Clinton Campaigning As She Would Govern

Recently asked by Chris Matthews about Barack Obama's accomplishments, Jim Doyle, the governor of Wisconsin and an Obama supporter, listed his candidate's presidential campaign among various achievements. Lanny Davis, the Clintons' pitbull du jour, predictably scoffed. But why? Surely the way a campaign is run, especially one as long and complicated as this year's Democratic primary, says a lot about a candidate's management ability, discipline, stamina, salesmanship, and a host of other skills that are critical to governing.

Of course, it is understandable why Davis and other Clinton backers would rather ignore the way Hillary Clinton has managed the current contest. By any measure, her operation has been inferior to Obama's, although significantly better than any of the Republicans'. John McCain's dogged roller-coaster of a campaign does not bode particularly well for his presidency (it's actually likely to preempt it), and his was the best of the bunch, it seems, since he will be the nominee.

Many in the media, mainstream and other, attribute Clinton's inability to contain Obama's insurgency to some irrational messianic pull he supposedly holds over Americans. This is also Bill Clinton's new line of attack, which is funny as he never questioned voters' ability to make a rational decision when he, a deeply flawed governor of a tiny state, was plucked from obscurity and elected to the presidency on the wings of Ross Perot's own bizarre run. The messianic angle is demeaning to Obama and to those who are voting for him, and it doesn't begin to tell the story of his near-flawless campaign to date, and of Clinton's own management failures.

Obama's team, opportunistic, experienced (yes) and passionate, built its financial and marketing operation in a breathtakingly disciplined and strategic manner. With some luck, of course, and a "product" in Obama that was a far better fit with the spirit of the times than most had anticipated, the campaign has succeeded in launching a likely future president from scratch, in a little over a year.

Clinton, on the other hand, did not see Obama coming and dismissed him as an arriviste who would soon enough realize that he should wait his turn and embrace a Clinton restoration. This lack of vision by the candidate herself was compounded by her senior staff, a deeply unappealing group whose arrogance continues to damage her campaign, and who seem unable to convey the most basic truths to their boss. That she has surrounded herself with relative incompetents such as Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Patti Solis Doyle is obviously one of her biggest failings, and should give pause to anyone reflecting on the kind of staffing choices she would have to make as president.

The much-vaunted discipline of the first six months of her campaign was never really put to the test, as voters did not tune in until mid-December even in the earliest states, and Clinton was riding high on a wave of name recognition. By the time control was needed, after an Iowa third place that should have never happened to begin with, discipline was in very short supply: Bill and other surrogates went completely off message, in-fighting and blaming began and, most shockingly, money ran dry. That Clinton blew through $100 million in a few months with so little to show for it is a problem in itself. More frighteningly, though, she appeared oblivious about her burn rate and the potential effects on her campaign, a terrible indictment of her financial management skills. Again, this is not exactly what one would be looking for in a president, especially one who is touting her ability to manage the economy back to recovery. Administering a campaign's finances is not exactly a complex task when compared to managing the multi-billion dollar US federal government budget.

Then there is the message: ever-changing, crude, increasingly bitter and in deep contrast to Obama's constantly hopeful image. It is mind-boggling that the Clinton campaign could have failed to understand the importance of two key factors: the yearning for change, and the distaste for the street-fighting brutality that is the Clintons' trademark. On change, one poll after another showed it at the top of Democratic and independent voters' priorities. Clearly, Clinton was aware of this, as evidenced by her abrupt adjustment in time for New Hampshire. It may be that the campaign then reverted back to the experience tack because it felt she was an implausible change agent, but, to put it bluntly, it was never clear either that her kind of experience mattered. The US presidency is notorious for shutting itself off from Americans' everyday realities, but to be so out of touch with voters' feelings even before making it (back) to the White House is unusual (even George W. Bush's campaign somehow managed to tap into something with its retrospectively grotesque compassionate conservatism propaganda).

Clinton's post-Iowa reworked message morphed into increasingly personal, angry and entitled attacks on Obama as a talker not a doer. It is at that point, especially as South Carolina was looking to be a complete bust, that the campaign should have felt that primary voters would not tolerate the type of aggression that the Clintons practice as a matter of course, especially since Hillary wasn't under unusually belligerent pressure. But the Clintons and their court simply don't know any better, and it is far too easy to picture a Clinton White House in 2009 that throws us back to the darkest dysfunction of Bill's presidency, and the inevitable political paralysis this would cause.

To this day, the campaign just doesn't get the silliness of slogans that, for instance most recently, paint Clinton as a hard worker (we ASSUME presidential candidates are hard workers; are they saying Obama has been on vacation for the past 15 years?). The Clintons don't get that the constant petty jabbing and maneuvering (plagiarism! hot air! disenfranchised delegates!) should be way, way below them and that, in the end, it irredeemably cheapens her candidacy, making her look anything but presidential. It is a remarkable feat that it also makes her husband, a two-term president, look anything but presidential. And it plays into the worst stereotypes of Hillary as a small-minded and dishonest conniver who doesn't understand why she may be denied what she deems to be (and has been told is) her due. With this in mind, how on earth do we expect that a Clinton presidency could take anything but the low road, with little to show for its fights except power itself?

Hillary Clinton is not a straightforward sell, but she is smart, hard-working (yes) and accomplished, and with well over $100 million to package her in the primary alone, what a dreadful job she, her husband and her surrogates have done. It is tragic that this woman alone on the road, more or less Huckabee-style, with Bill tucked away in Chappaqua, may well have achieved far more than her current humiliating showing, if only because it wouldn't have further darkened the couple's legacy. But of course she'd want us to know that she ultimately determined how to run her campaign and that decision tells us a lot about what kind of a president she would be. Or would have been.

Comments

[RationalThoughtProcess]

There is a new poll that shows Obama ahead by 14% in Texas and up by 8% in Ohio.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/decision-analyst-obama-texas-ohio-mccain-022308005.html

This is just one poll, of course, but clearly the turnout in Texas is not going to closely resemble the turnout in past elections, so I think most polls are under-representing Obama's likely vote totals there, and the same is probably true in Ohio.

[mhansen]

great points you make here -

now when will you write an article outlining just how much experience both candidates do have accumulated - case in point, she is always touting her experience - dailykos has this for Obama....
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/2013%2032/807/36/458633

[tokesan]

Very good article, it echoes a lot of my sentiments when I wrote this on my own blog:
Obama has won 10 straight primaries in a row and he is already looking presidential. This spells trouble for Hillary Clinton and slowly signaling her exit from the 2008 Presidential Campaign and fast ending her bid to become the first women president. I feel more than disappointed, I am miffed that it is happening because I am a Clinton supporter, In fact unlike a lot of people, I contributed $135 towards her campaign and that"s why I am disappointed at her performance in the last several primaries. I believe she is right for the position. She is very intelligent and a real hard worker that would have been a hands-on, get-it-right type of president. But I am afraid those same qualities will preventing her from relinquishing the nomination and that will further taint hers and President Clinton"s image.
For weeks now I have been watching the polls and I am tired being on the losing side and seriously considering switching my support to Obama.
There are several things that must have went wrong with Hillary Clinton"s campaign and I am no political pundit and I lack the journalistic network that could supply me with insider information and don"t have facts. Therefore what I am writing about is solely from the point of view of an ordinary observer.
I wanted to write her (though my email would not have gotten through) early in the campaign that though I support her bid she wasn"t convincing me enough in her debates, her speeches and her appearances. If she has failed to solidify her support with an averagely smart guy how would she be able to persuade those other average Joes and Janes that she is the right one for the job. She has totally played the whole affair like a Washington insider and I am mad at her for wasting my contribution as a lot of people should. After all we put our faiths in her, we expected her to herald our opinions, shout out our pains (figuratively for this writer) plead our plights on the campaign trails and rally America to follow her.
I have seen her as too standoffish and often times without emotions whereas Barack Obama, played the oratory role at every chance he gets. There was only one moment of vulnerability Hilary Clinton showed, by chocking up tears, and that was just before the New Hampshire primaries; however, instead of banking on that she quickly returned to the professional politician that she is in all subsequent appearances; and the results is pretty much handling Obama the 2008 Democratic nomination. That was the same stance and perceived squeakiness that cost Al Gore the presidency.
Political analysts and experts alike are now saying that the Democratic Party Superdelegates in the end might have to play role in determining who won the nomination on the Democratic front. I certainly hope that will not be the case because these Superdelegates just might be ignorant enough of people"s desire for Obama that they"d use insider arm-twisting tactics to hand Hillary the nomination. That will be another sad episode in the American democratic process just like the Presidential Election of 2004. Frankly I think the whole system of using delegates should be scrapped but WE are somehow, always too emotional in our political system and views to want any change, however flawed the status quo.
It is highly unlikely that the Obama momentum will stop anytime soon therefore Bill and Hillary should take good look at their asiprations, exit the 2008 campaign and thank the American people for the opportunities to serve.

[askmeificare]

Coke thought change in 1985 would be a good thing.

[guy227]

In 1985 no one was asking for new coke.

[Plowboy]

If she governed like she has campaigned this week, she'd have us in more war than even George Bush the Lesser dreamed of!
What an objectionable person! So unnecessarily beligerant, so false, too.

Probably even Uriah Heep McCain is a better choice. I don't think he wants a hundred years of war; he won't be around that long. I think he only said that stuff to please his soul's master, Mr. Bush who conquered him in South Carolina in 2000.

[RichLiberal]

So tedious. Now Hillary can't manage money.

Let's look back at her and Bill's White House years:

Started: half trillion dollar per year deficit, no end in sight left by Bush Sr and Reagan.
Action: tax increase on upper income brackets
Result: by 2000 there were surplusses as far as the eye could see. There were 22 million jobs added to the economy. Ask working people if that matters, Obama people. Oh you're not old enough to have had a real job yet. Oh, you don't know what it means to have to pay a mortgage and the bills and to take care of kids like you.

Obama's had a slick campaign. And for some reason the media just doesn't want to get on his case about all the "little problems" in his record, most important of which is ducking votes like Iran while criticizing Hillary on her vote. Pretty slick campaign that can get the press to dance like puppets. Wonder who's behind that?

[Dalpine]

It's frightening to see the similarities in operational style. Hire those who are loyal and keep their mouths shut,they needn't be competent. Ignore the speed at which money is being spent (you didn't really earn it and it's meant for your mission so who cares). Make a plan and stick with it until the money runs out or donors start freaking out. If in doubt pretend to be gracious then attack and destroy. No exit plan.

[JUSTME]

"So tedious. Now Hillary can't manage money.
Let's look back at her and Bill's White House years"

You can argue spin any way you like, but you can't argue facts. The fact, in this instance, is that the Clinton campaign has gone through an enormous amount of money and there is little to show for it. This is uncomfortable to Hillary supporters, but it is true. It's also true that Hillary had to make an emergency loan to herself because she had no idea her campaign had run out of money. This is another fact, not a fabrication. I have very little money myself, but I know exactly how much I have left in my checking account.

Your comment also raises the question of whether you are crediting Hillary with creating the surpluses of the nineties and those 22 million jobs. I understand that she has somehow managed to meld in her mind Bill's experience and her own, but even the most partisan supporter has to admit that Hillary is in no way responsible for the financial feats you have enumerated.

[LoRiseAntlers]

The Clintons also behave as if they really don't care that they're feeding the GOP all it's attack memes.It's almost as if she can't be President,then they'll make sure that Obama won't be either.
The good of the country and the party count for little.What is important is that the Clintons reclaim the White House.

[seejake]

excellent post Paul. I had just made a similar argument in an earlier comment, but nowhere near as detailed and eloquent as you have. ironically, I was talking to my father as this post was open on my screen, and he made just that point. it was great to read your article just after. cheers!

[glorija]

Thank you for your thoughtful article.

It is actually that simple: just compare the ways in which the candidates are running their campaigns and see what kind of administration they would run.

[AnninCA]

Well, oddly, we agree.

I see balloons, speeches that say nothing, Oprah, and tactics that would give Republicans pause.....

And then I see issues, platforms and a straightforward message.

So you're right.

[besscannon]

Every different publication I read, their political stance is so apparent. What happened to the impartial media? You can sure tell where Huffington Post, leans. WHY are the publications doing this so-o-o much anymore instead of reporting the news as they should every political article sounds like a stump speech for their favorite candidate. SHAME ON YOU, Huffington Post!!!!

[midtown]

Brilliant.

[patriotscholar]

Ok, let's cut to the real issues that we need to ask from both candidates:

(1) How will you make the economy better (in detail)?
(2) Specifically, how will you stop jobs from leaving the U.S.?
(3) How would you solve the illegal alien crisis?
(4) What is your plan for extrication from Iraq?
(5) Will you restore government integrity, pass reform bills and limit lobbyists?
(6) Will you fix our nation's infrastructures (dams, levees, highways and critical utilities)?
(7) Will you pledge to restore habeas corpus, restore our constitution and roll back executive orders that have infringed on our constitutional rights?
(8) Will you protect American citizens from eavesdropping and will you sign protections into law?
(9) What are your views on the rumored "North American Union" which would essentially gut our constitution?
(10) Will you ban torture and follow the Geneva Convention rules?
These things are important.

Update: Question #7
Go here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/politics?type=politicsNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL&src=blogBurst_politicsNews&bbPostId=Cz1VeFnrO5fmhCz7sNEgkr6eaqCz3hWJURc5eE5Cz8bp0emPnej3&bbParentWidgetId=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL

[gun]

paul -- good column

because if she were as smart, experienced and trained as her supporters use to preach,

Why would she be doing such short-sighted, stupid, wasteful things?

And where would be the evidence in her past that she has made anything work?

Seriously, looking at her campaign and the way it goes off like a flare in a fireworks stand,

I think her intelligence must be a myth.

But here's one final test: How long will it take her to realize that her campaign is over and deal with it in a way that benefits us all.

[naugiedoggie]

"I think her intelligence must be a myth."

Seriously, I'm tired of Obama-bots parading ignorance as insight.

* Graduated with honors, Wellesley College

* Board of Editors, Yale Law Review

* While at Yale, worked on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services

* 1970, awarded a grant to work at Marian Edelman's Washington Research Project, researching migrant labor issues for Walter Mondale

* 1971 interned on child custody cases at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein (prominent civil liberties and constitutional firm)

* 1972 campaigned for George McGovern

* 1973 Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review. Still cited in the field.

Those are some of her intellectual and moral antecedents. Essentially, a promising career of a brilliant, hardworking woman was sidetracked by marriage (where have we heard that before?).

Really, if the people who post these blog entries were to be considered representative of the intelligence, education and thoughtfulness of the "average" Obama supporter, we would have to conclude that the majority of his supporters are ignorant, rednecked 8th-grade dropouts. Although, that might insult 8th-graders.

I am so sick of people who know NOTHING about Hillary Clinton's life work and accomplishments, spewing out this drivel as though they were some kind of World Experts(TM) on the subject.

Get a clue, people. Read. Think. Write.

In that order.

Thanks.

mp

[Jeffersonian1]

*1993-4 Tasked with management of the administration's health care reform proposal which was promulgated in secrecy (unmatched in DC until Dick Cheney and friends "did" energy policy) by a carefully selected group of advisors to which the concept of "devil's advocate" was apparently unknown and whose day to day efforts were led by an academic "management consultant" with rather unconventional, to put it charitably, management theories who had never drafted a major piece of federal legislation or shepherded a bill through Congress. In contrast to the lengthy promulgation process, legislative lobbying for and negotiation over the proposal were relatively brief, it did not receive a floor vote in either house of Congress despite Democratic majorities in both, majorities that were overwhelmingly lost weeks later in significant part due to voter dissatisfaction about the health care debacle.

*1994-1999 was de facto lead lawyer and chief strategist for the administration's dealings with Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr, overriding both legal and political advice insisted upon a "scorched earth" policy that observers contend needlessly extended the investigation by years

2000-2008 put in place a campaign management team (bearing eerie resemblance to the practices of the health care reform promulgation) which managed to blow through $100 million while also permitting Senator Obama to rent offices and hire staff in ten states in which the Clinton campaign was not represented by a single individual who was formally part of her campaign.

[Omitted - responsibility over decades for tamping down various and sundry "bimbo eruptions" the details of which I hope never to know]

Read. Think. Write. Indeed.

[rwilliams1961]

I'm sick and tired of her crap. I hope the voters in Ohio and (my state of) Texas don't give us four more years of the same BS we've had for the past seven and that we've seen in her campaign. Whether it's race baiting in SC or lying about Obama's Reagan comments, these people have to go.

Say "no" to the Clintons and let's get on with the America we've all been waiting for.

[AnninCA]

I'm sick and tired already of Obamamania and naive statements.

I was so ready to really get down and fix things.

Oh well......will you go away?

I doubt it.

[6thVenom]

Your analysis was spot on, Paul. I'm tired of hearing that as an Obama supporter, I'm under some type of spell. I like to think that I'm capable of an independent thought. I'm also into that whole reading and writing thing too, and I determined on my own that Clinton has run a disorganized, almost schizophrenic campaign. I do think she's better than what her advisors and her husband portrayed her to be, but whether it was her inability or unwillingness to improve things, her lack of action in order to stem the bleeding has proven to be very detrimental.
Obama on the other hand has run a campaign like a professional and experienced candidate. To me, that shows that he is indeed ready to lead.

[april4president]

This was a fabulous, vindicating read! The opener says it all:

"The messianic angle is demeaning to Obama and to those who are voting for him, and it doesn't begin to tell the story of his near-flawless campaign to date, and of Clinton's own management failures."

AMEN! Thank you, Paul Jenkins!