RECENT POSTS
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Hillary: Ready On Day ... 57?
February 18, 2008 10:33 AM
Matt Mosk of the Washington Post takes a look today at the peculiar Texas primary/caucus system.
His story contains some stunners about the Clinton campaign's apparent ignorance of this process (emphases below added):
"Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.
"Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended.
"What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates."
Ummm…these rules have been in place since last year, guys.
Publius writes:
"Good lord, let’s see if I have this right. The Clinton campaign decides to cede every post-Super Tuesday state to Obama under the theory that Texas and Ohio will be strong firewalls. After – after – implementing this Rudy-esque strategy, they 'discovered' that the archaic Texas rules will almost certainly result in a split delegate count (at best).
"While they were busy 'discovering' the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making Powerpoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose. (ed. Maybe foresight is an obsolete macrotrend.)
"In this respect, Texas is simply a microcosm of the larger campaign dynamics. In fact, if the Clinton campaign were a corporation, the shareholders would have pretty good grounds for a derivative suit for Texas alone."
And Hilzoy also weighs in:
"When I read this, I dissolved in giggles after the first sentence. It was that part about the Texas delegate selection rules 'creating a new obstacle for her that got me. In what sense are the Texas rules a 'new obstacle?' Were they only recently passed? Not as far as I can tell -- here, for instance, is a pdf about them from August 2007, which should have given the Clinton campaign ample time to get up to speed."
Hilzoy offers "possible analogies -- would I describe the existence of the Pacific Ocean as 'creating a new obstacle' for my plan to walk from Baltimore to Beijing? or the fact that five is a prime number as 'creating a new obstacle' to my proving that it is a multiple of two?
"Note to self: If I ever run for office and base my campaign on the idea that I am ready to lead from day one, I must remember to actually run an effective campaign."
As Clinton-backing Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said of the Clinton campaign in another one of his moments of candor, "It sure didn't look like they had a game plan after Super Tuesday."
The largest organizations Clinton and Obama have ever run are their campaigns.
It's hard to argue that Clinton has run the better, more effective one.
And while how one campaigns isn't necessarily a measure of how one will govern, it might give one reason to question the "Ready on Day One" slogan.
What say you?
- jpt
February 18, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (67)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The funny thing is, supporters of HRC subsist on completely words alone - no one seems to document results. That's the benefit of inheriting Bill Clinton's political machine but makes it almost impossible for voters to evaluate HRC on her own merits.
Now, watching HRC mismanage her campaign (of course the largest, maybe only, thing she's ever managed in the public eye) her supporters keep parroting the party line. The slogan "Ready on day 1" has now become a joke.
They're both relatively inexperienced but it's fairly obvious Obama is a natural born leader and is managing his campaign competently.
Posted by: Mr Judgment | Feb 21, 2008 10:15:05 PM
I first got involved in Texas Democratic politics in 1984. The primary system we had then is basically the same one we're using now in 2008! The difference is no one outside of Texas cared! By now the nominee would have closed the deal and our primaries would be a moot point.
HRC has behaved from day one as though this were a coronation! And her campaign was totally caught off guard by Obama's ground swell of support. For HRC to now cry about how Texas conducts it's primary is crock of BULL!!
Texans have a saying that fits this situation, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight". Lady, your lack of ground work is not the fault of the Texas Democratic Party!!
Posted by: Tom from Texas | Feb 21, 2008 6:54:59 PM
She's just making excuses, guys, in case Obama's win in Texas embarasses her one more time. Poor pathetic Hillary. Everything is spin, lie, spin, attack.
Posted by: Samantha | Feb 19, 2008 9:26:12 PM
Wait a minute...she cannot run an effective campaign, but is suppose to run our country? Where is this 35 years of experience?
Once again, this theme of arrogance....cannot admit she was wrong about the war and didn't have a post-super Tues. game plan because she was the "inevitable" candidate (her words, not mine!).
America, turn the page. I would not trust her to lead me to water.
Posted by: Robyn | Feb 19, 2008 8:40:50 PM
What is it about Clinton hacks that cause them to continue to support such a truly awful candidate?
Are they really that dumb (I do understand that Clintion's base is largely the non-graduates)?
Posted by: aw | Feb 19, 2008 8:33:53 PM
The Clinton's have lost their touch and are running a 1992 campaign in 2008. Good thing we see that now because the world is complex and if Hillary's campaign "can't" figure out the rules of the primaries...and don't have a Plan B? Her Iraq vote is the #1 that not only is she not ready for Day 1, if she makes a huge mistake she won't even own up to it. Reminds me of someone else who never admits error. So much for the solutions person...they can't figure out the problem.
Posted by: jrw34 | Feb 19, 2008 8:29:13 PM
Hillary may lack managerial skills in the usual sense, but seems to have dictatorial skills, not to mention dictatorial inclinations.
Posted by: Bob Miller | Feb 19, 2008 10:55:47 AM
The funny thing is, supporters of HRC subsist on completely words alone - no one seems to document results. That's the benefit of inheriting Bill Clinton's political machine but makes it almost impossible for voters to evaluate HRC on her own merits.
Now, watching HRC mismanage her campaign (of course the largest, maybe only, thing she's ever managed in the public eye) her supporters keep parroting the party line. The slogan "Ready on day 1" has now become a joke.
They're both relatively inexperienced but it's fairly obvious Obama is a natural born leader and is managing his campaign competently.
Posted by: Mr Judgment | Feb 19, 2008 9:33:46 AM
To Milla2007---
Yes, I believe that. You know why? Because I am willing to help Obama solve our nation's problems. He asked for my help. Hillary didn't.
As for ready on Day 1, wouldn't that really be Day 12,776? (35 years x 365 + 1) That's a long time to be waiting for change, waiting for solutions, waiting for results. Even if Hillary asked for my help, I have to wonder how is that supposed to work when real change never comes?
Posted by: SE Croft | Feb 19, 2008 7:57:31 AM
The writing is on the wall, with the new CNN poll showing them in a dead-heat for Texas and this report showing where Obama has gained even more:
Posted by: David | Feb 19, 2008 6:38:18 AM
Obama Zombies think they know what to expect with him? Do they seriously think he is going to to fix our nations problems?
The country is in a Fragile state and we are going for a rookie?
HILLARY2008
Posted by: Milla2007 | Feb 19, 2008 6:31:37 AM
I didn't vote for Bush because of a gut feeling that he was all talk! I have a that same feeling about Barack! Let's see what you folks think after his first year in office if he wins!
Posted by: BRiley | Feb 18, 2008 10:22:58 PM
Go,Obama, Go!
Posted by: starsense | Feb 18, 2008 9:51:23 PM
HM-typical Obama spin, it's one in the same...just a surrogate who handsover the check. Obama is status quo politician.
Some of Obama's lobby endorsments:
White House Endorsement Watch
K Street Endorsements
This is a running tabulation of lobbyists who "have made
their endorsements public" in the 2008 White House contest.
Barack Obama Lobby endorsements
Donald Alexander (Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld)
John Buscher (Holland & Knight)
Kevin Chavous (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
Tom Daschle (Alston & Bird)
Stan Fendley (Corning)
Elizabeth Fox (Jolly/Rissler)
Francis Grab (Washington Council Ernst & Young)
Tim Hannegan (Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates)
Tom Jensen (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
Broderick Johnson (Bryan Cave Strategies)
Mark Keam (Verizon)
Bob Maloney (Maloney Government Relations)
Marcus Mason (The Madison Group)
Andy Rosenberg (Ogilvy Government Relations)
Bobby Sepucha (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
Jarvis Stewart (Stewart Partners)
Tom Walls (McGuireWoods)
Michael Williams (Credit Suisse)
Posted by: WH | Feb 18, 2008 9:33:29 PM
Senator Clinton is capitalizing on the votes of poorly educated people. This is her core base, as acknowledged by her campaign.
Conclusion #1: It is not in her interest to promote education. Why would she undermine her own base?
Conclusion #2: To really appreciate Sen. Clinton's policies you have to be poorly educated. In plain English: she takes us for fools.
Posted by: Mike | Feb 18, 2008 8:04:23 PM
The kind of nepotism shown in HRC's campaign staff is very similar to Bush..that is, stick with the same people, no matter if they are doing all the wrong things, loyalty over competence...same as "Brownie" and "Gonzo". She supports you 100%, till the next day when she throws you under the bus. HRC has really shown her true colors this year. My sympathies to Patty Solis Doyle.
Posted by: ames | Feb 18, 2008 7:24:15 PM
Ready for our Soldiers, please, before you spout off, please check your facts. Obama has been to Iraq. He went in January/06. Google is your friend.
Posted by: sharon | Feb 18, 2008 6:56:05 PM
I guess concentrating on getting the votes of the people as a campaign strategy is very passé. Too bad.
Posted by: irma | Feb 18, 2008 5:40:40 PM
So if Hillary wins the popular vote in the entire state of Texas by say, 10%, Obama still wins? Meaning the people will not be represented if Obama has more delegates. Goes against the argument from his camp stating that delegates should represent the peoples will. Hmmmmmm.
Posted by: irma | Feb 18, 2008 5:37:01 PM
Here's another indication of Clinton's poor managerial talents. A president must be able to manage and choose the right people to help her/him manage. Let's not forget George Bush's managerial style(or lack thereof), which looks suspiciously similar to Hillary's. Hillary has exercised extremely poor judgement in her campaign decisions and her choice of people to help her run her campaign. On the other hand, Obama's organization of his presidential campaign is perhaps the best we've ever had, and is lauded by every politician asked about it.
Posted by: Mod | Feb 18, 2008 5:28:39 PM
Post a comment
