Hillary, Obama and the Establishment Machine


From tonight's Nelson Report:

McCain is the big winner last night, but not just because he nailed down the GOP nomination.

With the Dems seemingly sentenced to at least two months of circular firing-squad, the Republicans get to see Clinton rehearse attack lines on Obama, and vice versa, free of charge.

For the Dems, Hillary suddenly has her own "momentum" with the big win in Ohio seeming to guarantee a big win in Pennsylvania...but that's an agonizingly long 7 weeks away....who knows what the universe will look like then?

Can she raise the money? Can she settle staff morale and performance issues?

(And Obama is expected to re-gain some semblance of "momentum" with wins in the next two primaries...Mississippi and Wyoming in the next week.)

But here's her major difficulty: last night Clinton also "won" in Texas but actually lost, since Obama's team played the caucus game better (as usual) and he seems headed a net gain of at least 3 delegates there, while only losing 7 or 8 overall in the national total.

Today's analysis is mostly questions...but one thing for sure, "attack politics" is working this year. No big surprise, alas. Obama today whacked Clinton firmly, but not with a jarring screech, for not releasing "Billary's" taxes.

NAFTA was the proxy for a trade debate in Ohio. Will be repeated by Hillary in Pennsylvania, for sure. The big question is, will Obama conclude that since his whole campaign is based on the future, why go down the drain trying to out-flank Clinton on the "populist" right?

If high-tech and exports and its supporting infrastructure are the future, isn't that where he should be too? Certainly he can't be out-flanked on the right by McCain on trade.

Speaking of which, Senate Finance has a "trade agenda" hearing tomorrow morning, with USTR Schwab. We will postpone other recreations and attend.

"Perspective" tonite...and a primer for Obama? An excellent Baltimore Sun piece by steel wire manufacturer Drew Greenblatt on how US manufacturing is doing in the real world, as opposed to "NAFTA-land".

-0-

POLITICS...e-mails flying fast and furious all night, as Obama supporters rally their spirits, and Clinton folks work to translate her re-gained momentum into two critical things she must do right now:

First, re-kindle the campaign contribution flow, which had badly lagged Obama, reportedly because she's already maxed-out most of her Big Money sources;

Second, her campaign management hierarchy was clearly in disarray, and winning last night can't substitute a rush for the re-organization which seems badly needed.

While her "throw the kitchen sink" attack ad/press release barrage of the past two weeks clearly caught Obama and his team off balance, and does seem to have forced more negative press coverage of Obama than might otherwise have been the case...the overall atmosphere engendered was one of frenzy, approaching panic.

At a certain point Clinton risks the real message becoming "desperation", and you have to think that the Democratic Party "elders", including the Super Delegates, are not going to be won-over to Clinton by a Karl Rove-style scorched-earth policy which makes the Republican task that much easier in the Fall.

For sure, however, Clinton hit resonance with a real issue when she ran the "red phone ad" challenging Obama's "experience". While the ad itself is "unfair" in that she has no more hands-on foreign policy experience than he does...that's not her fault, and Obama must do a better job of countering it.

OK, he's nailed her fairly and squarely on her vote for the Iraq War, but the issue is more fundamental and he knows it.

The voters clearly DO worry that Obama's relative youth, and relatively recent national-level experience is a fair matter to be examined and resolved...and this obviously is a major advantage on "national defense" for Sen. McCain, so we'll continue to look at how its being developed.

One of the more interesting concerns raised today comes from the NY Times' Maureen Dowd, certainly long-opposed to Hillary...deploring Clinton's embrace of the Gloria Steinem "women as victims" approach as "a retro battle of the sexes..." while Obama more explicitly plays the race card:

"With Obama saying that the hour is upon us to elect a black man and Hillary saying the hour is upon us to elect a woman, the Democratic primary has become the ultimate nightmare of liberal identity politics. All the victimizations go tripping over each other and colliding, a competition of historical guilts..."

"...as it turns out, making history is actually a way of being imprisoned by history. It's all about the past....and meantime, the conventional white man sits on the Republican side and enjoys the spectacle of the Democrats' identity pile-up and victim lock."

For Obama, the clear consensus is that he can't let Clinton's "throw the kitchen sink" attack ads set the agenda for media coverage, and voter attitudes...and, he has to be pro-active, not just re-active.

Obama's emotional appeal is positive, not attack-dog negative, and he can't fall into the trap of throwing mud-balls...clearly his independent and Republican voters will not support "just another politician".

Obama seems off to a good start in parsing the boundary of a "fair attack" this morning, with tough talking points for the media, asking why "Billary" continue to refuse to release their joint-tax records.

(Clinton's risk? The longer her stonewalling goes on, the more likely it is that the media, not just because of Obama's questions, will demand to know where the Clinton's $5-million "personal loan" to the Campaign really came from.)

OK...a million more questions on style and content, but we'll restrict them for tonite to the trade debate in the next section.

For now, let's take a look at why, despite Ohio and Texas, Obama supporters continue to maintain that history is moving their way. To quote one close observer, in a private e-mail:

"There are 10 state primary/caucuses, and two territories, remaining. Obama is the favorite in 7 of the 10, or 9 of the 12 if you count the territories. There are 750 delegates at stake in those races. The states/territories where he is favored have about 60% of the delegates (Wyoming, Mississippi, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, Puerto Rico, and Guam).

Hillary is favored only in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia, with 40% of the remaining delegates. So if form continues -- and I saw nothing last night suggesting that it won't -- he wins more pledged delegates than she does from now on."

[Editor's note...the possible exception or fly in the ointment to this is whether, and if so how the Democratic National Committee decides to bring Florida and Michigan back into play, as now seems likely.

If these large states get "do-overs" and Hillary does about the same as she did the first time, one estimate is that she could have a net gain of 60 just in those states. That would get her to within about 75 delegates overall of Obama, depending on the results of the remaining states. Obama will win some, but so will she. And the biggest one, Pennsylvania, is similar to Ohio, but it's also a closed primary, so no independents or Republicans to help Obama.

So you can see why the Clinton calculation is that if she ends up the primaries less than 100 pledged delegates behind, and with all the momentum at that point, and with wins in all the big states plus the key swing states of Ohio and Florida, then the superdelegates might feel at that point in late June, that she'd be the strongest candidate.]

OK, now back to our Obama campaign observer:

"In the meantime, on 'momentum'....Clinton's momentum gets stopped dead with losses this Saturday and next Tuesday in Wyoming and Mississippi. Some media may dismiss those as 'expected' (like Ohio wasn't 'expected' for Clinton?). It's critical that the Obama campaign not allow the media to fall into the lazy trap the Clinton people have set by suggesting that it's all about Pennsylvania.

North Carolina has 134 delegates (some 20 less than Pa.). That's a big state. The media people should be reminded that every time they say 'Pennsylvania' they should say 'North Carolina' in the same sentence.

Superdelegates? I continue to believe the superdelegates issue will work out OK, so long as Obama wins where he is expected to win in the remaining primaries."

-0-

TRADE...the thing that struck us from listening last night to MSNBC's excellent coverage, especially of the Ohio exit polls, is the number of times the characterization "scared" was used.

The critical difference for Clinton, it was repeatedly suggested, came from white men and elderly voters who are frightened, mainly whose jobs and communities are threatened by, or are already seen as having lost to "globalization".

"Scared" usually translates to "unthinking", although we certainly don't mean these folks, especially in the Rust Belt, shouldn't be scared, and shouldn't be demanding more from their political leadership.

The problem is that since "facts" are apparently irrelevant, the "demands" being made do not meet reality, which means that current and would-be policy makers seem to fear they run the risk of political suicide if they try to talk sense.

Obviously, if you don't win, you can't help. And although you have to ask if Obama could do a better job of making the positive case, he clearly concluded he dare not risk that in Ohio.

But since pandering obviously did not work, and since he seems to have no realistic chance of winning in classic rust-belt Pennsylvania, it seems fair to ask how far Obama could go in the direction of being "the candidate of the future" without also putting at risk his apparently "sure", and absolutely "must" win in N. Carolina, for example.

Does he really want to see the often mis-leading NAFTA "debate" became the proxy for a serious, honest look at what needs to be done to educate, invest, re-build infrastructure, get real on national health...all of the components of a rational, forward-looking policy for the future?

Isn't this a major "plus" for Democrats over Republicans, who so often get caught-up in their outdated "tax and spend" rhetorical attack on the Dems that they forget how much Americans love, and depend upon, government expenditure on such things?

Both Democratic candidates have good positions on economic revitalization elements, of course, but the "debate" never got there, and Obama shot himself in the foot, courtesy of a perhaps-naive supporter, and that really damaging leak from the Canadians.

On that, by the way, Prime Minister Stephan Harper today moved to try and deflect what otherwise is a real problem for his relations with a Democratic US government, come 2009:

Harper said his government was mounting an "internal security investigation" to find out who leaked the information, which suggested Obama's campaign had said not to pay too much attention to his protectionist rhetoric on NAFTA.

"This kind of leaking of information is completely unacceptable and in fact...it may well be illegal," the prime minister told Parliament.

"It is not useful, it is not in the interests of the government of Canada, and the way the leak was executed, Mr. Speaker, was blatantly unfair to Sen. Obama and his campaign."

Let's conclude for tonite with a cris de cour from a Loyal Reader who happens to be a Democrat, with a life-time of involvement in foreign trade:

"The Ohio Democratic campaign was pretty awful, as Ohio campaigns tend to be. The shrieking, pandering, and casual sloganeering about trade and international economics in particular made both candidates look dumb and patronizing at the same time.

Can't someone point out that the economic uniltateralism and self-destructive economic nationalism espoused by both candidates in Ohio is contradictory to the professed desire to re-establish US respect in the world by turning America's back on Bush-style uniltateralism?

What can be done? Pennsylvania would seem to portend more of the same -- and more of the same promises, putting the next president, if it is a Democrat, in the same old position of spending the next several years discovering where reality lies in international affairs and digging out of the hole that he/she dug while pursuing the job in the first place.

George Bush took seven years to begin to discover that (though he prevented worse disasters with China); do we have to look forward to that with a Dem in the White House?

I know I'm venting, but this is going to hand McCain a million shots. If we reopen NAFTA and make new demands, the other countries will have their demands on us as well; you don't just reopen the parts you yourself want to redo. HELLO!!! Are we ready for that?

If the US abrogates this mother-of-all plurilateral trade agreements, what are other countries now in, or contemplating, barrier-lowering trade agreements with the United States supposed to think? Can they have any confidence in the sustainability of economic agreements with the United States?

Moreover, McCain will point out that, if you thought illegal immigration was bad to date, wait 'til you see it after we unilaterally throw a zillion Mexicans out of their home-country jobs. And so on.

What is needed is pushback from within the Democratic constituency. Is that doable? High-tech, international finance, etc. Internationalist businesses need to be getting on their hind legs. Who's doing it? Can it be politely suggested? Op-Eds? TV? Advice from funders? What?

Without pushback within the Democratic constituency, the candidates -- unfortunately, both of them, as the Ohio paradigm drags them deeper and deeper into the swamp -- will wind up defining their presidencies in politically and internationally counterproductive ways, and possibly compromising their chances of victory, between now and April 22, and especially between April 22 and November."

Rick Perlstein has a different perspective, here.


Sean Paul Kelley March 5, 2008 - 8:51pm
( categories: Analysis | USA: Campaign 2008 )

you would think Hillary is the anti christ. Who are these people who threaten to have tantrums because democracy doesn't move at the speed or result they want. If they wanted a single candidate run why didn't they anoint the golden child last summer.

fear mongering, the new ad street tactic for book launches?

Tina March 5, 2008 - 9:25pm

Remember how flummoxed they were after Iowa?

Besides millenials and Iraq vets, I think you'll find some Vietnam vets are at the same point. For them, there's 40 years of resentment yet to be resolved, and for others, it could go back hundreds of years. To be sabotaged by someone who is supposed to be on your side is worse than being hit by the enemy. The 'kitchen sink' strategy is the worst thing Clinton could have done. Obama will have to play this just right, or no one will win anything.

Let me quote again from Mark Penn:

If Senator Obama can't be seen to be commander in chief against Senator Clinton, how can he possibly expect to be seen as someone who can win the commander-in-chief question against Senator McCain?" Penn asked.

He is saying loud and clear that in ascending order of perception of capacity to be CIC it is Obama, Clinton, McCain. He is very clearly saying that he will set as the topmost argument in the primaries, one that McCain will win hands down in the general.

Whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, it is suicide for the Democrats in the general unless she gets rid of Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe and Harold Ickes (who today was urging pledged Obama delegates to ignore their pledges). And you know damn well she won't do that.

These are the same morons who fought Dean tooth and nail over his 50 state strategy. These are the same morons who fought Act Blue over their primary picks. These are the same morons who have urged all Dems to ignore (or when required, transparently pander to) the Dem base, and run to the "center" (now redefined to be to the right of Nixon).

Oh, and you missed Glenn Beck. Obama is the anti-Christ.

update Crap like this (on the MI and FL "delegations") really doesn't help:

Bill Clinton was a appeared on the Rush Limbaugh show (guest host Mark Davis) saying they should be seated as-is because the states aren't going to want to bear the expense.

You know, the same Rush Limbaugh who has been exhorting his ditto-heads to switch parties and vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries? Which some Texas paper said accounted for as much as 8% of the Clinton vote (reported on Countdown, and deliberately misunderstood by Richard Wolfe)?

update 2 Here's a good analysis of the Limbaugh effect in Texas:

...Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.

Gordon March 5, 2008 - 10:50pm

the Limbaugh effect anymore than the republicans for Obama stuff. I don't think they pull enough weight to effect either candidate. But what really tick me off was the fear mongering in Perlstein link

Tina March 6, 2008 - 9:46am

Even in Victory, Clinton Team Is Battling Itself

By Peter Baker and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 6, 2008; A01

For the bruised and bitter staff around Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Tuesday's death-defying victories in the Democratic presidential primaries in Ohio and Texas proved sweet indeed. They savored their wins yesterday, plotted their next steps and indulged in a moment of optimism. "She won't be stopped," one aide crowed.

And then Clinton's advisers turned to their other goal: denying Mark Penn credit.

With a flurry of phone calls and e-mail messages that began before polls closed, campaign officials made clear to friends, colleagues and reporters that they did not view the wins as validation for the candidate's chief strategist. "A lot of people would still like to see him go," a senior adviser said.

The depth of hostility toward Penn even in a time of triumph illustrates the combustible environment within the Clinton campaign, an operation where internal strife and warring camps have undercut a candidate once seemingly destined for the Democratic nomination. Clinton now faces the challenge of exploiting this moment of opportunity while at the same time deciding whether the squabbling at her Arlington headquarters has become a distraction that requires her intervention.

Many of her advisers are waging a two-front war, one against Sen. Barack Obama and the second against one another, but their most pressing challenge is figuring out why Clinton won in Ohio and Texas and trying to duplicate it. While Penn sees his strategy as a reason for the victories that have kept her candidacy alive, other advisers attribute the wins to her perseverance, favorable demographics and a new campaign manager. Clinton won "despite us, not because of us," one said.

Sifting through the data yesterday, her divided circle offered other theories. Some credit field operatives who set up organizations in record time. Others cite strong Hispanic outreach in South Texas that held off a late Obama push. And even some Penn opponents grudgingly cite his television commercial that asked which Democrat is more prepared for a 3 a.m. crisis call at the White House.

In the days leading up to the Ohio and Texas contests, Clinton presented herself as the victim of media bias and displayed a sense of humor on "Saturday Night Live" at the same time her staff was holding daily conference calls attacking Obama on his trade record and for his ties to an indicted real estate developer. The yin-yang approach -- going positive and negative at the same time -- may not have been deliberate, but it seemed to work.

"There has been a long-term disagreement on strategy over whether to focus on character . . . or raising questions about Senator Obama," said one top Clinton aide who was at the core of the fight. "What's happened over the last two weeks is we've done both."

One of Clinton's favorite books is "Team of Rivals," Doris Kearns Goodwin's account of Abraham Lincoln's Cabinet, and she assembled her own team of advisers knowing their mutual enmity in the belief that good ideas come from vigorous discussion. But while many campaigns are beset by backbiting and power struggles, dozens of interviews indicate that the internal problems endured by the Clinton team have been especially corrosive.

They fought over Penn's strategy of presenting Clinton as a strong commander in chief rather than trying to humanize her, as aides such as admaker Mandy Grunwald and chief spokesman Howard Wolfson wanted to do. They fought over deployment of assets and dwindling resources, pointing fingers over the failure to field organizations in many states. They fought over how to handle former president Bill Clinton and his habit of drifting away from his talking points into provocative territory.

At the center of much of this turmoil has been Penn, the rumpled, brusque, numbers-crunching strategist respected even by his foes for his intelligence, if not his social graces. A trusted adviser to the Clintons since helping orchestrate Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996, Penn mapped out a strategy emphasizing strength and experience but, in the view of critics, did not adjust adequately when it became clear that voters wanted change.

"I think about all camps think it's Mark's fault," said a Clinton White House veteran close to the campaign. "I don't think there is a Mark camp." Another person who has advised the senator from New York said: "Penn should have been let go. He failed the campaign in developing a message and evolving the message as things changed."

But there is a Penn camp, however small, that believes in his message of strength, experience, and fear of recession and crisis -- and its most important members are Bill and Hillary Clinton. Three times, campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle and senior adviser Harold Ickes tried to hire another national pollster so Penn would not be the one to test his own message, campaign sources said, and three times they were rejected. When the candidate forced out Solis Doyle last month after a string of defeats, the departing manager said Penn should also be fired, to no avail, sources said.

Penn declined to respond when reached yesterday, but he has been firing back in conversations with compatriots in recent days, arguing that he never had control of the campaign's finances or organization, instead blaming Ickes, Solis Doyle and her deputy, Mike Henry, who resigned. "Mark Penn's point is: 'I didn't do any of the spending,' " said a campaign colleague who has heard the argument. "Penn's whole point is: 'To say I had control of the money is crazy. Patti was in charge.' "

And so strangely enough, a moment of victory for the Clinton camp somehow feels less than victorious. "Mark blames Patti and Patti blames Mark in a circular firing squad," said an adviser who has worked for both Clintons and watched Penn, Solis Doyle, Ickes, Wolfson, Grunwald and others go at it for months. "What they don't realize is that everyone else blames them -- all of them."
'Resentment Within the Campaign'

The Centennial Hotel in Concord, N.H., was a grim place the night of Jan. 7. Fresh off a third-place finish in Iowa on Jan. 3, Clinton looked as though she would lose the New Hampshire primary the next day, a defeat that could be fatal to her presidential bid. Penn sat on his bed in his hotel room and drafted a plan for how to go forward.

He had no idea whether he would be around to execute such a strategy. Exasperated, Hillary and Bill Clinton were sketching out a staff shake-up. They would bring in former aides, such as Douglas B. Sosnik and Steve Ricchetti, two of the "White Boys," as her staff still called his advisers from their White House days. Hillary Clinton would ask her former chief of staff, Maggie Williams, to effectively take over, although Solis Doyle would keep her title. "People are telling me the campaign's not working, and I've got to show I'm making changes," Clinton told aides.

When word got around, there was a "parade to the doorstep" of the candidate by other top aides urging her to keep Solis Doyle or accept their resignations, a senior adviser said. "There was virtual universal agreement that if there was fault, it should be laid at the door of Mark Penn, not Patti Solis Doyle," the adviser said. "People thought change should be made, but the wrong person was being fired. And it created enormous resentment within the campaign."

Penn has been a lightning rod ever since the 1996 campaign. More comfortable with data than people, he promoted a centrist approach that was policy-driven and successful but bloodless. He earned a passel of enemies along the way. Longtime Clinton advisers such as Ickes, James Carville, Rahm Emanuel, John Podesta and Paul Begala openly despise him, and some even nicknamed him "Schlumbo." Ickes and others tried unsuccessfully to get Penn fired from Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign.

Penn did not make a lot of new friends in his latest campaign, arguing against any apologies for Clinton's vote to go to war with Iraq and generating resentment with PowerPoint survey presentations that did not give colleagues the data they sought. He chastised a campaign aide who described him in a campaign document as "pollster" instead of his title "chief strategist." At the same time, Penn's firm has taken in $10 million from the campaign, the vast bulk of which has gone to direct mail and polling, with about $240,000 for the consulting team. But defenders point to the strategist's record of success and say opponents are too focused on personality.

In the end, New Hampshire delivered a stunning upset victory for Clinton, and she pulled back on part of her shake-up plan. The newcomers would come on board, but everyone already there would stay. "I'm not dead," a relieved Penn told a colleague as votes came in. Williams joined the team but was assigned to specific projects such as youth outreach and surrogate speakers.

The campaign managed to build on its momentum by going next to Nevada, where it won another surprise victory on Jan. 19 despite Obama's support from key unions. But next up was South Carolina, where the African American vote was dominant in Democratic primaries. A serious debate ensued about how much to invest in the state. Strategists wanted to target specific congressional districts where they might pick up delegates but limit their time there.

"Bill Clinton just aggressively disagreed," said a top campaign official involved in the discussion. "He was like, 'No, I'm going to South Carolina and it's stupid to cede it.' I think it was personal for him. He was not about to lose the African American vote he had spent so long" courting. So he went to South Carolina and stayed.

The campaign had long ago discovered its limitations in dealing with the former president. He was, after all, no ordinary candidate's spouse. Her aides had become irritated trying to prod his staff to hire a new press secretary and complained that they had a hard time getting one of their own people onto his airplane to keep him on message. For their part, Bill Clinton's people viewed her staff warily, grousing that they never consulted him through much of 2007 or even showed him a calendar of events.

"The greatest challenge going into the campaign," a senior campaign aide said with a sigh, "was the management of Bill Clinton."

That seemed evident in South Carolina. The former president had grown frustrated that the campaign had not aggressively challenged Obama and so took it upon himself to go after the senator from Illinois, but in the process his comments unwittingly triggered an uproar that many Clinton advisers think the Obama campaign fanned by -- in their view -- twisting his words to paint him unfairly as a racist.

The Clinton camp ended up spending nearly $7 million in South Carolina, but Obama won in a landslide. On Jan. 26, the day of the election, Penn sent an e-mail to the senior campaign staff comparing Obama's victory there to Jesse L. Jackson's two wins in the 1980s. Bill Clinton made the same comparison to reporters that day, generating even more anger among African Americans who perceived it as a way of marginalizing Obama by portraying him as a black candidate who appeals only to black voters.

As Clinton strategists woke up the next morning, they realized that the African American constituency, a backbone of the Democratic coalition, was permanently lost to her. Only then were some of his closest former aides, such as Sosnik, former White House lawyer Cheryl D. Mills and fundraiser Terence R. McAuliffe, tapped to talk with him about reining in his rhetoric, and a daily conference call was established to try to enforce it.

"You had your Hillary people, and you had your Bill people," said the top campaign official. "There were some crossovers, but very few. The Hillary people could never tell him to cut the [crap] because they were Hillary people -- and vice versa."
'This Can't Be Happening'

As one of his generation's smartest political strategists, Bill Clinton understood without anyone telling him that he had damaged the campaign, distracting the public at a time when his wife should have been reintroducing herself with the New Hampshire and Nevada victories at her back. If he did not, he got a powerful wake-up call.

During South Carolina, Clinton friends in Massachusetts such as longtime operative John Sasso and former Kennedy family aides began blitzing the Arlington headquarters with warnings that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) was planning to endorse Obama. But the camp was slow to react, they complained. "People in Boston were apoplectic," a Clinton fundraiser said. "I got the sense it never got high enough up in the organization. And then they realized, 'Oh, my God, this can't be happening.' "

Once it fully dawned on the campaign that the head of the nation's most storied Democratic family planned to pass the torch to Obama, both Hillary and Bill Clinton called to try to change his mind. Kennedy, who according to sources close to him was offended by remarks that seemed to diminish his brother John F. Kennedy's role in civil rights, gave Bill Clinton an earful about his rhetoric.

A Clinton aide called it "a very testy conversation." Another said the former president adamantly denied making offensive remarks. "There's nothing I said that was racial," the aide quoted Clinton as saying. But it was too late, and Kennedy's endorsement two days after South Carolina was a heavy blow.

Hillary Clinton had little time to turn things around before Feb. 5, Super Tuesday, and a campaign that had raised more than $100 million in 2007 suddenly found itself short of money. Ickes and Solis Doyle went to the Clintons for a loan to pay for television ads. The candidate was exasperated. "God, I've raised all this money," she exclaimed, according to one person informed about the conversation. "What have you guys done with it?"

The Clintons lent the campaign $5 million, and Solis Doyle and Henry focused resources on a dozen battleground states, mainly large ones such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, as well as Arizona and New Mexico, with large Hispanic populations. But they essentially did not compete in smaller states holding caucuses. Clinton, feeling burned by Iowa, had become allergic to caucuses, deeming them unfair.

Ickes and political director Guy Cecil argued that such states were important because even if she lost, she would pick up delegates with a strong showing. That would soon become clear. Clinton racked up big wins in California, New Jersey and even Kennedy's Massachusetts. But she lost the caucus states, and because of the party's proportional rules, it cost her.

"That was one of the biggest blunders we had," a senior official said.

Obama invested in Idaho, for example, while Clinton did not, and as a result he won 15 delegates to her three. In New Jersey, on the other hand, Clinton won 59 delegates to 48 for Obama. So the net 12 delegates Obama picked up in Idaho offset the 11 net delegates she earned in the much bigger state of New Jersey.

"You end up canceling out everything we had done in New Jersey," said Hassan Nemazee, the campaign's finance co-chairman. "All that work in New Jersey was essentially nullified."
'Oligarchy at the Top'

Ickes was characteristically blunt on the conference call after Super Tuesday. It was quite likely that Clinton would lose the next 11 contests, colleagues recall him saying. Cecil had submitted plans for post-Feb. 5 states, but they had been rejected. The campaign had not initially thought the nomination battle would go beyond Super Tuesday and it was out of cash. "We were running on fumes," one aide said.

Nerves were raw by this point. Penn and Grunwald engaged in a 15-minute squabble that later made it into the media over which ad to run in Virginia. He wanted an ominous one called "Freefall" that warned of bad economic times, while she wanted one called "Can Do" featuring the candidate talking against patriotic music about solving problems. Cecil grew so exasperated, he stood up and left. "This is ridiculous," he said, according to people in the room. "You guys need to grow up. You're acting like kids. I've got work to do."

A more explosive example of the stress came a few days later. Phil Singer, the campaign's deputy communications director, emerged from a meeting on Feb. 11 and without explanation started angrily cursing the war room. "[Expletive] all of you," he shouted, according to a witness, then stormed out and did not return for several days.

Penn was growing increasingly aggravated by what he saw as an untenable management structure, which another aide described as an "oligarchy at the top." Penn had no real people of his own on the inside and chafed whenever Solis Doyle or Ickes got involved in his sphere. At one point, he and Ickes, who have been battling each other within the Clinton orbit for a dozen years, lost their tempers during a conference call, according to two participants.

"[Expletive] you!" Ickes shouted.

"[Expletive] you!" Penn replied.

"[Expletive] you!" Ickes shouted again.

By now, Williams had decided it was untenable to stay unless she was really running the campaign. Clinton called Solis Doyle on Feb. 9 as she was losing three more states, and the decision was announced the next day when she lost a fourth. It was painful for both, because Solis Doyle had worked for Clinton most of her adult life. Henry, her deputy, turned in his resignation letter the next day and stayed just long enough to see out three more losses, in Virginia, Maryland and the District.

Solis Doyle built a massive organization with more than 1,000 people on the payroll virtually overnight, and she was popular with a lot of colleagues. But there was a strong faction that resented her for shutting out experienced advisers from Clinton's Senate office, including chief of staff Tamera Luzzatto, health-care specialist Laurie Rubiner, communications adviser Lorraine Voles and longtime spokesman Philippe Reines. She also irritated colleagues by running late and frequently canceling appointments, and she drew fire for the campaign's financial problems.

If Solis Doyle was like Clinton's daughter, Williams was like her sister. She let aides vent and express their views, but then quickly made decisions. She impressed aides and supporters looking for a stronger hand. "Maggie said, 'I am ready for this fight,' and the room burst out into applause," Robert Zimmerman, a top Clinton fundraiser, recalled of her introduction to supporters via speakerphone. "It reflected the desire to see the campaign really engage in an aggressive issue debate."

She inherited a campaign well behind Obama in upcoming states. "Until we got to the 6th or 7th of February, there was no Hillary Clinton campaign in Wisconsin or most other states," said Joe Wineke, chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party. Obama outspent Clinton on the air in Wisconsin by $1.5 million to $300,000, he said, and scored a strong victory on Feb. 19.

For all their conflicts, senior Clinton advisers agreed that the campaign hit rock bottom in Wisconsin. Only after that did the team, tattered and exhausted, begin to pick itself up. News of Clinton's loan to her campaign touched off a frenzy of Internet fundraising as supporters who assumed she had enough money rushed to contribute, the first success she has had in the sort of grass-roots fundraising Obama has mastered.

In Austin on Feb. 21, Clinton had a solid debate performance, although her aides groaned as she accused Obama of offering "change you can Xerox." The line, advisers said, was offered during debate preparation by Bruce Reed, a Clinton White House official, but onstage it came across as forced and drew boos.

In the end, ironically, it was male voters who saved Clinton. A confluence of factors in the final 10 days -- her advertising strategy, her renewed communications push, her shaken-up team -- restored her in one of her weakest demographics in Ohio and Texas. Her victories quieted talk both inside and outside the campaign that she should drop out.

Yet renewal has come so late that advisers worry it may be too difficult to overtake Obama. "There was an arrogant attitude on the part of the campaign for many months," one lamented. "And now we're in a fight for our lives."

Staff writer Matthew Mosk contributed to this report.

posted under fair use

Tina March 6, 2008 - 10:06am

My state holds primaries in May. Usually, everything but the shoutin's over by the time that date rolls around and nobody gives a stink about how I vote--the races have all been decided.

Maybe it'll be different this time. Maybe we'll even get to see some campaign ads.

Petronius March 5, 2008 - 10:21pm

you aren't a mountaineer by any chance, are you?

hillbilly diaspora March 6, 2008 - 1:00am

One of the upper-left-corner states. The atheist one.

Petronius March 6, 2008 - 3:29am

it's always great to read the establishment blowhards trying to write about trade. Nelson talks about the "'populist' right" which is opposed to NAFTA - what the hell is he talking about? so now the AFL-CIO is 'right' compared to responsible pundits (and the republican party). then he goes on to talk about how any sort of reevaluation of FTAs is irresponsible, and well maybe people are right to be scared when it comes to trade, but they're still dumb and provincial. this guy needs to get out of DC more often.

the problem for obama and hilary on trade is that both are completely in line with the dem establishment on this (as with most other things), which is to say that they're pro-free trade all the time. this is uncomfortable for dems in general. it's a stance that makes sense for the capitalists who run the party and make the big contributions. it doesn't sell so well with the rank and file, especially not in michigan and ohio and pennsylvania (or my native mountain state). both hrc and bho are completely tied in to the free trade dogma - hrc's whole campaign staff came from the right wing of her husband's administration, which were the people who wrote nafta in the first place. and bho's top economic advisor, kornbluh, was rubin's chief assitant at the time (i erroneously wrote that she had been nafta's author in a previous comment, and i apologize for that). neither candidate wants to make any changes to US trade policy, but they don't want to admit that either. fortunately for them, the primaries in these states will soon be over, mccain won't challenge the victor on trade issues, and soon the whole DC establishment can get back to thinking everything's hunky-dory. throw together some retraining programs for high-tech jobs that don't exist, and we can all pretend the ohio campaigning never really happened.

it's at moments like this that i wish my boy edwards hadn't dropped out when he did. he would have kicked their asses all over the rust belt.

hillbilly diaspora March 6, 2008 - 1:31am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.