DECEMBER 12, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Mark me down as blaming the Clinton campaign-staff in the competing staff-versus-candidate explanations for Hillary's recent troubles. It's true, as Adam Nagourney notes in a piece touching on both theories, that Clinton may have had "trouble mastering the political intricacies" of Iowa. But are those things really up to the candidate to figure out?
Take this example from Nagourney:
Mrs. Clinton spent much of the early part of the year working huge rallies in the state’s major news media markets in the belief that the coverage would reverberate into the more sparsely populated areas. But that is not the way things work in Iowa.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards methodically worked rural areas, appreciating the importance of personal appeals to small groups of voters. Over the last six weeks, Mrs. Clinton has opened satellite offices and intensified her visits to rural Iowa.
Well, who was the strategic genius who didn't realize rural areas need to be courted on their own terms?
For what it's worth, I get the same impression--mediocre staff-work--talking to people out here. I mentioned a Polk County (i.e., Des Moines) supervisor named Tom Hockensmith in my recent piece about Obama. Hockesmith told me he endorsed Obama after meeting with both him and Clinton. The Clinton meeting consisted of a handshake and a few seconds of pleasantries (though it did come after Hockensmith introduced the Clintons at a gathering of local pols and activists, which he was flattered to do). The Obama conversation lasted more than half an hour--basically till Hockensmith ran out of questions. When I asked Hockensmith why he went with Obama, he ticked off a few of the senator's winning qualities, then complained he was really hoping for a more substantive conversation with Clinton.
Likewise, this in today's New York Daily News sort of rang true to me:
Another Democrat with close connections to the Clinton campaign describes Bill Clinton as "very engaged and very agitated. He's yelling at [chief strategist] Mark Penn a lot." ...
A source close to the former First Couple criticized recent campaign ads as lacking focus, faulting [pollster and chief strategist Mark] Penn the most for failing to fine-tune the message: "The key problem is not the spots, but what they're saying."
If you read former Penn partner Doug Schoen's memoir, you know that Penn is a believer in going negative. It wouldn't shock me if he had a role in the recent ham-handed attacks on Obama (though they didn't come as ads), in which case Bill is probably right to yell.
--Noam Scheiber
4 comments
The Clinton campaign, of course, blames the media. But....campaigns are about media manipulation...so this suggests that the Clinton staff is to blame...chicken or the egg, I guess?
Of course the Clinton Machine is really amazing at fighting back right-wing attacks (they accomplished so much during the 90s!), so it couldn't be their fault.
- virginiacentrist
December 12, 2007 at 3:11pm
Everywhere (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) that the American people are getting to see the Democratic candidates firsthand, and compare them alongside one another, Hillary Clinton is slipping, and Barack Obama is gaining. And it is they who will decide who represents them in the coming presidential election.
<a href="politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.../">CNN N.H. Poll: Obama, Clinton tied</a>
<blockquote>WASHINGTON (CNN) — Barack Obama has chipped away at Hillary Clinton’s lead in New Hampshire, and the two Democratic presidential hopefuls are now locked in a statistical tie less than one month before the first-in-the-nation primary, a CNN/WMUR Poll released Wednesday shows.
Clinton has dropped 5 percentage points since the CNN/WMUR November survey, while Obama has gained 8 percentage points, according to the poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. Clinton is now at 31 percent to Obama’s 30 percent.</blockquote>
They'd better put Bill to work quick, otherwise the Clinton candidacy is going to be relegated to the pages of history much sooner than she had hoped. I bet Al Gore is chuckling quietly to himself whenever no one is looking.
<a href="www.nydailynews.com/.../2007-12-12_bill_clinton_to_aid_hillarys_campaign.html">Bill Clinton to aid Hillary's campaign</a>
<blockquote>WASHINGTON - Bubba to the rescue!
Alarmed by his wife's slide in the polls and disarray within her backbiting campaign, a beside-himself Bill Clinton has leaped atop the barricades and is furiously plotting a cure - or coup.
"She's in big trouble and he knows it," a top Democratic operative and Hillary Clinton booster told the Daily News.</blockquote>
- AaronBBrown
December 12, 2007 at 3:56pm
This really is garbage, you used to be able to have a dialogue on this site, but apparently the geniuses who run it have decided we're going to repress participation, they want to run a monologue here, where they pick and choose when, where, how and who gets to comment and what they get to say. This is why TNR is still a Mickey Mouse outfit, they can't even do what blog Spot can do.
It's a game, a control game, and it's fantastic for making yourself look good, but it also means you'll never achieve true greatness.
Signed a disgusted dissatisfied customer (I can't believe I paid for this subscription)
- AaronBBrown
December 12, 2007 at 4:00pm
AaronBBrown, don't you think they would have blocked out your comment if they only wanted them to "look good"?
- rozenson
December 12, 2007 at 4:36pm