Whatever other mistakes Hillary Clinton made in her near-miss run for the Democratic nomination, the most serious may have been when she decided to act like a tree. A tree was surely not what she and her advisers had in mind, but a tree is what they got -- specifically a Borneo oak.
The oaks of Borneo are a very selective species, at least when it comes to dropping their seeds. Most trees bear fruit every year since that maximizes their opportunities to scatter their genes. The Borneo oaks, however, hold their fire, entering the fruiting season only once every four years, during a six-week window from February to March when they fairly carpet-bomb the forest, with a single oak dumping as much as 435 lbs. of seed. The trees may not get many chances to make their genetic mark, but when they do, they use such overwhelming force they simply bulldoze competing species out of the way.
Clinton too had a busy February in the fourth year of a quadrennial cycle, particularly on Super Tuesday, when 24 states held their primaries and caucuses. And she too decided that the best strategy was to flood the zone, pouring all of her resources into a single massive strike that would clear the field of any competitors. Both Clinton and the oaks needed their go-for-broke strategy to work, since once it was over they were both out of resources. In the trees' case it worked -- it always works since they've been at this for millions of years and other species have adapted to give them room. In Clinton's case, it didn't. Facing Barack Obama -- a tree as strong as she -- she battled to a draw, then found herself short of funds for the rest of the campaign.
Clinton and the oaks were both following the strategy of inundation -- an exceedingly simple tactic on which very complex things turn. Warfare can be an exercise in inundation, as generals planning assaults like D-Day throw wave after wave of soldiers at the beach until the enemy finally yields. Egg-laying fish are inundators too, producing hundreds of young to ensure that at least a few make it to adulthood. Conception itself may be the ultimate act of inundation, with millions of sperm setting out after a single egg. The fact that the best strategies 21st century campaigns can come up with are ones that fish and sperm figured out long ago does not suggest a paucity of good ideas so much as the sheer power of one very simple one.
Of all the things that confound human beings, perhaps nothing trips us up as much as what it means for something to be simple or complex -- and which of the two is the more powerful. Nowhere is this quite so true as in the world of campaigns. Think a million-dollar-a-minute commercial that's been conceived and produced with the assistance of focus groups, marketing whizzes and demographic experts is a powerful thing? Maybe it is -- until it's trumped by a blogger who gets a movement going with a single powerful idea. Think the muscle of big money always wins big elections? Often it does, but often it doesn't -- as Presidents Mitt Romney or Phil Gramm or Steve Forbes or Ross Perot or John Connally could tell you.
This year as in most years, the two candidates still standing are going to learn anew the power of simplicity and the perils of complexity in ways that will either thrill or madden you, depending on which horse you're backing. John McCain may never shake the albatross of seeming to say (but not actually saying) that he doesn't much care if the Iraq war goes on for 100 years. What he did say is that it doesn't really matter if U.S. forces are there for 100 years -- provided a stable government is at last in place, and that the shooting has stopped so our troops are not in harm's way, and that America is successfully maintaining the peace the way it has in Korea for the last 50 years or Europe for the last 60. That's a whole lot of complex codicils tacked onto a simple idea. Which part do you think people heard?
McCain boosters may grumble about this, but there was not a peep out of them when the admittedly tone-deaf John Kerry got drawn and quartered in 2004 for his head-smacking statement about voting both ways on an $87 billion war allocation. With patience and Power Point you could get through his explanation that he voted yes for a procedural measure that would authorize $87 in war spending, provided President Bush had some way to pay for it. When it became clear that Bush was going to continue to fight the war on a credit card, Kerry voted no. Even Democrats found it easier to hear only the "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" formulation and then roll their eyes at their candidate's fecklessness.
As David Axelrod, the tactical master of Barack Obama's campaign, points out, little things that animate an existing storyline will always have greater impact than big things that contradict what people think they know about a candidate. That's why Dan Quayle -- who from the start struck voters as a man possessed of low-watt intellect -- came to such grief when he misspelled potato. That's why Bill Clinton -- a compulsive truth-parser -- inspired such hoots when he wondered what the meaning of "is" is. And that's why some potential embarrassments can just roll off a campaign. During one debate earlier this year, Hillary Clinton tripped over her tongue trying to get out the name of new Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, then shrugged it off with a blithe, "Whatever." Voters shrugged it off too, since Clinton -- always the best-prepared person in any room -- had clearly simply stumbled. Now imagine if Quayle or Bush had made the same mistake.
From now through November, both camps in the current race face these kinds of perils. The incoming missiles from the other side will be easy to see and shoot down. It's the buried mine of a candidate's misstatement or the home-made ordnance of an angry blogger that could blow them off the field. From now on, both Obama and McCain would do well to armor up.
Jeffrey Kluger is a senior editor and writer for Time magazine. With astronaut Jim Lovell, he wrote Apollo 13, on which the 1995 movie was based. His other books include the critically acclaimed Splendid Solution: Jonas Salk and the Conquest of Polio. Kluger lives in New York City with this wife and daughters. For more information, please visit http://www.simplexitybook.com.
But that was before he took stock after the 2004 Bush smear campaign.
On one hand, I can appreciate the realpolitik of his need to pander to the extremist Rightwing base if he is to further himself in the Republican party. he can't operate within that group without doing so.
On the other hand, flagrant pandering and lying is dishonorable and undermines his integrity.
He had decided to be competitive, at the price of being honourable.
Sadly, the GOP is in such a hole (of their own making) that his pandering will be for naught and he'll end up losing the presidential election, as well as his honour.
Sad, when you think about it.
Michelle, in particular, should have some seriously thick stuff for swiftboats when they attack.