Civil War in Hillaryland

Yesterday a front page Washington Post story outlined the extent to which internal squabbling has overtaken the Clinton campaign. Throughout much of the election cycle there has been a lot of attention paid to potential rivalries within the camp; as of late, those internal fights have been playing out in a much more public fashion.

What we know so far about the Clinton campaign is discomforting. We know that Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, remained in her position long after having squandered the entire campaign war chest. We know that Mark Penn, chief strategist of the campaign, has alienated nearly everyone he works with, often getting into profanity-laden arguments with fellow advisers. We know he is "openly despised" by many senior Clinton officials. We know that, in the face of heavy criticism, Mark Penn has tried to shift the blame, maintaining that he is just an outside adviser, with no real control of the campaign.

We know that Harold Ickes is eager to argue the point in front of microphones, where he has ungracefully laid the blame squarely on Penn. We know that, at the Arlington headquarters, the tension has built so high that Penn and Mandy Grunwald, Hillary's ad maker, got into a yelling match that prompted the political director to leave the room. And we know that we know that because it was leaked.

We know the media team fights with the field team, each blaming the other for Clinton's February losses. Perhaps worst of all, The Washington Post confirmed what many Democrats had feared the most: in South Carolina, Bill Clinton was out of the campaign's control.

A good measure of the relative functionality of a campaign is to watch how often inside information is leaked to the press. That we know as much as we do about the internal strife in Hillaryland suggests that the press is being wielded as a weapon in the middle of an all out civil war.

Yet with the wind at her back, following strong victories in Ohio and Texas, Hillary may question whether any of this should really matter. It does.

Hillary is often painted as a technocrat, stronger on the details than Obama and more likely to manage the country effectively. We are led to believe that she would be as capable a chief of staff as she would a commander in chief. But while her campaign comes unspooled in the pages of the Washington Post, she has yet to give any indication of the desire or ability to take the wheel and steady the ship.

In many ways, her management style is reminiscent of President Bush. She has surrounded herself with people whose top qualification is their loyalty. Patti Solis Doyle, the incompetent campaign manager, was allowed to stay in her position for far too long, primarily out of loyalty. A similar note can be played with respect to much of her campaign staff, many of whom would have already been fired by nearly any other candidate.

There are also tints of a young Bill Clinton in Hillary's management style. His early White House has been notoriously described as a dorm-room-style setting with no clear chain of authority and a set of aggressive warring factions. It was this poorly conceived structure that contributed to President Clinton's overstretched agenda, often with contradicting messages, rarely with a long-term framework in mind. In 1994, the consequences of flailing leadership meant the Republican control of Congress.

Will Hillary Clinton manage her White House in the way she has managed her presidential campaign? The question seems fair. Will she instead run it like she did her 2006 Senate campaign? Patti Solis Doyle drastically overspent in that race too. Will she manage the White House like she did the health care reforms of 1994? With those, she ignored political realities and helped polarize her own party by refusing the input of key members. Is this what we can expect from a second Clinton presidency?

Perhaps we should be concerned with the more immediate future. Is Hillary going to run a general election campaign the way she ran her primary race? After all, her campaign thus far has demonstrated the inability to make quick and effective recalibrations. They have failed to rein in Bill Clinton, and have been unable to build strong organizational capacity in a number of states. Their decision-making apparatus is controlled by spiteful aides who seem more enveloped in their own in-fighting than the needs of the campaign. Can Democrats really afford Mark Penn and Harold Ickes throwing temper tantrums through the fall?

These are not easy questions for the Clinton campaign to answer. But they are important questions for the voters and super delegates to consider. Harold Ickes was recently quoted as saying, "She's better than her campaign." This is undoubtedly true. But if after four to eight years of a Clinton presidency, she maintains her management style, we may all be shrugging with disappointment, knowing, full well, that she was better than her presidency.

Comments

[laylahb]

The uniter? No, the divider.
"I've been fully vetted?" Tax returns, White House records, Bill's Foundation, list of donors to the Clinton Presidential Library. Oh, did I mention tax returns?
Infighting at Clinton Headquarters? Loud enough that they can hear it in China.
Just in case we've forgotten-Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. Whitewater. Cattle futures. Travelgate. Impeachment. Should I go on?
Do we really need fanother four or eight years of that?

[timm0]

Don't worry, we won't have her for 4-8 more years. She'll lose. Either in the primary or the general.

[NABNYC]

Hillary hired a union-buster to be the head of her campaign. That's like hiring a pit-bull as a babysitter. Or hiring a bank robber to be the treasurer. She gets what she wanted.

Does anyone think that Hillary did not realize what Penn was? She and her husband hired him in the 1996 election. She knew exactly who she was hiring.

Hillary has allowed her husband to take control of a good part of the running of the campaign, and of the campaigning itself. Regardless of your views of him personally, the fact is that Bill Clinton is a self-absorbed impulsive narcissistic philanderer who has shown throughout his marriage that he puts his own needs in front of any loyalty to his wife. His own needs certainly were put in front of any desire to be loyal to the Democratic party.

And their most recent racist lying attacks show that if they have to destroy the Democratic party, split it apart, throw the election to McCain, they will do so rather than allow another Democrat to get the nomination.

What was the whole Reagan comment about, anyway? We know that both Bill and Hillary, closet Republicans, have previously said very complementary things about Reagan. So why the attacks on Obama? Because they interpreted Obama's comments as being that Bill Clinton wasn't so hot. Which is the truth. Bill Clinton presided over a tech bubble which burst as soon as he left office and led many Americans to lose 40% of their savings for retirement.

Hillary is getting exactly what she deserves from her campaign. Of course everyone inside will feel betrayed, abandoned, unfairly accused. They're working for the Clintons. Look what they did to Gore. Look how they buddied up to the Bush family to legitimize W's presidency, and did not one thing to help Kerry. The Clintons are all about themselves and everyone around them ends up being used, abandoned, and betrayed.

[atila]

you are right....t­hey(billar­y) are like the maffia..."­it's personal..­.it's just business..­."

[sideways74]

If you are going to judge a candidate by their campaign staff, Obama is not necessarily going to score well either. Multiple foreign policy gaffes, double talk on Iraq withdrawall is not great management either. It is not as sexy (beacuse it is news) as the FUs flying around in the clinton camp and why it is a story on the huffington post.

[timm0]

You've listed nothing that comes close to the internal battles in HRC's camp. It's not so much a lack of sexiness as it is a lack of substance.

[vanessa04]

Shhh... we're not supposed to talk about the failings of The Annointed One.

[lovethesinner]

The two (gaffes) are not comparible. On Hillary's side, they are the result of HER management style, which is a lot like Bush's "boy in a bubble" approch. On Obama's side, gaffes are the result of flatulence. As far as I can tell, Smantha Powers is the only real stinker, so far.

NAFTA GATE is all Hillary: "The Champion of Union Busting Wal-Mart"

[Marioth]

Heavens to Murgatroid, I was tired of the Clintons long before the world knew of Barak Obama.

Doesn't anyone remember cringing through most of those 8 years, wanting a movement, and getting instead a deeply flawed marriage? The dem party was decimated. But not for Perot, there would have been no Clinton presidency. Though he pivoted to the center, the GOP would not bite because they knew he was flawed, and it took us to an equally flawed Impeachment while bin Laden tiptoed in the background.

Forgive me, but a balanced budget is not worth the gross divisive politics and the Age of War we have today.

And we are asked to vote for 4-8 more of it. No way, and here's why. Each point speaks to a fundamental lack of sound judgement.

1. Voting for the occupation
2. Voting for Kyle/Lieberman
3. Voting for landmines
4. Voting for bankruptsy "reform"
5. Lying about her actual exerience
6. Covering up her and Bill's financial dealings
7. No campaign plan post-Super Tuesday
8. Reliance on dodgy negative ads to get "ahead"
9. Crocodile tears in New Hampshire
10. Bill's big fat mouth
11. And other parts of Bill's anatomy
12. That's it's about her and not We the People
13. Not a single fillibuster to limit executive power
14. Fewer pleged delegates
15. Fewer popular votes in contested states
16. Mark Penn's Genius
17. Bringing up Ken Starr (this was dumb dumb dumb)

She is not qualified to be President, and we are asking for known deeply corrupt politicians not to enter the White House, but return to it. Not one, but two.

No more Bush/Clinton Barony, thanks. Enough is quite enough. Neither McCain nor Hillary is listening to We The People. If Rezko is baggage, then the Clintons retain the entire Samsonite Luggage Factory.

Pax,
M.

[feelfree]

Disagreements, squabbling whatever, evidently they don't need kumbayah. If it works for Mrs. Clinton, why should anyone else care?

[BeeOplentee]

Actually, her take-no-prisoners style of combativeness is an ADMIRABLE trait for comander in chief.

[Kim445588]

Yeah, if your last name ends with Bush.

[Kordo]

Good call! Just like her model, G. Dubya. It's worked out so well for him (and us, of course).
We should all just fight like wild animals forever...­.

[rwilliams1961]

Hillary has been planning this presidential run for at least six years. Despite reports to the contrary, Obama has only been planning his run for the last year or so and not kindergarten.

How is it that a woman with all the political machinery at her disposal and over half a decade to prepare comes to the race with incompetent friends running the show, a message that has totally missed the mark, an inability to launch a ground game in caucus states, and a disorganization that forced her to resort to "throwing the kitchen sink" at Obama?

Is that the management style that she brings to that 3am phone call? Is that all she can muster?

Hillary has gone through as many personalities this past four weeks as she has pant suits. Her campaign is no more cohesive. But we are to trust that she's got the goods to run a White House better than Obama, a guy who has a campaign that is merely a year old and yet has brought together a tight unit that is leading Hillary in delegates, votes and financing?

Come on, guys.

[inthenitemare]

I sooooooo agree.

[Lalo]

I think what happened to Hillary Clinton so far only proves her ability to take repeated punches and keep coming back. No politicians admit mistakes and I don't think she will either. But at least she saw her mistakes and was able to fix them and she will come back on top.

[AnninCA]

I think Hillary will get her campaign staff bickering under control just like she got Bill under control.

I would guess that is going to happen with this story hitting, too.

[steve1945]

Hillary cllntont in the WH ?God there is really a Peter Principle . Now we all get to see how it works.

[TheOtherMaven]

Oh, c'mon, we've known there really was a Peter Principle since 2000. Our problem is to get it to STOP working.

[Mollye]

It doesn't matter to me if the Clinton campaign has internal disagreements, or the Obama campaign has internal disagreements.

[DennyCrane]

Actually it does matter. Hillary is trying to convince us that she's a capable leader. But if she can't even manage her campaign, what does that say about her skills as a leader?

[vanessa04]

You could say the exact same thing about Obama's campaign people. He's had loose cannons firing all over the place lately. Waht does it say about his skills as a leader that he can't control his own people?

[polly14]

really? do you want internal squabbling going on in the White House when the 3am call comes in? Chances are, Bill will be the one to pick it up since he does whatever he wants.

[radiclib]

.
One of Sen. Clinton's campaign themes against Sen. Obama has been ``You know what you are getting.'' That is a double-edge sword. In our nostalgia for the Clinton years and our loathing of the Bush regime, we forget that two terms of relative peace and prosperity in 1993-2000 were littered with unnecessary messes. Do we wish to go back to that, too?
.
.

[Moose49]

"'You know what you are getting.''­'

Exactly right when it comes to Hillary. A president who doesn't make a move without it being poll-tested first by an incompetent, right-wing charlatan, Mark Penn.

A president who believes in triangulation and will only make incremental changes at best.

A president whose most noteworthy policy accomplishments were ones that a Republican president could have claimed, too -- passage of NAFTA and welfare reform.

A president whose positive policy impacts will tinker at the margins and make incremental improvements but not change an underlying dynamic that still favors the right wing.

A host of minor scandals that will keep the administration on the defensive. OK, with Hillary there won't be sex with intern problems, but there will be associations with sleazy fundraisers, perhaps some more Lincoln Bedroom sales, Bill's financial dealings with the Kazakhs and other unsavory characters, whatever problems are hidden away in the unreleased tax returns, a penchant for secrecy only marginally less obsessive than Bush's.

Constant staff infighting that regularly makes its way to press. (Why anyone should assume it would be different in the White House than it is in the campaign is beyond me).

An uncontrollable "first gentleman" who is constantly losing his temper and discipline and saying things that cause problems for the president and distract her from her agenda.

Constant bending backward to look tough on national security that will only reinforce much of the damage to America's reputation that Bush has done.

Is this really the best the Democrats could do in the White House?

[Kim445588]

You forgot to add Clinton sleeze to your list of what we're getting. Since reminders are being sent of why we know Ken Star's name.

Kim "Hussein"

[Countess]

This is so true that she is like Bush in so many ways. The archivists at the Billy's prsidential library are blocking the release of his pardons so we cannot see how many of these criminals have given him paybacks and she is obviously creating a new and cleaner income tax return at this moment. They are the most secretive politicians and it is quite disturbing as Hillary Clinton once said about her opponent in her race for the senate. This is what we can look forward to should she ever win the nomination.

[Mollye]

And you know this how? OFFICIAL link, please.

[1dogs2]

It is an unassailable conclusion since her ill-advised remarks about McCain's experience and Obama's. She provided the terms of the syllogism; the conclusion is inescapable.

[Moose49]

Dylan Loewe wrote: "In many ways, her management style is reminiscent of President Bush. "

Countess wrote: "This is so true that she is like Bush in so many ways."

I've posted this before, but think it belongs here, too -- the Top Ten Things George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton have in common:

1) Same sense of entitlement to office (one by birthright, one by marriage-right, for lack of a better term).

2) Same willingness to go in the gutter and do whatever it takes to slime their opponents.

3) Same willingness to game the system or try to change the rules in the middle of the contest when they don't work to your advantage (see Bush in Florida, Hillary's complaints about caucuses and the Michigan/Florida situation).

4) Hiring sleazebags as their chief strategists (Rove, Penn) and tolerating incompetents in their midst (Michael Brown & Donald Rumsfeld, Penn).

5) Both incompetent strategists and managers who are so arrogant, they fail to plan ahead (Bush in Iraq after the fall of Saddam, Hillary after Super Tuesday).

6) Associating with slimey characters (Jack Abramoff et al with Bush, Norman Hsu, Webb Hubbell et al with Hillary).

7) Supporting the war in Iraq and a belligerent posture toward Iran.

8) Weird family dynamics in which the nation pays a price for them working out their personal issues and demons (Bush trying to get back at Poppy for failing to show him love, Hillary trying to get back at Bill for failing to show her love).

9) Both obsessed with secrecy (Bush on everything, Hillary on White House records and tax returns).

10) Both refuse to ever admit a mistake (Bush on everything, Hillary on Iraq war vote).

And a bonus reason: Both of them love John McCain and would rather see him president than Barack Obama.

[IndyStacey]

Moose, great list. I've noticed a similarity in style between Clinton and Bush before - they both have the "by any means necessary" attitude towards winning. Ethics be damned.