« Democratic Delegate Update | Main | Romney 2012 ... It Begins »

Quakes In Hillaryland, Part II

11 Feb 2008 08:34 am

(Read more here.)

Since Iowa, parts of Hillary Clinton's campaign leadership have been in a state of suspended animation. One by one, the benchmarks the campaign has set for itself -- money, a Feb. 5 knock out, a lead in the popular vote, a superdelegate advantage -- have fallen to a superior effort by Barack Obama's campaign. Clinton aides, junior level to senior level, are exhausted.

Strategically, it is clear that Clinton campaign did not envision an elongated contest until fairly recently, even though senior adviser Harold Ickes had set out a memo laying out various delegate scenarios in December. Obama's campaign, by contrast, had for months projected a fight for delegates.

A lack of money is the main reason why the Clinton campaign failed to organize well enough in smaller caucus states like Minnesota, Colorado and Maine. It's not that the demographics of these states were favorable -- certainly they were not -- but donors, allies and the press have wondered by the campaign was simply not competitive enough to keep Obama's vote totals -- and thus his delegate totals -- in a standard orbit. This mistake has given Obama many extra delegates and with that, the argument that he has won more delegates than she was.

Clinton herself was not informed that the campaign was in dire financial straits until after Iowa, one adviser said. For two days, Bill Clinton camped out in the campaign's Ballston, VA headquarters and poured through the numbers with Williams and other aides. Aides and advisers say that Clinton's decision to lend herself money was not made by consulting members of the senior staff and was relayed to them after-the-fact.

The relationship between Maggie Williams and Patti Solis Doyle has been described as close but acrimonious, akin to two longtime friends who have the same goal in mind but argue about how to get there. They have argued in private, and increasingly, in public settings.

Two sources said that Williams last week threatened to leave the campaign -- she had only been on a 30-day consignment -- unless the chain of command was clarified -- what one person privy to the threat called "a mutiny."

Though Solis Doyle had been telling friends she intended to transition out of her role, they assumed that she would wait until after the potentially decisive contests of March 3rd. She told one she looked forward to assuming what's known in the campaign as a "white boy" boy -- a tongue in cheek reference to Bill Clinton advisers who have no line responsibility but plenty of opinions.

It's not clear whether staffers hired by Solis Doyle will follow her. After all, there are only three weeks left until the unquestionably decisive contests of Ohio and Texas, both must-wins.

Comments (46)

the fact is, not only does she have to win Ohio and Texas, she has to win decisively by a minimum of 13.5 % with overly superior delegate returns. Crunch the numbers and see.

"Since Iowa, parts of Hillary Clinton's campaign leadership have been in a state of suspended animation. One by one, the benchmarks the campaign has set for itself -- money, a Feb. 5 knock out, a lead in the popular vote, a superdelegate advantage -- have fallen to a superior effort by Barack Obama's campaign. Clinton aides, junior level to senior level, are exhausted."

Doesn't this provide a pretty clear indication that Obama, not Hillary, is a better manager?

I mean, we talk about electability in some sort of hyper-Karl Rove way, crunching superdelegates. But a general election is a four month war of attrition that requires a wise distribution of resources.

It seems to me that Obama had a strategy for a war of attrition and the nomination fight and Hillary Clinton almost certainly did not.

He's a better manager. He's more electable as a result.

And all of this only points up to the primary reason NOT to vote for her; she's absolutely lousy when it comes to imagining different scenarios and coming up with multiple strategies to deal with them.

The 9/11 Commission defined our pre Sept 11th mindset as containing "a failure of imagination." Bluntly put, we need a president who can consider LOTS of possibilities and plan accordingly. Taking this campaign as a microcosm of management ability, Obama has, to be polite, kicked the Clinton team's arse so hard his shoe is permanently implanted up about their spleen. He's planned better, strategized better, and shown superior utilization of resources in staking out his position in the race. This, in and of itself, should answer the "ability" question (as opposed to the "experience" trope of Clinton.)

We can't afford politicians whose vision stops at the end of their noses. We need folks who see bigger pictures and HAVE some imagination to solve the problems and act proactively. Clinton can't do it; she's nothing more than a grownup version of Tracy Flick in "Election." This is all about HER belief that she's right for the job, but the people, in their infinite wisdom, are starting to figure out that no, it's actually about US.

Interesting and informative post. Clinton's is not the first campaign to put too much of their resources into Iowa. Trippi did the same thing with the Dean campaign and put all Dean's eggs in Iowa.

If you can't win Iowa spending $2 million, are you really going to increase your chances that much by spending $10 million. Given the need to husband resources for future states, the marginal return just seems much too low. Everyone hopes for a knock-out coming out of Iowa, but it rarely happens.

I also don't understand why Iowa is such a money pit for so many campaigns. No big media markets and organization and personal appearances matter more than advertising. Where does all the money go?

Great piece, Marc.

But I have to disagree with the claim that the demographics of Maine were "certainly not favorable" to Hillary. Most observers felt that Clinton would at least tie, precisely because the demographics (white, aging, NH/MA-like) did favor her so much. You yourself made the same point.

If she wasn't on safe ground in ME, then there is no safe ground for her outside of Mexico.

Well, it appears the Emperess has no management skills.

Colorado and Minnesota are swing states (CO moreso). Maine, by your own account yesterday, was quite favorable demographically to Clinton. And last time I looked, CO and MN had quite a few white women, older voters, and working-class voters. If she cannot be competitive in those states -- I'm not even talking win, I'm talking keeping the margin to single digits -- how can she make the case that she is the best person to carry the nomination?

Pretty impressive, Marc. I had to read all the way to the second sentence to find a glaring factual error (Obama leads in superdelegates?)

A lack of money is the main reason why the Clinton campaign failed to organize well enough in smaller caucus states like Minnesota, Colorado and Maine. It's not that the demographics of these states were favorable -- certainly they were not

If this was the analysis drawn by the Clinton camp, then it's no wonder they're losing and will continue to lose. Maine? Not her demographic? And for you to parrot that assumption - it almost seems like every time you write a perfectly reasoned post, you have to add one sentence that makes me wonder if you're actually making fun of the Clintons, tongue planted firmly in cheek.

yeah....the "certainly not favorable" line threw me for a loop. Did you mean that? It seems to fly in the face of a lot of analysis, including some of your own.

Yesterday, it was "don't be surprised" if Obama doesn't win Maine. Then it was "Obama's victory was expected." Now it's "Maine's demographics weren't favorable to Clinton."

Make up your mind, man. I can understand why the Clinton campaign keeps coming up with new excuses, but I'm mystified why you have to keep swallowing it.

MARC: A lack of money is the main reason why the Clinton campaign failed to organize well enough in smaller caucus states like Minnesota, Colorado and Maine. It's not that the demographics of these states were favorable -- certainly they were not

CRAIG: If this was the analysis drawn by the Clinton camp, then it's no wonder they're losing and will continue to lose. Maine? Not her demographic?...

It does fall in the pattern of not-really-expected-to-perform that have been spun around. But they better not believe them because then the Clinton campaign is on thin ice.

It has seemed to me for a while that Clinton had a slow way of loosing and a fast way of loosing. The latter was using Bill as attack dog. The slow is the campaign acting as usual focusing on issues, microsegmentation and trying to be "the change and everything else candidate" which has led to a slow but steady loss of in basically all demographics.

With Mike Penn safe as the chief strategist it is hard to see the campaign reversing itself. And accordingly not hard to see that Obama has moved very close to or perhaps already past the tipping point in his favour.

Since he's doing such a good job channelling Baghdad Bob, I propose we now call Mr. Ambinder "Massachusetts Marc."

After all, there is the "Harvard for Hillary" thing and the fact that on Feb 5th, Massachusetts was solidly for Hillary!

A year ago Barack Obama announced his candidacy in Springfield (my husband and I were there) and he began from scratch the building of his campaign and organization. Hillary had hers in place for over 20 years.
No one paid any attention to the ground game that Obama built and his grassroots operation. It was all about the inevitable Hillary. And she honestly believed that it would be over and she would be coronated Feb. 5th.
This shows not just hubris but, shortsightedness and a failure to concider anything other than how the Clintons dreamed it would go.
It showed a decided lack of management and planning and money handling. Afterall, she did raise over 100 million in 2007.
And that is why she is not right for the job. You have to have some humility and the ability to plan for unexpected and unforeseen events. And have to adapt.
It also says a great deal about Obama's ability to organize and plan. A year ago he had no organization. Now it is seen as one of the best ever seen. And his online fundraising and support is very broad and deep. The lack of drama from his campaign, the way it is run and it's effectiveness, and the ability to plan long term shows someone who has the management skills, open mind and adaptability to be president.

I suspect that the delegate count in Ohio and Texas will be much closer than Hillary believes - and in Ohio might even tip Obama's way. What about the contests after that? I'm sceptical that Pennsylvania is nailed-on Hillary country - especially after seeing how all-white, blue-collar Maine reacted to her.

Bottom line - Hillary is losing and is very likely to lose the pledged delegate count because she has run a losey campaign. But instead of owning her mistakes - which, like Bush and his failed Iraq Campaign, she is unable to do - she is trying to blame the process itself. As if she didn't have enough money, enough name recognition, enough of a machine going in to win.

Her latest ploy is to characterize the caucuses as not democratic basically because she was not able to compete effectively in them. Her demographics don't caucus etc. But Nevada puts the lie to that claim. When she campaigns competitively -she makes a competitive showing.

17 states use caucuses. She is in the position she is in today NOT because she will likely lose 16 of the 17 caucuses - but because she has lost them by such wide margins. And she lost them by wide margins not because of demographics who don't caucus- but because she campaigned in them poorly.

So let's put an end to this meme that Hillary is losing because the caucuses are stacked against her. She is losing because she did not compete in them due to her own shortcomings.

Why hasn't Hillary's campaign been more agile in navigating this nomination process? Using her own words, why hasn't she been "prepared on Day 1" for her own campaign? The fragmented trajectory of Hillary's campaign reflects her larger problem; her narrow and stubborn vision of the political process and her incapacity to advocate for change in America and around the world.

Re: Dumping money in Iowa
It's easy to see where all the Iowa money for those of us who live in the state. Between Christmas and the Jan. 3 caucus I received 21 mailers. While we do not have expensive media we are geographically a large state with at least six different media markets. Assuming the rest of the state was blanketed by ads the way eastern Iowa was it's easy to see how they blew through the money.
Of course, having 200 Clinton campaign workers on the payroll for months had to eat up a chunk, too.
This isn't a criticism of the Clinton campaign. Obama spent easily spent as much.

What she should have done:

Its too late now but I think the entire strategy was mis-concieved. She should have played personal from the beginning--like Obama--when you get to know me you will like me. That would have worked in Iowa and everywhere. One on one, small groups, honesty, vulnerability, emotion. If she had let us get to know her as a woman--not as bill's wife or as former first lady but as Hillary the woman I think she could have pulled this out.

From all I hear she is nice, smart, gregarious, and decent. But put up on a soapbox as the inevitable and tough candidate was a sure loser against Obama and maybe even McCain.

They had their strategy lined up so far in advance--going back to Iraq war vote in 2002--that it was impossible to change directions in Iowa. But they should have--she could have beaten him at his own game. But it is too late for that now. Gone are the one on ones--its big media, organization, turn out, etc.

Its over. Penn will go down as a fool.

Presumably the Clinton camp didn't prepare to not merely lose but be completely blown out in almost every rural state. They go into the big rectangles expecting to drop a few delegates and then take 2-1 drubbings.

Heather - Hillary is "nice, smart, gregarious, and decent" BUT what she is not is someone who sees the lay of the land clearly and develops numerous strategies to effectively handle opposition. This is Hillary Care redux. Not exactly leadership of a very high order. She is failing because of something intrinsic to her - not bad luck or a single miscalculation.

vwcat, you need to post that analysis everywhere you can. Succinct and well-put.

Standing back and looking at the 10000 foot view, any candidate with the amount of money, organization, nation-wide and deep political connections, name recognition, and popular ex-president husband that HRC had should have walked to the nomination, casually crushing opposition under her high heels. She's clearly a formidable opponent.

So, it logically follows that anyone that could build (from scratch, in 10 months!) an organization that could out-maneuver, out-fundraise, and out-delegate that kind of enormous and entrenched political machine has some serious political, organizational, tactical and rhetorical skills.

It boggles my mind that this one simple fact - Obama's tactical and political skill - hasn't by itself already destroyed the HRC "better manager" meme. Hopefully over the next month, the "more experienced" meme will also die it's long overdue death.

vwcat, you need to post that analysis everywhere you can. Succinct and well-put.

Standing back and looking at the 10000 foot view, any candidate with the amount of money, organization, nation-wide and deep political connections, name recognition, and popular ex-president husband that HRC had should have walked to the nomination, casually crushing opposition under her high heels. She's clearly a formidable opponent.

So, it logically follows that anyone that could build (from scratch, in 10 months!) an organization that could out-maneuver, out-fundraise, and out-delegate that kind of enormous and entrenched political machine has some serious political, organizational, tactical and rhetorical skills.

It boggles my mind that this one simple fact - Obama's tactical and political skill - hasn't by itself already destroyed the HRC "better manager" meme. Hopefully over the next month, the "more experienced" meme will also die it's long overdue death.

What, exactly, is Hillary's demographic? As far as I can tell, it's white, old people in racially divided states and people in states where voting starts weeks ahead of the election before Obama has a chance to show up (hint: that's why Clinton likes primaries over caucuses).

She's done a great job organizing Mexican-American support at the local level (see Nevada, California, Arizona) in the Southwest; frankly, that's the only reason she's still even in this and I don't know why no one is reporting that. If the Latino vote were split equally between Obama and Hillary, this would've been over on Tuesday.

The shilling continues to be embarrassing! What the hell does this even mean?

"This mistake has given Obama many extra delegates and with that, the argument that he has won more delegates than she was."

It's not a rhetorical argument—he's winning more delegates! Which is the point! It's like saying, "This mistake has given the Cubs more extra runs, and with that, the argument that they have scored more runs than the Mets have."

vwcat, are you actually Patrick Healy of the NY Times? Surely not, but your post echoes his comment yesterday on Chris Matthews' weekend show. When it got to "Tell Me Something I Don't Know," he basically said that Clinton is still living in a bubble, refusing to believe the nomination is not hers.

Clearly, HRC's campaign never envisioned that they'd have to fight for the nomination. Obama, on the other hand, laid a groundwork months in advance. All that time last year when pols complained that his campaign was dull and not catching fire, they were quietly building their grassroots organization. To the Clintons, this is probably the closest they'll ever get to guerilla attacks. So used to facing opposition from the GOP and wingnuts, they've no idea how to fight a brilliant, upstanding young opponent. Despite her rhetoric, as a candidate, HRC has only ran against GOP weaklings. She really doesn't have the experience she claims for these battles.

Though an avid Obama supporter, I still expect the Clintons to steal this election, or at least make a great effort to do so. Should HRC go down, though, hubris won't even begin to describe it, and the Clintons will have only themselves to blame.

It's far too early to bury the Clinton candidacy, and a lot of the postings sound rather like a eulogy, but I'll be a hypocrite and jump in.

Heather I think has nailed it. Penn and Grunwald are so hipped on 'positioning' that they never allowed the real person to come through. Unlike many Obama supporters, I think her teary moment in NH was genuine, but by that time, she had assumed so many different guises that not many observers gave it any credence.

It's not that Penn and Grunwald are stupid - far from it, they're experienced and bright if also by my standards ruthless and not overly concerned with truthfulness. People like that can be very useful when pitted against normal opposition in normal times. However, they are so invested in their world-view that they are incapable of dealing with a genuine political phenomenon that challenges it, which is what Obama is. It's compounded by Clinton's rigidity (noted by C.B.) which has been prettied up a bit but still lurks behind the facade - an unwillingness to comprehend that all of a sudden, the world isn't as it should be, and that there's a critical need to adapt.

By every logical standard they employ, his candidacy should have cratered long ago, and the failure to do so has both them and their candidate buffaloed. It's now very late in the game; what's been tried before isn't working very well; and yet another shift in themes and strategy plays to the pre-existing story line: she is constantly tacking with the prevailing wind. (Strange, that she is condemned both for her unwillingness to change and for her ever-changing personae.)

Not hopeless, but not a great place to be in right now.

Does anyone on this board think that blowing off African Americans (and basically calling them irrational) is a good plan for the GE?

To claim to raise $175 million dollars over seven years and run out of money before Super Tuesday? Hubris. She obviously thought she had the nomination in the bag. For HRC to then find out that the campaign was bankrupt? Fear. Fear of the staff not wanting to be the bearer of bad news. Also, it sounds like she's done a terrible job of picking her managers and staff - kind of like W (Rummy, Harriett, Brownie, etc.)

Watching Hillary fall flat on her face brings a tear to my eye.

I don't usually laugh until I cry but this is personal.

Hmm, failed benchmarks...a long drawn-out, unanticipated fight...it's a quagmire!

Hillary should Withdraw! Er, redeploy!

What would "redeployment" in a campaign mean, exactly?

On second thought, maybe that 'Hillacopter' wasn't such a good ideal. You know, excess in all...

Good thing Hillary is only sinking her campaign and not the entire country...It's better to find these things out before we say 'I do' and its too late.

I realize this is a blog entry but it's PORED.

They really should have seen this coming. Did they not watch the 2004 DNC speech Obama gave? Did they not see an excited, charming, true believer in the "change is possible" meme ? The speech was a nomination speech for Kerry but watching it again you can see it was his first stump speech for his own 2008 run.

No, she is incapable of changing her style. She busied herself telling every big corporation and donor that she was inevetable and if they don't get onboard now she would bury them come Jan 2009.

She never saw this coming but every sign was there, starting at the DNC in 2004.

Does anyone believe that Obama is managing his campaign all by himself? He has Axelrod and many others, and they have struck gold. The less he says, in terms of substance, the more we cheer. It's as though we can change the rancorous tone of politics, just by wishing it so. It's like that scene in Peter Pan when they ask the audience, do you believe? Do you? And every time I ever saw Peter Pan, everyone believed.

It's only February, and it ain't over 'til it's over.

Obama has done better in states with large black populations and caucus states where it's easier to win with lower turnout. Obama also came into this race as the guy who was good at voter turnout in Chicago - certainly you'd expect that skill to help in a campaign.

As of end of December Obama was just slightly behind in fund-raising. Likely Obama gets better discount and more volunteers on his campaign being (once) the underdog.

Hillary is also running against the national media. An early debate with the night of anti-Hillary questions and then attacked for playing the "gender" card when she said nothing about gender. A great example - Florida - the press simply decided to ignore the results. In South Carolina Clinton got blasted for basically noting blacks might slightly favor a black candidate (or I suppose for noticing that Obama happens to be noticeably black, both through his books, his speech references and his appearance). Hillary won Nevada, but Obama threw out his "all about the delegates" spin and the press ran with it (even though at that rate Alabama and Missouri delegates are also questionable, but there's a double standard at work).

So before anyone pushes the "I guess she's a bad manager" angle too far, look at what she's done, the reactions she's made so far and what her movement is now. By lots of conventional wisdom Al Gore should have been a shoe-in in 2000 as well, but it wasn't that easy for many of the same reasons. And campaign management is a little bit different from managing a government bureaucracy. Advertising isn't your main expense in implementing policy.

Desider,
Wow, are you rewriting recent history. I live in SC and I remember what was said, and it wasn't simply noting that blacks might slightly favor a black candidate. They did "slightly" favor him by 9 to 1. What you miss is that Hillary was ahead in SC polls by 20 pts. just a few months before the primary. She had the support of the black voters. However, in the weeks before she marginalized them and her supporters made some racial comments (don't deny it, I was here and it did happen). Edwards, Obama, and most of the Republicans were actually in SC the week before the primary. Hillary wasn't here, that was noted by the voters here (like Guliani, she thought she could skip the states where her support was waning). Instead, she left Bill to campaign for her, and we can all see how that worked out. So, in a matter of weeks, Hillary lost her 20 pt lead and then went onto lose by 27 pts. It has since happened in other states. If she had maintained the leads she had going into Super Tuesday, it would nearly be over. You might want to look at MA, for instance. She was 20 to 30 pts ahead, and ended up winning by about 15 pts. She lost support in nearly every Super Tuesday primary or caucus by huge margins. She may have gone onto win some states, but not by the margins she had just a few weeks before.

Don't get me started on Florida (or Michigan). I am so tired of hearing Hillary supporters talk of this as if it was actually a fair contest. The media didn't report on it because it didn't count. Hillary agreed, along with the other candidates, that it wouldn't count because they moved their primary ahead in violation of the DNC rules. To fly in for fundraisers (when she should have been campaigning in SC if she wanted to be competative) and then claim victory when your opponents abide by the rules is the type of political games we are all tired of.

In Nevada, there was no spin. Obama did win the delegates despite losing the popular vote. If you go to his website you don't see him claiming victory in NV (the state isn't colored in as a win). It is what it is. A race he lost, but won in the delegate count.

As far as caucuses go, maybe they do favor Obama but it is more likely because he has passionate supporters who will stand out in the snow and wind so that they can participate. I don't know, but his supporters are certainly engaged in the process. These are the same supporters who are donating record amounts $25 to $50 at a time.

One last thing. To continually point out that Hillary is favored by the large states (those that have supported her so far have been blue states who would likely go for Obama if he is the nominee) is a mistake. It marginalizes the small states, just as she did with SC. I appreciate Obama's 50 state approach. It makes everyone matter, not just those who happen to live in large states with huge delegate counts. She won't win a general election and probably won't win the nomination because she has continually pointed out that anyone who doesn't support her or live in a state that supports her doesn't really count.

Makes you think of 'war': the established army is out-manoeuvred by the swift guerilla.
Although she was, of course, as a "true patriot", protesting the Vietnam war, she didn't learn much from it.
Another reason why she is not capable of leading your country - on top of that: she apparently doesn't care much about finances - not exactly what you need the next years...

Well, with all those years of planning and fundraising, if she's going to be tripped up so easily by a black man, a junior senator named Barack Hussein Obama (who came out of nowhere and just started fundraising for this) imagine how easily she'd fold against a white man war hero named McCain.

Folks, we need to move her off the stage. She would be an extremely weak candidate for the general election.

Quite frankly, what Hillary is missing is not a lack of experience, plans, talking points, or endorsements.

What's she missing and why she would make an awful president, is a lack of imagination.

As a leader, you have to be able to have the gift of foresight to see what roads maybe ahead.

She can only see the chart sitting on the table in front of her, and that is the real problem with her as a candidate.

sorry, typo...

"what she suffers from is a lack of imagination"

you get my point.

OK, you've all convinced me. Hillary Clinton is the stupidest person alive, dumber than W even. What's more, she's clueless, creepy, and a bad person besides. Thanks for clearing all that up.

Desider wrote,

"Likely Obama gets better discount and more volunteers on his campaign being (once) the underdog"

The excuses people keep coming up with for the Clinton campaign keep getting more and more pathetic.

Biden, Kucinich, and Dodd were all bigger underdogs than Obama, yet their volunteer lists paled in comparison. How many volunteers you get is determined by how many people think you represent them and whether they think you have rich people willing to bankroll you.

Regarding discounts: I suppose that having to pay full price is why the Clinton campaign rolled up a half-million dollars in PARKING EXPENSES????

Here are the reasons why Clinton has lost:

1. Unbelievable mismanagement of the budget (a lot of good all that 'experience' did, huh?)

2. Mismanagement of campaign strategy. Clinton's campaign did not ever envision having to deal with a post-Super-Tuesday campaign, as through their hubris could not envision anyone being a real challenger.

3. Mismanagement of message: When the campaign began to lose control of the black demographic, it tried to recoup its losses through race baiting to energize its core. This backfired by boosting Obama's black percentages to 83% in SC versus the 40% or so he had been polling pre-Iowa and the 60% post-Iowa. In turn, the blowout in SC changed the momentum to the point that Obama was able to draw on Super Tuesday.

4. Mismanagement of 'marketing:' In a competition against the most liberal member of the Senate, Clinton's natural affinity group was the more conservative Democratic constituencies. Instead, she tried to bill Obama as the 'Republican lite' candidate; this both annoyed his base while making her base more receptive to his message. I believe that this was due to a belief that, since portraying himself as a left-of-the-party-center candidate served her husband so well in 1992, it would work again for Hillary. Unfortunately for HRC, she had two actual left-of-the-party-center candidates to run against whereas Bill had 'less is more' Jerry Brown and centrist Tsongas as his opponents.

Clinton's faltering campaign, complete with drama, division, mismanagement of funds and staff, has given the country a preview of Hillary's leadership style.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.