Can Clinton Wait Until Texas and Ohio?
| Sun Feb. 10, 2008 10:04 AM PST
The Clinton campaign has made it clear that it is looking ahead to the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas. Even before it lost Louisiana, Washington, and Nebraska on Saturday, campaign officials were telling the press that they are effectively conceding everything between Super Tuesday and March 4.
This is a smart move in at least one respect: expectations. The press has a bad habit of not making much of victories unless they are unexpected — if Obama wins by 20 points in three states he was "supposed" to win, there's little talk of momentum even a day and a half later. So Clinton won't be hurt if she loses all of the remaining states before March 4--Maryland, Virginia, D.C., Hawaii, and Wisconsin--but she will receive a lot of positive press if she somehow wins one of them. (She lost the Maine caucus on Sunday.)
As a side note, it's worth pointing out that the Obama campaign doesn't really play this game. It doesn't try to manage expectations in the way the Clinton campaign does, which means that Obama is often in a disadvantageous position in the media narrative (a situation mitigated by the fact that the media seems to like him more than it likes Clinton). But to the Obama campaign's credit, it seemed to have realized that expectations don't really matter to everyday voters. With the exception of New Hampshire, where voters grew tired of the media's attempts to bury the Clintons and the Clinton era, voters don't seem to care what happened in the states before them and how that fits into some grand story being told by Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. They just want a chance to evaluate the candidates and make their own decisions.
Back on point. Is the Clinton strategy of waiting until Texas and Ohio a smart one? I doubt it. It too closely mirrors Rudy Giuliani's Florida strategy. Giuliani could shake as many hands as he wanted in Florida, but the media coverage about the campaign had him losing state after state after state. He was like a boxer who took blows to the head for four rounds and expected to score a knockout in the fifth. It didn't happen. If Obama sweeps everything between Feb 5 and March 4, he'll have won LA, NE, WA, ME, MD, VA, DC, HI, and WI. Doesn't that reduce Clinton to Rudy 2.0?
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Sun Feb. 10, 2008 11:31 AM PST.
"voters don't seem to care what happened in the states before them and how that fits into some grand story being told by Tim Russert and Chris Matthews"
Thank all that is good in the world for THAT!
Good piece, HRC is a deflating balloon - I agree it is a flawed strategy.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Sun Feb. 10, 2008 1:41 PM PST.
Clinton Campaign Manager Calls It Quits (ABC)
Patti Solis Doyle announced that she is stepping down as the campaign manager for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., ABC News has learned that this afternoon.
In a note she sent to her staff, Solis Doyle announced that this week Maggie Williams, Clinton's chief of staff when she was first lady, "will begin to assume the duties of campaign manager." Solis Doyle said she would remain as a senior adviser to the campaign.
*****
Looks like there is trouble in the HRC camp.
"Is the Clinton strategy of waiting until Texas and Ohio a smart one? I doubt it. It too closely mirrors Rudy Giuliani's Florida strategy."
I don't really think that accurately describes her strategy. Unlike Guiliani, she is not ignoring the other states; in many she's campaigning hard. She's just downplaying her chances so that she can claim "Comeback Kid" status wherever she wins.
This was a great post. You always hear from Clinton supporters (Krugman today), that she gets a bum rap from the media. But maybe the fact she is always spinning (anyone ever seen McAuliff on these shows?) makes the press assume a more combative tone.
Dee,
One way to be SURE your State doesn't "let you down"...
VOLUNTEER!
I have worked in SC and GA, HYOOGE wins for Obama. Now
I am setting my sights on Ohio.
I'm looking for contacts who are coordinating Southern Ohio, an area with which I am familiar.
I'm sure there's organizing going on right now in SPRINGFIELD, OH
Ohio Action Team
Submitted by Derby City Espresso (not verified) on Mon Feb. 11, 2008 4:05 PM PST.
We're organizing in Louisville, KY to assist the campaign in southern Ohio...
We're gonna win Ohio and Kentucky too for Obama.
This isn't going to the convention, it'll be settled before then!
The article isn't exactly accurate, in that the Obama campaign spent considerable energy deflating expectations in California, where polls showed him within 2 points of Hillary. Perhaps since he lost by 10 (yipee!), it was time well spent.
I do agree, though, that it is too bad that victories that are straight-up victories are not treated with the same seriousness as so-called unexpected ones. As though winning California and New York is just no big deal, but winning Idaho, because it's basically a cultural backwater, is somehow noteworthy.
For once I have to agree with Cher. Obama talks a good talk but he lacks the ability to accomplish'change'. He will be as ineffective as the last 'saint' who was elected president--Jimmy Carter. He couldn't even protect his own state from nuclear fallout.
Submitted by Jesse (not verified) on Mon Feb. 11, 2008 5:26 PM PST.
I think the article is right on the flaws of HRC's strategy. But I feel I must point out that in one of the greatest boxing matches of all time, the Rumble in the Jungle, the winning strategy actually was to lay on the ropes and get hit for eight rounds before coming out to land the knock-out combination. I'm not saying that HRC is the Ali of politics, but her opponents should not underestimate her, even when against the ropes.
Submitted by vera (not verified) on Mon Feb. 11, 2008 5:40 PM PST.
It is not unusual Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton arenot more visable on Obamas campaign Jesse and Al seem to incite dislike in some people and cause them to take a stance whatever the position against it. They have a very negative impact on people because of some of the narror minded in our country. I thank them for their low profile. Even though I admire and respect each of them and I appreaciate what they try to do for the people. I understand that when ever they come around America seems to get upset so it would not bode well for Obama to have them in the forefront even though I myself think it is only a racialy divided group of small minded people who feel this way
Submitted by David (not verified) on Mon Feb. 11, 2008 5:48 PM PST.
There is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance on a secret backroom deal.
Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.
Google: "democrats for democracy petition"
i am from springfield, i live in georgia and support the campiagn here.
i have started a text chain and phone chain contacting all in know in my hometown.
also, i am contacting central state university and i am will to make call (if i can get a list).
i will even go home to campaign.
the premise of Clinton being Giuliani is flawed right from the start, namely because Giuliani had no state won before Florida. He conceded from the very beginning. After what many thought was a knockout blow, Clinton turned around and won Iowa and won the popular vote on Super Tuesday. It's not over yet.
Agreed. Hillary is not fighting for every vote. With the proportional allocation of delegates, she should be fighting harder to at least minimize losses. If Obama keeps winning, the media will emphasize his success so much that Hillary may not even be able to win in Texas, Ohio, or Pennsylvania. Even if Hillary does win there, Obama's string of successes is likely to minimize her margin of victory.
This nomination contest has become something of a popularity contest; if that continues to be the case, I think Hillary will lose despite her intelligence and good intentions for the country.
Hey Ralph - Do a fact check on the stupid chain emails you get before you regurgitate them... Great place to start is Snopes.com... So what if he didswear in on the Qur'an? Obama is a Christian for what it's worth; but even if he was Muslim? So now, Ralph, you are judging "true american" because of one's religion or whether one says the pledge? Since when did these define american? I submit that an American is one who loves their country and will defend it, flaws and all, against all forms of tyrrany and oppression, including discrimination, fascism, and intolerance.
@Maggie: Jessie Jackson was on CNN Lou Dobbs yesterday on "Independants Day", he was speaking mostly on the current stimulus and how that would differ from Obama's. Also speaking of his momentum and should a 3rd party candidate run.
@Ralph, pick up a newspaper or something. Or maybe use something called google and look up your idiotic lies and claims. Oh, and it's Qu'ran not Koran.
hey ralph, why don't you check your facts before you spam crap? Obama Held His Personal Bible When He Was Sworn-In As A U.S. Senator. "...Even before the makeshift office was up and running in the basement of a Senate building, even before he raised his hand Tuesday to take the oath of office as the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama was already a political rock star and a celebrated new face in Congress. He arrived Tuesday, his first official day in the Capitol.... In the circles he runs in now, celebrity status is checked at the cloakroom door...When it was finally time to take the oath, he held his personal Bible, as family from as far away as Kenya watched from the visitors' gallery above. His daughters, Malia, 6, and Sasha, 3, in velvet dresses and patent leather shoes, bounced in their chairs when he looked up and waved." [Los Angeles Times, 1/5/05]
blogs like these, the internet, and the world really don't need filth like you.
And who leads in delegates? If the right wing is pumping Obama that should tell you who they think they can beat in November. And the media, owed wholly and solely by he right wing, is pumping Obama.
Remember there is no liberal media anymore. The media is owned by the right and they are trying with all their might to get the only Democratic candidate they can beat. What credentials does Obama have? And what background does he have besides Rezko?
Hillary's been in the fires of the right wing and came out clean and pure. Her credentials for 35 years are about children, women and families and yet many morons who have been fed the right wing crap about Hillary actually believe this garbage. Check her record, it is gleaming clean and she has all the tools necessary to not only do the job but to do it a manner to make all Americans proud.
Well I believe most Americans are hopelessly befuddled and are easily led by any trend or fad and that is what Obama is.
If you want to find the best candidate check their records and then decide.
Senator Clinton is "clean and pure" ???
First, why don't you talk to some Iraqi mothers about this, I'm sure they would agree.
Second, ask Senator Clinton who her donor base is... then compare her stats with Obama's. Ask her about taking federal lobbyist and PAC money. Ask her about the founding fathers' views on dynastic rule. Ask why she won't admit to a grave mistake with Iraq. Ask her about becoming more and more Cheney-like in her foreign policy. Ask her exactly how long she actually spent at the CDF(less than a year). Then ask why Marian Wright Edelman no longer speaks to her. Oh, and might as well find out about all those years at Walmart.
The truth is Barack Obama scares her. And enrages her. It's been fascinating listening to what she's been willing to say as a result.
Earlier today Sen. Clinton dismissed caucus voters as "not representing the electorate" and she stated that "Obama's win in Louisiana primary was based upon the black voters and that caucuses don't really matter." I am so offended by these comments. All of the caucuses this year have had record turn-outs, are they all activists? Highly doubtful. Her statements regarding Louisiana are particularly troubling, they smack of Bills' Jesse Jackson remarks about South Carolina. I try not to believe they are playing the race card, but there are too many unfortunate remarks by them and their surrogates to dismiss. Now I know many people are going to howl nooooo it was Obama who played the race card, but I have done my research and I can't find any examples of race baiting from Obama and I can find several from Bill Clinton, Billy Shaheen, Andrew Cuomo, Bob Johnson, the "unnamed staffer" who decribed Obama as my "hip, black friend" and now Hillary herself. Her campaign is struggling because she chose to concentrate on big states and ignore the rest of us. I am sure she just views a lot of as as flyover country. Well she can be President of New York and California, I am looking for a President of the UNITED States. I apologize for rambling, but her remarks earlier today have me really angry. I am a 40 year old white female and should be voting for Hillary, but I have had it with the Clintons, they need to go.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
I was just talking to a friend of mine about this today.. Same line of reasoning - Rudy 2.0
Good point though about the public not really caring about the expectations game.. the public can, however, be a sucker for the media, so if the game steers the media at all, it might still help her.. Just not enough in my humble op...
Submitted by Michael D. Fein (not verified) on Mon Feb. 11, 2008 10:00 PM PST.
Ralph, I fear you are falling for the hateful misinformation that has been emailed around for quite a few months. All of it has been proven to be lies. Please, do a bit more reading from reliable sources before you make such inaccurate comments in the future.
Is it possible to see some balanced headlines? I don't like all of the pro-Obama, anti-Hillary headlines. Its offensive! And: no, Hillary is not in the same position as Rudy. As she just pointed out, the states Obama is winning will likely go Republican in the election: she's winning in the Democratic states. In addition, Hillary has tons of experience and is incredibly skilled in policy development, working across the aisle, and holding her own against Republicans when push comes to shove. Like Hillary, Obama is an "insider,", but with less experience. Related to this, research shows that when both men and women are told the speaker is a man, his position is judged believable and impressive, but when people are told a woman made the same statement, she is judged very negatively. This seems to be happening in this race to some extent: Obama wins support in part because he's a man. A woman saying the same things or better (Hillary?) would fare less well. Do we really want to elect someone (Obama) who won't bring us universal health insurance? Would you hire the least experienced person to run the company or lead in complex, international negotiations? Remember George W. Bush. Likeable. But inexperienced. Granted, Obama is much more intelligent than Bush and much more knowledgeable, but does he have the experience at both the national and international level that Hillary has? Like Hillary, has he led on issues of importance to your parents and mine, to our children and inner-city youth? Check out both of their websites if you want to see who has the most well-thought-out position on these issues and many more. Obama's rhetoric will still be wonderful in 8 years and he'll have the needed experience to get the job done!
Al Comstock; I watched CSpan this morning and the reporter from a Richmond VA newspaper, a rather old, white, stodgy, reporter at that, said (and he wasnt a mouthy sort to say the least, so what he did say I felt he knew well enough) that since Mcain had the nomination sewed up pretty much, there may be some repubs voting for HILLARY as they are much wanting to compete against her moreso than BO.
Iʻve heard that many a time by "experts". Is that how they are pumping Obama?
I think the repubs might think otherwise.
CM,
I believe you are omitting the statement that Hillary has 47% of the country against her from the start (and a majority of republicans in congress who will fight her tooth and nail for anything).
Why should we not believe that if we see how she is manipulating her way through this campaign. You say you are dismayed at the negative Hillary press and comments. I am dismayed that with someone who has the advantages she has, she will not blink at political dirty play "to get elected".
Submitted by Robin Laurain (not verified) on Mon Feb. 11, 2008 11:37 PM PST.
I am wondering how you can say she isn't ignoring the other states when she says the caucus staes don't represent America. Mrs. Clinton went on to say that people who caucus are "activists". Hmm, is being an activist a negative thing? I thought the abolitionists and suffergettes were activists. Mrs. Clinton's remarks have been both hurtful and destructive in this campaign. She needs to go back to NY, take responsibility for running a negative campaign and let the Democratic party heal itself. It may also be a good time for her to reflect on her conduct and what it has done to her and her husband's legacy.
Submitted by Robin Laurain (not verified) on Mon Feb. 11, 2008 11:46 PM PST.
The Muslim smear again? Ralph, I know many Americans who swear on the Koran. The problem is, if that really occured, don't you think you would have heard about it before now? The worl is full oof Muslim hatred. The news media around the world would have talked about that the moment it happened. you can't believe everything you read in an internet chain letter. Obama is a Christian and if he were a Muslim, he would still be a better candidate then any of the ones who are running now. Both McCain and Clinton are devisive people. We need someone who tries to bring the best out of all Americans. Religion does not make a person American or non-American. In the United States of America we have seperation of Church and State. Besides, he has belonged to the same Christian church in Chicago for over 20 years.
I have a question I want you all to ask your self seriously. Why hasn't the Clintons released their tax statements and why can't we see the White House documents
about Mrs. Clinton's work? I would like an honest answer on that. I was for Hillary at first and when she started the recap of the 90's, I decided been there, done that. Do you all realize how much money the tax payers paid on all the scandals? Then she has the nerve to come out and say today, Bill will not be involved in any more scandals. She shouldn't even have to promise that. I invested 8 years of my life into the Clintons-both financially and emotionally. I was excited about Hillary's campaign. Then, the same crap started all over again. It is like this couple likes living on the edge. If they like edge play fine, we don't have to play the game with them. My co-dependency with this co-dependent couple is over. Hillary need to stop making promises she can't keep and stop making excuses for her husband. It is so degrading to herself and Chelsea.
Love the Rumble in the Jungle analogy, Jesse, but I don't think it's accurate--HRC would much rather be coasting to victory than hanging back--she has to wait until 3/4 and 4/22, it's not a choice.
The Rudy argument is a reach: Rudy won 1 delegate and HRC and Obama are in a dead heat with each having about a thousand pledged delegates and 6 million votes apiece.
Sadie, as for donor base, if you check the figures, they're identical for each, no matter what the interest group. Finance and real estate? $9 mil for her, $8 mil for him, same right down the line. As for PAC's, very convenient for Obama (like Bill Bradley) to accept PAC money throughout IL and US Senate, and then "renounce" it for the prez run.
As for foreign policy, one speech renouncing the war does not a policy make--given Obama's lack of leadership on the issue and voting record completely in synch with HRC's on Iraq since entering the Senate, I don't think you can point to much of a difference (including their Iran stances, which vote he conveniently ducked.)
This record is echoed on domestic issues as well. Quoting from Glenn Hurowitz over at Huff Post: "Obama has made a pattern of accommodation and capitulation ever since he got to the Senate - and, as a result, keeps getting rolled. He voted for President Bush's class action bill that made it harder for victims of pollution and other corporate malfeasance to be compensated, voted for President Bush's 2005 energy bill that included massive oil, coal, and nuclear subsidies, and voted to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent - all the while getting no help from Republicans in passing the Democratic agenda... [Plus,] his support for President Bush's bid to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement to Peru." You might also check out the NYT article on Exelon and articles about his caving on health care and women's choice in IL.
Check out Progessive Punch's ratings of the candidates--it might surprise you to see who's rated more progressive. (A far better indicator than National Journal's flawed methodology).
It's this accomodative stance (without practical results) that is at the heart of his campaign--and it's what scares me most about him.
I always find it interesting when politicians do this type of thing. To me it is not only arrogant, but also insulting. Rudy, HRC, and all the others who have done it before them are basically snubbing certain states. In essence, telling them that they don't matter too much, however, come Nov. they expect these people to vote for them if they are nominated.
Now to you Ralph, oh, never mind, not worth the effort. Go watch Fox News or something.
I've never watched Cspan. I just watch the news, talk shows and read newspapers and magazines and gather what is obvious from these sources. Luntz a major GOP pundit is one of a number of these GOP ponies "pumping" Obama. Wonder why?
Hillary has been vilified and pilloried by the right wing for decades and still her record, which by the way is a great record for children, women and families, is clean; without blemish!
The GOP hit dogs know they have tried for years to blemish her record but because all the stuff they've thrown at her is bull and fabrication the dirt amounts to nothing more than rumor and innuendo. And there is no doubt that too many Americans believe this bull to some extent.
Obama on the other hand has very little experience working in Washington, and some say this is good. How's that?
He has voted the same way as Hillary on Iraq since he has been in the federal Senate and accommodating of Bush's policies. His portfolio includes a man by the name of Rezko and admission of drug use and you don't think the GOP can't wait to swift boat this stuff right down his throat? Of course they want Obama, its the only chance they have of holding onto the White House!
I'll bet Hillary is really panicking these days. After all, she was promoted to be the certain Democratic nominee just like Fox News promoted Rudy to be the Republican one. If Obama sweeps today's contests, he might become almost unstoppable and people in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would take a new look at him which would be bad for Hillary. It remains to be seen, however, what the Super Delegates will do, and if they choose Hillary over Obama, even if he is ahead in regular delegates, it will tear the party apart.
I'm not sure Juliani's loss in Florida was the result of skipping Iowa and New Hampshire. Although I didn't see a lot of him during the first weeks of the primary, I bet the people in Florida saw paid ads daily, so it's not like he became invisible. I suspect that his record and reputation became more defined during the early weeks, and a lot of Florida Republicans decided that "Mr. Nine-eleven" wasn't their first choice. I'm not sure I buy the premise that voters in Texas and Ohio are going to base their choices on who appears to be leading when election day arrives for them. Finally, I get really tired of "horserace" articles like this one, that talk only about campaign strategy, momentum, polls and so on. The bloggers'comments that address the candidates' policy positions are much more worthwhile than the lead article. Even Ralph's comment gave me a laugh (Ralph, do you think the people who read MoJo care whether Obama is Christian or Muslim? He obviously isn't a theocrat, and that's what's important.)
Submitted by A Kanter (not verified) on Tue Feb. 12, 2008 12:31 PM PST.
Is anyone as sick as me hearing "I'm for change" ?
That Obama voters cling to that rhetoric as if their own, makes them appear to me like a circus act of naive fools.
Guess what, Bush and even Hitler were for change.
Change means to do something different. How about talking about what those differences would be.
Thank you, Kanter! The man has no plan! I wish people would see that. He's all talk. If you visit his website and really research his position on the issues, I don't see any really substantive plans of action. He's just making general statements about the way he thinks things should be done. Anybody can do that! I can do that, but I wouldn't have a clue how to run this country! I think the minute Obama comes up against Bin Laden, he'll run away screaming and then where will we be. With Hillary in office, if she has a moment where she doesn't know what to do, Bill can help her. He's been there. AND, let's not forget, the economy under Bill was booming! Who DOESN'T want that back??
Bill Maher was right, he said "Republicans choose a candidate, but Democrats 'fall in love.'" Could be this so called wave of folks for Obama could just be Dems falling in love instead of choosing a president? I like both candidates, but feel Obama has much to prove in addition to his ability to render heart stirring rhetoric.
I agree with Maggie. He does have an uncanny ability to really inspire people with his rhetoric. But why can't people see beyond the rhetoric? He doesn't really have a solid plan in place. He just makes general statements: "I'm going to fight cancer." "I'm going to fight AIDS." But HOW is he going to do that?! I can make statements like that. Would you elect me president?? I don't see any explanations at all on his website about how he plans to achieve all these things he's saying. The American need to learn how to research candidates and their positions. Too many people just vote for whoever's on the front page of the paper. The press KNOWS that, and they count on that. So by voting for whomever you see on the front page is the media's way of manipulating you into doing what they want you to do. And the media is the right wing, essentially. So by voting for Obama because he's all over the front page is doing exactly what Republicans want you to do. Vote for Obama because he has no chance against McCain. Then we have 4 more years of Republicans. I also read today that George Bush heard Obama say he'd attack Pakistan. Do we really need to get into yet another war?? And I'm so SICK of him saying how great he is because he didn't vote for the Iraq war. Who CARES that Hillary voted for the Iraq war? A lot of politicians voted for the war. George Bush led the entire country, including politicians, to believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and that there were WMD. Any good politician, given that information, would have voted in favor of the war. So that is a very weak argument to use against a politician.
