Far Too Little, Far Too Late

On Friday, the Clinton campaign released a new ad, aimed at bolstering questions about Obama's readiness to lead. The ad was an iteration of Walter Mondale's famous "Red Phone" commercial, questioning who the American people should want answering the White House phone at 3 in the morning.

The ad was not particularly well-executed, but was controversial enough to earn plenty of free media, and for good reason. Though she has convinced the bulk of the Democratic party that she has more experience than Barack Obama, Hillary's argument has often been vague, focused on abstract messages like "ready on day one" without concrete examples of what that would mean or look like. Hillary chose to own the experience narrative, but failed to communicate why experience actually mattered. This new ad, five days before her potential last stand, may well be her strongest attempt.

Yet one wonders why this line of campaigning took so long to pursue. Having spent more than four months failing to connect with voters on the experience argument, the Clinton campaign should have either switched messages or done a better job of articulating their current one. They should have recognized that voters did not have a base of knowledge from which to evaluate what kind of experience would really be necessary for the presidency. Voters needed real examples, a more complete understanding of why Hillary's background would make her more capable.

When her campaign did make those arguments, they were often veiled in ambiguity, and targeting the wrong issues. On health care, for example, Hillary argued that she was more likely to pass reforms based on her failed experience in the 1990s. This was an odd formulation: Vote for me because I've already failed.

The experience argument was clearly flawed from the beginning. Having ceded the "change" moniker to Obama, Clinton spent most of the campaign winning the losing side of the argument. But beyond its inherit flaws, its implementation has been particularly subpar. Friday's ad is the first sign that her strategy is being recalibrated, though it is likely far too little, far too late.

Instead, Hillary's "red phone" ad will become emblematic of one of the most serious flaws of her campaign's tactics: a chronic slowness to respond and revaluate.

Contrasting Obama and Hillary on this particular issue demonstrates the disparity well. Having spent the entirety of her campaign delivering a failing message, it took until February 29th to refocus her otherwise abstract message. But less than eight hours after the ad's release, sensing its potential strength, the Obama campaign released their own response ad, arguing their broader narrative about the importance of judgment. It took five months for the Clinton ship to change direction. With flexibility and confidence, Obama's team responded almost instantly.

Her slowness of response was not isolated, and has been evident through much of the campaign. Despite any evidence that an admission of error on her Iraq war vote would be harmful, Clinton spent the campaign constantly grilled as to why she wouldn't admit her mistake. Though she was willing to offer that she wouldn't have authorized the war today, she was consistently unwilling to critique her original decision. Especially in 2007, when the Iraq war was the top concern for Democratic primary voters, the nuance of her answer caused her to be painted as the least anti-war of the bunch, despite sharing the same voting record as three other candidates. On this issue, the Clinton ship was finally righted at last Tuesday's debate, when for the first time, Hillary admitted she wished she could have that vote back. Again, with only a week before Ohio and Texas, her answer was likely far too little, far too late.

Even on personal finances, her campaign has failed to act rapidly. Though the Obama campaign has been hammering Clinton for her failure to release her tax returns, Clinton seemed truly unprepared for a question about the issue at Tuesday's debate. Could her campaign really not have anticipated the question?

Months before, Hillary's answer at the Philadelphia debate became a major turning point in the race. Asked about her stance on driver's licenses for undocumented workers, Hillary offered at least four different answers, an event that became central to the Obama and Edwards arguments, and pivotal in her Iowa loss. But rather than provide clarification immediately, the Clinton campaign allowed the story to drag on. Their first response, the day following, helped fuel the argument that Hillary was participating in political gymnastics: "Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform." By the time she finally clarified her opposition to the driver's licenses, it was far too little, far too late.

There will no doubt be many ironies that arise out of the 2008 race; perhaps the most poignant is that, in a political family that gave birth to the rapid response campaign war room, Hillary's demise will be, at least in part, the result of a failure to respond with speed.

Comments

[PrdAmerican]

Clearly, this woman has no intention of unifying the Democrats...the way she is doing things she is playing for John McCain's VP slot.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

The latest ad is straight out of the GOP playbook in more ways than one. The Republicans ALWAYS attack in the areas where they are weakest themselves. This is exactly what the 3:00 AM ad has done. If you want to campaign on this front, I'd want someone with military experience picking up the phone.

This ad might prove to be her death knell if she does manage to run against McCain. McCain's people will not forget this; they might even keep a copy squirreled away for their own use. If you want to frame the election on this one issue, I'd vote for McCain before her any day and I've never voted Republican in my life.

[Egghead]

McCain is *already* using this. How's that? It's not wise to take it to his court.

[mhansen]

yeah, so what does the delusional hrc have to say to McCain saying he's the one qualified? Bet she has nothing to say now.

[thromulese]

Rove could have done this commercial.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Mark Penn IS the Democrats version of Karl Rove, except Rove is a whole lot more shrewd. Mark Penn could be compared to a penny knock-off of the dirt master.

If Hillary runs against John McCain with copies of this ad floating around, he'll make her look like Little Mary Sunshine.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Yes, this certainly is not a primary of details and action...just hollow words. Who knew that voters just needed a sermon to make them happy (for the moment). The problem is everyone wants a change from the Republican-controlled Bush years so people are ripe for the picking whenever they hear change....thing is we haven't heard how that "change" will be achieved. It sounds like Barack is asking people to make even more of a sacrifice than they already have...he's just surrounding it with pretty pictures and rainbows.

[kempis]

You know, Dylan, this and all post-mortems of Hillary's campaign may be premature.

If the polls are right--IF--then she stands a good chance of winning Ohio tomorrow.

If Obama loses Ohio, suddenly the chattering class and all but his most devout followers are going to be doubting his inevitability, and the DNC is going to be more than a little bit worried that we have a possible nominee who can't win Ohio in the general election against McCain. In that case, the contest between Hillary and Obama will *have* to continue to April 22 in PA so we can see if Obama does better there. If not, if he loses PA, then he has an electability issue that we've ignored.

So, it's a little early yet for this sort of analysis of why Hillary lost the nomination. Honestly, right now I do hope Obama wins and by a large margin in Ohio, even though I prefer Hillary, because I want us to put this behind us. But if he loses Ohio, we Democrats have a whole bunch of problems....

[IsobelDeBrujah]

If Obama loses Ohio tomorrow he will still be ahead. If he loses Ohio and Texas tomorrow by the margins the polls indicate, he will likely still be ahead. He is winning and the only reason that Senator Clinton is still relevant to the campaign is her last name.

[kempis]

Yes, Obama is ahead by 100 or so delegates, but what worries me is why is he not winning Ohio--even after a month of amazing momentum and with a great ground organization in Ohio? And what does that say (if anything) about his ability to carry a key battleground state in November?

I'm just wondering about that...Of course, the polls may have once again underestimated him and he'll win by a large margin and that will be the end.

[frustratedinohio]

How do you figure she has failed to connect with voters on the the experience arguement? The race is close. Your boy isn't winnning by a landslide.

[kempis]

And in Ohio, IF the polls are right, Hillary's slide has stopped and begun to reverse itself. She'll probably lose Texas--which the Dems won't win anyway in the general election. But if she wins Ohio, it's going to be hard for the party to say, OK, race over. We can't afford to have a nominee who *can't* win Ohio. Florida is probably lost to the Democrats thanks to the damned state legislature's decision to thumb their noses at the national parties and move up their primary. We can't lose Ohio, too. And if Obama can't carry Ohio, this fight needs to continue to PA to see if he can win there. If not, if Hillary wins Ohio and PA, it's hard to imagine the DNC being thrilled with an Obama nomination.

It's possible that people have been overestimating Hillary's electability issue and underestimating Obama's. This is what we'll find out in Ohio tomorrow. Personally, I hope he wins by a landslide and settles this. Hillary would be the better president (IMO), but we need to pick a nominee and get on with the general. If he loses, we'll try again in '12.

[m4rk0]

Oh I don't know. 11 straight landslide losses in a row might be a sign that she is not connecting with voters.

[wldnswmmr]

The flip side of the "experienced" coin is "old and out of date." That's what the Clintonistas fail to appreciate. The Obama crowd is younger and more in tune with modern media and its many routes of connection. I say this as a person about the same age as Hillary, but I recognize her tone deaf and slightly desperate attempt to connect with the modern American electorate. She should have run in 2000 or so. She needs to retire.

[wagadog]

Yah -- and her touting her age and dubious experience over his youth and obvious capability is a little like her calling him....

..."boy."

I don't like it.

[1dogs2]

Given all the "experience" of the Clintons in political battles (the single arena in which her primary claim of superiority has resonance), the repeated errors of her campaign in the past several months are extraordinary. Democrats would do well to examine those errors and consider their consequences in the general election. How is the "experience" card going to play in a contest with McCain? Her "ready on Day One" formula? Her failure to respond to questions about tax returns? Contributions that she declines to return, however sleazy the source? The widespread disenchantment among Democrats with the Clinton/DLC triangulation strategy? Voters' unwillingness to live through more years of destructive politics and gridlock?

[mhansen]

sorry, but her followers are refusing to let this go - they DON'T CARE , that she can't even manage her own campaign, THEY DON'T CARE that she can't manage her own campaign finances and blows it like it's bottomless.

[OverIt]

Bill Clinton in 2004: "One of Clinton's laws of politics is: if one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think; if one candidate is appealing to your fears, and the other one, appealing to your hopes. You better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

OBAMA '08

[Countess]

Once the Clintons realized that they would never win over the liberal wing of the democratic party they decided to rebuild with the ugly side of the party using a combination of Britney Spears, Swiftbaoaters and Billy Cunningham type rhetoric appealing to the remaining racists, frightened and uneducated voters within the party which will work well in places like Ohio. They had to drag the party into their sewer in order to have any chance of winning and yes it is ugly but they could not care less.

[OwenScottIII]

Democratic voters in Ohio and Texas get to decide: will we have a unified party on Wednesday or six more months of bitter fighting all the way up to the Democratic Convention? What a huge responsibility rests in their hands. I hope each voter in Ohio and Texas recognizes the power she or he wields in the voting booth.

[jhamm1]

Being an Ohioan, I'm sorry to relate that even if Obama wins, the party will remain divided considering the sheer number of so-called Democrats in my state who have vocally pledged to vote for McCain in the event of prospective Obama nomination.

[PrimeTimeMom]

Those people have "issues" that can not be helped by any of the candidates.

[timm0]

If people's #1 pick is HRC and #2 is mccain, doesn't that STRONGLY suggest that there is something seriously warped in their logic? Heat of the moment or not, it's remarkable that someone would choose an absolute loser like mccain over Obama.

Of course, if the shoe were on the other foot and I had to choose between Clinton, mccain, and some third party, I think I'd seriously consider the 3rd party. In a Clinton vs. mccain bout, there will absolutely be more to choose from than nader. You can find fault with that, I suppose, but perma-war is pretty much assured with either Clinton or mccain - as is the probable loss of House and Senate majority for the Dems.

[OwenScottIII]

People say a lot of things in the heat of their emotions. When the dust settles, they will have the choice of war and more war or reason and reconciliation within and without. If they still want to vote for Sen. McCain, in spite of every Democratic leader urging them to do the right thing, perhaps they should go ahead and vote with their feelings and ride the wave of the past. It's a free country.