid he has a glass jaw and doesn't look to be able to defend himself with out the media protecting him. He really needs to loose the groupie shots at the end of his ads. It plays right into the cult meme.
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 14, 2008 07:44 PMPlay up your strengths, admit mistakes, and move on.
Stop right there.
Both should focus exclusively on positives during the primary.
Negative campaigning works during main elections because in the end, if you are successful, people will hate your opponent more than you. Then you have all the time until the next election to rebuild your reputation.
But during primaries you have to either a) focus exclusively on the positives or b) be completely distant and separate from the negative campaigners (like Bush was against McCain in 2000). Otherwise, you and your opponent both end up with mud on you and even if you win the primary you are hobbled going into the main election.
McCain has many advantages: Money, an incredibly biased media, etc. He also has the advantage that he'll be out of the spotlight for several months, so people won't get McCain fatigue, and he'll seem fresh and new in September. (Don't discount this factor. In 1992 Clinton was all but forgotten as the media swooned around Perot in the spring and early summer. He was buried in third place in all polls. Then Perot dropped out, temporarily as it turned out, Clinton did the stunts with his sax and on MTV, and suddenly the electorate embraced a fresh face.) This will allow McCain to coast to the formal nomination building on his "moderate" and "independent" reputation, just in time to bring in Lieberman (who most independents and Democrats outside Connecticut still like, as they don't know what he really stands for) for VP.
If Hilary or Obama come out of the Democratic fight with mud caked all over them they will be so far down in the polls and in the media narrative that it may be impossible for them to come back.
Better for them to focus on the positive -- seem like two friends contesting an election who would be happy to support each other -- and keep the pressure on McCain/Bush.
And the first step in that direction is to get their web supporters to chill out and STFU about the other candidate.
Posted by z at February 14, 2008 07:45 PMi keep hearing about hrc's experience. how much actual legislative experience does she have? if i remember correctly, her first elected position was as a senator from ny.
so, how can she tout 35+ years of experience, when its mostly been as bill's first lady?
i admit to being an obama supporter, but he's kicking her ass due to his community organizer experience. his stint in the state legislature can be spun one way or another, mostly negative, when reading the posts on this blog.
hrc has her baggage, none of you want to admit it, or, it seems want to realize that the republicans want her to get the nomination due to the hatred the right has on all things clinton. misplaced, stupid, blind, yes, but hatred all the same.
crooksandliars posted mccains advisor would resign before running against obama. damn, what does that say to you...
as i've said before, mlk, jfk, rfk, all were called arrogant. i will not put obama in their class, but he inspires people like they did.
this is a long way from over, but if she continues to lose the popular vote, and rely on the superdelegates to carry her over the top, isn't that similar to what happened to gore???
she's running a big state campaign. you can't win if you rely on ca, ny, fl, oh, or mi. it seems the ardent hilary supporters dont want to understand that she is just as polarizing and just as hated as 'he who must be obeyed.'
unfortunately, obama seems just as hated on this blog.
Posted by anthony at February 14, 2008 07:48 PManthony,
Believe me, Obama will be just as hated as Clinton if he's the nominee. The GOP will haul out all his baggage and dump it on the voters' doorsteps. I don't know why Obama supporters somehow think that the GOP has changed their ways and will suddenly be nice when Obama shows up. I want some of what you guys are smoking.
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 14, 2008 07:58 PMga6th
im not saying he'd get a free pass at all, but i think he'd get more independents than mccain.
not smoking anything, piss tests and all... wish i was still in a-dam though...
again, what is this experience she touts?
if you take away the vicarious sh*t she did, she
pulls bout even. i include his state legislative experience. what public office did she hold before the senate seat?
i read a commentor state the african american vote left her. i think she took it for granted she'd get the votes. she had to earn them. now, the reality check, and she's jumpin ship to the latino vote. what happens when he starts making inroads with them???
Posted by anthony at February 14, 2008 08:12 PMActually the polls say that he gets the same amount of indies that clinton does. Obama has a problem with the base. Latest AP poll shows that he loses 1/5 democratic voters.
I don't think that the AA voters have left her so much as they are voting for Obama in the primary. Hispanics are the reason that Hillary did so well out west while Obama generally did poorly. Hispanics are much more of a swing voting bloc along with working class whites which Obama does poorly with too.
If you consider their federal experience as qualification for the job, Hillary has 6 years in the senate while Obama has 3. Frankly, Obama is the least qualified candidate to run for President in modern history. It's one of the reasons I think he'll get beaten in the general.
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 14, 2008 08:22 PMIt's a little tense here at Hillary's Last Chance Hotel and Blog. Desperation can do that to you I guess.
Posted by albatross at February 14, 2008 09:08 PMThis is a con game...how can you tell...the desperation of the right wing to convince everyone how likeable and special he is...and then the Al Sharpton issuing veiled threats to other Democrats..and finally...the rigging...how Donna Brazile (a clear Obama supporter who accused Bill Clinton of playing the race card) insisted on unfair rules for Florida and Michigan under the noses of other Democrats. This is a set up...and I for one, don't like thuggery.
Posted by lily15 at February 14, 2008 09:46 PMI love the argument that Clinton should graciously withdraw, saving us from all this conflict. That sure makes us feel good in States that have not yet had the chance to vote in a primary.
Posted by at February 14, 2008 10:13 PMI call this site Hillary Central.
I like the competitive race and want both candidates to compete in the next states listed.
I find all this conspiracy theory rather over-imaginative and desperate.
Everyone knows right is on the side of the Democrats - you just need someone who's going to win the election so that the whole team can come together and change America.
In my opinion it has to be Obama - it used to be the case that the UK was behind the US - in political terms the UK is far ahead of the US now.
We have an NHS, equal rights for Gays, good public free school education and on the social front we are advanced to you. Who did that? One happy clappy things can only get better Tony Blair. We are now trying to find our post-Blair political period (Gordon Brown ain't doing it) thus step up to the plate Nick Clegg.
I think the gnashing of teeth of the Hillary brigade is due to the fact that IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE THIS! Who is this upstart Barack Obama thwarting our plans? Why can't he just go home and leave it to the big boys and girls! Problem is he's taking a whole load of votes from blue states and winning where Democrats need to win.
Staunch Repubs will always vote Repub even if they put up Nellie the elephant. It's pretty clear there are a large bloc of future primary voters who simply want to vote for the most electable person and they think that is Barack Obama. They feel he can reach out to the base AND to the middle and soft right - the point of the Kennedy endorsement was never to win MA but to send a signal to folks in places like Northern Virginia that will be a key swing state next time round.
Hillary just sees swing states, Obama sees a swing country.
Posted by John at February 15, 2008 01:42 AMNote the truly scary news in the business sections of the papers about the developing credit crisis and the worsening economy. Do you really want to turn things over to a novice in such a situation?
Posted by bob h at February 15, 2008 05:01 AMHillary has already revealed her "strategy": go negative on Obama and continue to the convention no matter what. In other words, divide the party irreversibly and make Obama as unpopular a figure as she is and has been for a decade.
She has won one third of the contests. She relies heavily upon machine politics in urban Dem strongholds to grind out narrow wins. Her "negatives" are horrendous. None of that is going to change.
So the candidate with no broad appeal and high negatives will now go negative on the candidate with broad appeal and much lower negatives, damaging him, and dragging the contest out until the summer. All while the (united) Repub party does the same thing to both of them.
Repubs know that intraparty primary battles are extraordinarily destructive to a nominee---that's why they don't do such things and (of course) already have a nominee. But we're too stupid to see that maybe we should unite behind the candidate that wins 2/3 of the 30-plus contests.
Instead we want to ensure that the Clintons receive every possible chance to be declared Most Influential Power Couple in American History (tm). Beause we know what really matters!
Posted by euzoius at February 15, 2008 05:06 AMbob h, all Hillary wants to do is turn everything over to the Wall Street moneyboys who got us into the mess. They know best. That's who she represents in NY and whom both Clintons have enabled their whole careers. Wall Street is their God.
That you think Hillary is the candidate that will read the riot act to the rapacious moneymen of Wall Street is so naive and uninformed as to be almost comic.
Posted by euzoius at February 15, 2008 05:10 AMshe literally knocked on doors to find out why there was disparity between census numbers and enrollment numbers at the schools
Good god, that's setting the bar low. A lawyer actually does some research.
And thank you very much, the disabled have had access to Canada's schools for donkey's years. If Senator Clinton is peddling the gaff that she was some sort of pioneer in that area, she's full of it.
It isn't Obama's partisans or the media that have turned people off Senator Clinton. It's Senator Clinton herself, surely much more accomplished than you or I, but a mediocre figure at the altitude she seeks to fly now. If she wasn't being enabled by some gross sexism in the media, she'd be getting scant sympathy today. She is as inspiring as a mouthful of sawdust and water.
Obama's your chance to grab mindshare in the world as well. Electing Clinton President will be the death warrant of the US as a world power. She's a dull, inept hack whose incompetent campaign has made her a laughing stock in many countries that began electing female leaders decades ago.
Being better than Bush is not good enough. The US will not survive another President Clinton, even if Bill can keep his tool in his pants for her term (thank goodness at least her private life is clean).
.
The Democratic Party has always been nothing but a vehicle for the personal ambitions of the Clintons.
At least Bill was somewhat likable while he was diminishing the party.
We had two really compelling candidates on the Democratic side: Edwards and Obama. Edwards was a stone cold lock to win in November, haircuts be damned. Obama has greatly increased his stock in that regard.
Hillary? She's still as unelectable and uninspiring as she's always been.
May God damn the Democratic Party straight to hell if they nominate the woman.
Oh, and fuck Mark Penn.
Posted by RAM at February 15, 2008 05:55 AMOh, I don't think we'll need divine intervention to destroy the Dem party in that eventuality, RAM.
It'll pretty much just happen naturally if the Dems put forward the unpopular, narrow appeal Hillary and she loses to McCain this year.
Posted by euzoius at February 15, 2008 06:08 AMbob h, I see no reason to think that Hillary is any more qualified to solve an economic crisis then Obama is.
They're both equally qualified or equally 'novice' depending on how you look at it.
Posted by Siberian at February 15, 2008 06:08 AMIts very hard to engage Obama supporters in an intelligent conversation. I have never experienced such venom except from the evangelicals.
Posted by glennmcgahee at February 15, 2008 07:06 AMWhy try to argue with them, glen? They've convinced themselves that the MUP will sprinkle pixie dust, the GOP will fall all over themselves to be nice to him, then win 50 states and solve all the world's problems in a week. If only that eeevil Hillary would get out of his way...
Posted by Blue Jean at February 15, 2008 08:39 AMI think there is a similarity with the Liberal Democrat Party here in the UK. When Ming Campbell stepped down in October we were asked to choose a leader who was still growing politically and one that was the finished article. The former asked us to challenge our comfort zones the latter just kept on misrepresenting the former's policy statements when there was hardly an iota of difference. We marginally chose the former. I voted for him as one of that number.
One has to remember that the main purpose of the Presidential nominee is to amass votes and swing states. As long as there's some sort of grasp of what's needed (and let's face it there's not really much difference in policy terms between the two)primary voters will have to choose the person they think is most electable.
Who's led the best campaign so far? Obama
Who's had the genghis khan instinct to crush republicans in places like Northern VA - Obama.
When all's said and done it's not as if Hillary's not going to be part of the team if he wins the GE!
Posted by John at February 15, 2008 08:40 AMNo Obama supporter thinks that the demonic Repubs or corporate MSM are going to be "nice" to him, Blue Jean, so can your foolish straw man arguments.
Posted by euzoius at February 15, 2008 10:30 AM