The Memo That Could Have Made Hillary President

In the wake of Patti Solis Doyle's resignation as Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, there was little surprise that, soon after her departure, Mike Henry would follow. As Doyle's deputy, Henry's ouster was expected, a move required to make room for lieutenants loyal to Maggie Williams.

But because his departure was expected, it passed with little specific media attention, grouped instead with the broader narrative of a Clinton campaign on the ropes, and a long overdue shake-up in the works. What is most noteworthy about Henry is not that he was forced out of the campaign at the outset of its demise; rather, it is that only nine months ago, he penned a memo that could have made Clinton president.

In May of 2007, the press got their hands on a leaked strategy memo from the Clinton campaign, written by Deputy Campaign Manager Mike Henry, advocating that Clinton forego Iowa. It reasoned that Iowa was the weakest of the early states for Clinton, that a loss there could be irreparable, and that, given her wide margins nationally and in other early states, whatever backlash she would face by bypassing the state could easily be weathered.

The leaked memo was a major story in May, the first bump in a narrative of inevitability that had adorned the campaign. Senior advisers quickly asserted that the memo had never been taken seriously, while Senator Clinton was dispatched to Iowa to prove her commitment to the state. Helping to craft a media narrative of inevitability may have been wise politics; believing it, however, was a fatal mistake. Mark Penn and Clinton's other senior advisers continued to run a re-election campaign of incumbency. Instead of heeding the advice of her deputy, Clinton competed aggressively in Iowa, ultimately placing a dismal third, and spending the bulk of her war chest.

She may have survived in New Hampshire, but the closeness of that race and those to follow forever changed not just the narrative of the race, but the perception of Obama in the voters' eyes. A triumphant victory in South Carolina, on the heels of Clinton-injected racial tension, led Obama to win more states and more delegates than Clinton on Super Tuesday, and has since led to eight 20+ point victories in a row. Today, Obama sits with a delegate lead so high that Hillary's only path to the nomination is through the dirtiest of tricks: changing the rules mid-cycle to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, or having the super delegates overturn the will of the people in a backroom deal that would make John Quincy Adams and Rutherford B. Hayes proud. The nomination fight is over, even if Clinton doesn't know it yet. But it didn't have to end this way.

Had Clinton taken the advice of Mike Henry in May of 2007, she would be the presumptive Democratic nominee today, while Barack Obama would be weighing the merits of a gubanatorial race in Illinois. She would have taken a hit, to be sure, probably suffering a series of negative news cycles in the early part of the summer. Her inevitability may have been questioned by some, but her dramatic leads in national polls and early state contests would have continued to propel the same basic narrative. She could have deployed surrogates to make the same argument against caucuses that she is being forced to make today, on the other side of nine caucus losses. "Caucuses are undemocratic, " she could have said, "They disenfranchise the working class and take away the secret ballot. This is not a way to elect a president of this great nation." Over and over, her surrogates would have hammered the point until, by mid-June, the media would have moved on, leaving Iowa with less meaning and certainly less value.

Barack Obama would have won Iowa, but the race would not have been billed as competitive, never providing him the opportunity to proclaim, "They said this day would never come." Five days later Hillary would have found victory in New Hampshire, but likely with a significantly larger margin, the bump from Iowa being non-existent for Obama. And with a significant win in New Hampshire and Nevada, she would have marched into South Carolina with the kind of support among African Americans she enjoyed throughout most of 2007. She would have swept the early contests where she competed and used that momentum to end the Obama campaign on February 5th. Mike Henry would have been cheered as a hero, the one man with the foresight to correct course on a campaign where few saw the icebergs in the distance.

Instead, Mike Henry sits home today, fired from a national campaign that has collapsed in on itself, knowing full well that had she taken his advice, Hillary Clinton could very well have been president.

**For more from Dylan Loewe, visit Loewe Political Report.

Comments

[Tasies]

Hillary is a victim of a generational push cashing in their chips. Perhaps for the first time in our political history older voters(30-50) are falling in line with our youth. Hillary''s and her surrogate's message has been to completely undermine and arrogantly dismiss this generational push; often defining it as delusional or as cult of personality oriented. Hillary's brand of arrogance only motivated more independents, young voters, fence Repubs, and progressives to not only cast their votes for Obama, but to actively support his campaign.

Counterpro­ductively, her campaign continues to use arrogance and mud politics as a building point, and ignores other more finese oriented strategies in order to appeal to young voters and independents.

We all know who the future of this nation belongs to, some in the Democratic establishment have recognized it, while some have ignored it. Those who resoundingly support the rare opportunity to have our sons and daughters hope filled and participatory will reap the benefits. While those who chose to ignore it will be permenantly lost in a time capsule.

[Obamacan]

Excellent analysis.

[Politiking]

Iowa should not be first anyway. How can a small state with insignificant demographics be significant. The Super Tuesday states must be first and put Iowa last.

[Liberal2]

Because it lets a underfinanced candidate demonstrate his/her ability to reach voters. The corporate and MSM-blessed candidate doesn't automatically win. The ability to literally go from home to home to present one's message and persona are tested, not whether one has a 100,000,000 dollar campaign kitty with which to advertise and fly from event to event in style.

[BJNemeth]

Excellent summary, Liberal2. Most people complain about the current system without thinking about the horrors that the proposed alternatives offer.

[kaplan88]

Interesting article. Not sure I agree with the conclusion tho...one thing that I've noticed is that when Obama campaigns in a state his numbers go up. Yes he did lose Ma, Ca and Ny but Hillary's leads in those states were very large and Obama pre-super tuesday spent his time in SC while Clinton skipped across the country leaving Bill to campaign in SC.

There seems to be a narrative among Clinton supporters that Obama is getting preferencial treatment by the media and one only has to read Huff Post or Daily Kos to see there is a bias against Clinton...but thats not the whole story.

The media has only so much influence and I would think that Dem voters most of all would have some skepticism when it comes to all things media since it was so complicit in the run-up to the war (Walter Pincus @ WaPost and the guys at Knight Ridder not withstanding).

So I don't think it's the media's hate for Clinton that is driving people to stand in line for hours so they can hear Obama speak...Obama has run a masterful campaign and people from all walks of life are responding to him.

Whatever the reason for people opening the door for Obama he is the one "sealing the deal" ...which is something HRC has not been able to do (up to this point).

Dems '08

[redtorm]

I don't think you're looking back far enough.

This goes all the way back to 2004 when the media and the DLCers scared the party away from Dean and Edwards, the two strongest candidates in 2004. Both had (have) large groups of passionate supporters that didn't agree with the party establishment. Dean raised a TON of money. Then the Lamont campaign up in Conn. showed that the netroots was organized and could impact elections. Her campaign is this archaic 20th century machine that Obama is running circles around.

If anyone in Hillary's camp had been paying attention to the blogs and internet donation numbers they should have seen the ABC (Anyone But Clinton) train picking up steam. Yes, she was leading in the polls but 50-60% of the Dems wanted someone else after the *safe* 2004 choice Kerry debacle. Obama was fortunate that most of the competition dropped out before Super Tuesday and all the anti-Clinton folks have rallied for him. She would have been better off recognizing that the majority of Dems were not comfortable with her as the nominee and addressed those issues instead of running this incumbent entitled coronation its-my0trn-darn-it!

[SamThornton]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. If my uncle could lay eggs he'd have a job with Tyson Foods.

[itsnotmyfault]

I think your analysis is exactly correct. The credibility boost that Obama experienced really propelled his entire campaign. The residual effects of Hillary skipping Iowa would not have consequently hurt her in New Hampshire. With continued campaigning as the front runner, post a more significant percentage win in New Hampshire, it is likely that the issues which were ultimately mischaracterized as race baiting would never been part of her campaign. The campaign would not have adopted a defensive posture but could simply have furthered her message.

Its a pretty incredible confluence of events that have not served Hillary's objectives at all. Conversely Obama has had few missteps and has navigated the race issue with great facility.

[cemlo2]

You're kidding, right? Taking the memo's advice would not have helped Hillary.

Hillary would have been doomed in NH had she not competed in Iowa, because Iowans had shocked the 'World'!
If Hillary didn't compete and Barack won, her campaign's mind-set would not have been able to prepare or adjust to whites voting for a unique-black man, any better than it had. The Hillary campaign would have become even more rattled than it, eventually, became...
In the absence of Hillary in Iowa, whites and young folk in NH would have felt ever more comfortable voting Sen. Obama. Hillary and Bill are old school; and you can't teach old dogs, new tricks. Hillary, in NH, would have placed third.
That's just my opinion!

[CenterLeftLawyer]

Very thoughtful post-let me ad this to your thoughts. If HRC skips Iowa, maybe her voters go with John Edwards. Followed by, as you posit, HRC wins in NH and Nevada, and at worst a close loss in SC.

Hindsight is 20/20, but Mike Hnery's foresight was dead on.

Again, good post.

[timm0]

Oh, I have a feeling that even had she skipped Iowa, there would still have been many, many opportunities to fall apart. Several Rs played the skipping game and lost. It's no guarantee. Skipping Iowa may have even led to HRC eking out the Dem candidacy - but it'd have only fallen to pieces in the General.

The "top" DLC advisers have been part and parcel of so many election disasters over the last 12 years that anyone tightly affiliated with the unrepentant ones (like HRC is) has a far higher chance of collapse than those using better talent. The bizarre thing here is that the super-geniuses who guided Bubba's successful campaigns have pretty much ONLY that success in their portfolio. All the Clinton devotees have been faithful - to a fault - to that gang of "experts." Maybe [hopefully!] this will be the end of their careers.

[klondiker]

It's interesting to speculate, but I highly doubt that by skipping Iowa, Clinton would would be the frontrunner now.

Iowa did not make or break this election, and any momentum that Obama got from Iowa was dulled by Clinton wins in New Hampshire, Nevada, and (dare I say it) Michigan.

And, don't forget that Giuliani tried the same strategy - i.e, skip elections where you might not win, and look where that got him.

[happytrails]

Maybe NOTHING would have saved the Clinton self-proclamation of invincibility once the VOTERS had a chance to evaluate her and her record of Bu$h enabling.

She is not winning because people do not like or trust her!

[MPeter]

The problem is that she did not only believe that this would be a corronation, she believed that she was a machine, running a flawless campaign. She thought she would win the many war and would seal the deal by Super Tuesday. She had no battle plan after that, and now she finds herself at the Alamo in Texas, plotting to change the rules of the game as her last stand. How can such a failed campaign be Ready from Day One?

[youngbodhisattva]

Hmmm... the Clinton campaign was so sure of her predictions they did not plan for an "exit strategy". Sound familiar?

[Ides]

They were lured into a false sense of security by their own luck.

Bill Clinton NEVER won more than 49% of the vote. Hillary Clinton won a Senate seat in a blue state and held it by refusing to debate. She thought she would coast to the nomination on Democratic Party stupidity and complacency and they started to believe their own mythology.

The only way Hillary wins the presidency is if Republicans don't vote. Her very nature belies that.

[leftbehind2000]

Agreed. I'd go so far as to say that Clinton felt ENTITLED to the nomination. Having the blessing of the party in her pocket on day one, she felt that was really all she needed. Kindda like Romney did. After all, it worked for GWB, who had the party's entire weight behind him in 2000 in his campaign to annihilate John McCain. And it worked for Kerry in 2004, to the extent that he was the party's choice and, no matter how badly he polled in the early going, he was going to be the party's nominee. And we went right along, holding our nose and voting Kerry - dooming us to 4 more years of Bush.

This time around, the American people thought differently. After letting the party decide for us in 2004, we went out and voted the way we wanted. And both political parties and all the talking heads have been up in arms. You have doofuses like Rush Limbaugh threatening to take his ball and go home because the Republican voters renounced the empty suited Romney for McCain. Now McCain scampers to the right (not that he has as far to go as the pundits indicate) in order to placate the powers that be. And you have Ms. Clinton, who must be bewildered that all of the political tricks that worked for everyone in the past are failing to work for her.

I'd like to think that the statement made by the voters in 2008 will put an end to the cynical manipulations of both political parties in future presidential elections. But I think we all know better. We'll just have to do this all over again in 2012. And 2016.

[DoninJoisey]

The Clintons believe this is all about strategy and "marketing".
I don't think it is. It is about change, and the Clintons only offer a return to what was.
The traditional "divide and conquer" Rovian politics - I've had enough of.

That's not what I, and many others want. I don't want republican spin replaced by democratic spin.
I want another path of America pulling together to address problems, of reaching consensus.

It isn't the campaign, it's the message - same old, same old.

[AZModerate]

I see paralells between this, and another infamously ignored memmo called "Osama Bin Laded Dermined to Attack Within the US"

Surround yourself with nothing but Yes Men and Crony's, good (however inconvenient) advice is ignored at the organization's peril.