According to a report in the LA Times today, the Clinton campaign -- which was never expected to fall behind the Obama campaign -- is in a mess and has been from the get-go. The details are illuminating.
Already, some in Clinton's senior staff are pointing fingers over what went wrong, with some of the blame aimed at Clinton herself. As the race unfolded, neither Clinton nor anyone else resolved the internal power struggles that played out with destructive effect and continue to this day.
Chief strategist and pollster Mark Penn clashed with senior advisor Harold Ickes, former deputy campaign manager Mike Henry and others. Field organizers battled with Clinton's headquarters in northern Virginia. Campaign themes were rolled out and discarded, reflecting tensions among a staff bitterly divided over what Clinton's basic message should be.
Then there were the excesses of Bill Clinton and disagreements over how to use him. There were the spats and arguments among Clinton campaign advisors and organizers.
Joe Trippi, a senior advisor to John Edwards' now-dropped Democratic campaign, said: "At some point the candidate has to step in and bust heads and say 'Enough!'
"If there's fighting internally, the candidate has to step up and make it clear what direction she wants to go and stop this stuff dead in its tracks. Otherwise there's going to be a struggle for power and control right until the end. It's crippling."
Clinton did, finally, step in and make some changes but they were too little and a little too late.
Last month, after a series of defeats, Hillary Clinton chose a new campaign manager, replacing Patti Solis Doyle. But she left in place many senior people, including Penn and Ickes, who have been involved in incessant turf wars.
As the campaign faces a make-or-break moment, some high-level officials are trying to play down their role in the campaign. Penn said in an e-mail over the weekend that he had "no direct authority in the campaign," describing himself as merely "an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to me."
Clearly things were in a mess. And of course there are disputes as to who made the mess and how so much went so wrong.
"I have had no say or involvement in four key areas -- the financial budget and resource allocation, political or organizational sides. Those were the responsibility of Patti Solis Doyle, Harold Ickes and Mike Henry, and they met separately on all matters relating to those areas."
Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications chief, answered that it was Penn who had top responsibility for both its strategy and message. Another aide said Penn spoke to Clinton routinely about the campaign's message and ran daily meetings on the topic.
One running debate within Clinton's campaign was whether her defeats -- she has lost 11 straight contests -- were due to organizational lapses or a faulty message.
The Obama campaign has been visibly healthier, more focused, prepared and responsive. The eagerness of campaign workers to get out into the field, to answer questions and solve problems has been very impressive. They have shrewdly widened their base and incorporated ever more donors into their efforts. That showed during the first primary in Iowa.
By September, Iowa staff were sending out warnings about Obama's strength. "We are being outnumbered on the ground on a daily basis by his campaign, and it is beginning to show results," said a memo to top campaign officials on Sept. 26, about three months before the state's caucuses.
Clinton's "call time into Iowa is routinely cut. . . . Not only does Obama spend more time in Iowa . . . but he spends more time making political phone calls into Iowa as well," the memo said. "His persistence and one-on-one approach has earned Obama the support of several key activists who are decision-makers in their counties."
The memo asked for 100 more field organizers "immediately." Later, Clinton did bring more organizers to Iowa. She finished third, behind Obama and Edwards.
While Obama was talking about a new vision and new policies, Clinton's advisors were trying to figure out how to attack him. Bill Clinton, visibly resentful, wanted to go after the upstart.
Top aides could not agree on whether, or how, to attack him.
"Why aren't we attacking him?" Bill Clinton asked at a high-level staff meeting Dec. 1 at the Clintons' Washington home, according to people familiar with events. With aides sitting around the dining room table, Bill Clinton said it was time to get more aggressive with Obama. The following day, in Iowa, Hillary Clinton called a news conference to execute the strategy of questioning Obama's character. "Now the fun part starts," she said.
From that point on, it appears, the Clinton campaign has not only been fractious and angry. It's been on the defensive. Isn't it fair to look at the quality of a candidate's campaign and take it as an indication of what kind of president the candidate would make? Wasn't the hard-driving, unscrupulous and exclusionist campaign of George W. Bush a clear predictor of his presidency?
The campaign dubbed her final weekend appearances in Texas and Ohio "Solutions for America" rallies.
" 'Solutions for America,' " one campaign aide said. "It sounds like something you'd buy at the pharmacy."
There's no telling what will happen in either of the close races in Ohio and Texas. Already party officials and others are asking Clinton to drop out unless she does very, very well tomorrow. A report on NPR just now brings the news that Clinton isn't planning to stop even if she loses both states. "I'm just getting warmed up," she says.
This post has a "famous last words" feel to it. I've got a bad feeling Clinton's campaign is about to catch a lot of people flat footed tomorrow.
Posted by: Jim W | March 03, 2008 at 02:37 PM
It's looking today, Jim, as though you're right.
Posted by: PW | March 04, 2008 at 09:03 AM