And it’s not even about the Bush Administration. Isn’t that impressive? There is only one person on record in the entire article in today’s Washington Post. The article is about Clinton overcoming Obama’s “momentum”.
Added another Democratic strategist: “She is doing shockingly little right now to refresh and recharge her message, to make herself or her campaign interesting, or to offer a credible alternative Obama’s narrative of what the race is about. . . . She has to find a way to do those things on the way to Texas and Ohio.”
Even though I’m not down with these unnamed sources, that is exactly right. One of the bigggest problems I have with the Clinton campaign is the large number of Bill Clinton strategists on board. They won one national campaign 16 years ago and for whatever reason people still think they’re relevant or winners. Clinton’s campaign holds no surprises as it’s the same top-down organization it was back in ’92.
Then there’s the coattail riding that is wrong headed. Earlier this week, Clinton said “my husband never did well in caucus states either,”, to which I reply: “And? Who cares what your husband won or didn’t win? This is supposedly you running. Remember?” Well, she just can’t let ol’ Bill’s loses go unmarked:
During a news conference, she smiled as she brushed off Tuesday’s defeats, noting that her husband had lost Maryland in 1992. “Some weeks one of us is up, and the other’s down, and then we reverse it,” Clinton said.
Look, if I wanted to live in ’92, there’d be a Bush in the White House, an astronomical deficit and US troops in Iraq.
Okay, well now I’m heavier and married with two kids. My hair has gone through more changes in the last 16 years than the way a Clinton campaigns. Still there’s no indication that the campaign is eager or willing to check out 2008 and the way things run nowadays. What’s telling is this:
Top Clinton strategists dismissed the idea that Obama’s momentum is strong enough to carry him through the next three weeks, noting that perceptions have swung wildly from week to week depending on the outcome of state-by-state contests. Walter Mondale in 1984 and Jimmy Carter in 1980 lost key primaries before winning the nomination, chief strategist Mark Penn reminded reporters during a conference call.
Marinate on that one for a bit.
Hey! Let’s play Trivial Pursuit faboo mama Edition:
In Politics: Who won the general election for president in 1980 and 1984?*
Do they really want to there? Is that the association Mark Penn, Clinton’s chief strategist, really wants to make? Is the Clinton campaign all about her getting to the GE only to lose to McCain?
So what should the Clinton campaign do? Well, why not do what they’ve been doing the past month? Copy the Obama campaign! That always works:
Changes at the top of Clinton’s staff are likely to generate fresh thinking about how to wage the campaign in the rest of the primaries and caucuses. Williams has begun to reach out beyond the tight inner circle for advice from other Democrats, including several former Clinton White House veterans and media consultant David Doak.
Clinton campaign officials have put new emphasis on building up their field organizations, where Obama has been strong. In a conference call describing the road ahead, Penn, senior adviser Howard Wolfson and field director Guy Cecil said the campaign is opening offices and hiring staffers in all states with remaining contests. States such as Montana and Wyoming will draw new resources from the Clinton team, and even Puerto Rico will be on the map, they said.
“We expect change to begin March 4,” Penn said.
I’m so pleased that Mark Penn can just schedule in change. Clinton yesterday said:
Later, in Robstown, Tex., she addressed the issue of change that has been at the heart of Obama’s message. “There’s a lot of talk in this campaign about what kind of change we’re going to have,” she said. “Well, let me just say change is going to happen whether we want it or not. Change is part of life. Change is a constant. The question is who can master and direct change so it actually results in progress for America.”
I think the answer is Obama. If he couldn’t “master and direct change so it actually results in progress for America”. then the Clinton campaign wouldn’t be scrambling to mimic the Obama campaign at every term. She’s stolen his lines and his policies, and lately she’s even been using huge chunks of his speeches. Even look at how she talks.
One of my biggest issues with the Clinton administration was how they let the GOP dorks spout stupid stuff and actually talk in terms couched in what the GOP said. Heaven forbid they would have said, “I’m sorry Newt, but you’re so far out of the mainstream that I can’t even talk to you. Come back to me when they let you out of the straightjacket.” Nope, they weaseled and crafted messages around nutjobby suggestions. That’s the only way they know how to work. They don’t come up with new ideas, they just work with what other people say. So, instead of retooling her campaign after Iowa, Clinton went to New Hampshire reacting to Obama. After dissing the state of Iowa and those people who came to vote for the Clinton’s, she didn’t offer anything new, she just changed her message couched in Obama’s terms. And they’ve been running a reactionary campaign since then.
*No, I’m not telling you the answer you should know it unless you’re under the age of 8.