Another Believer that Hillary Rodham Clinton Has Run a Good--But Not Great--Campaign

From Ezra Klein:

EzraKlein Archive | The American Prospect: For the record, I agree with Isaac Chotiner that the Clinton team has run a pretty good campaign. Better, indeed, than what I thought they'd run. It may or may not prove to be enough, and looking back, there will surely be identifiable mistakes and botched opportunities. But, in general, I think Clinton's problems were, on the one hand, voting for the Iraq War, and on the other, running against a staggeringly talented insurgent who combined the traditional "wine track" strengths with overwhelming support among African-Americans and huge media power. Neither of those were really messaging or fundraising problems as such.

Insofar as her campaign made mistakes, it was in existing. One of the recurrent themes in my experience of the primary is that I like Hillary Clinton (and, for that matter, her policy shop) a lot better than I like the "Hillary Clinton campaign" (the press shop, the consultants, the blind quotes, etc) and "the Hillary Clinton campaign as explained by a petulant Bill Clinton." During periods when I see more of Hillary Clinton and less of her campaign, I'm more favorably disposed. During periods when I see less of Hillary Clinton and more of her campaign, I'm less favorably disposed.

Comments

[jerry]

It's not clear to me at this point why folks are trying to gauge whether Clinton has run a good campaign or not. She's changed campaign managers, pretty tacit evidence she does not think so.

What it seems you and others are trying to do is post facto justify why you prefer Obama, and that's based on some collective fantasy that the best proxy for determining if a candidate should be president is how well their campaign is run.

The end result of that logic, is that, apparently should we ever figure out how to eliminate the money chase, and shrink the timespan, you would never be able to figure out who the best presidential candidate is.

After all, as president those same campaign skills: raising money, promising nothing, need to be charming, requirement to give a good speech, ability to check polls several times a day, well those ARE the skills we'll need to get us through national and international conflicts.

[Colin Danby]

This piece: http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/44211/ makes an interesting related point: "By arguing that one of Clinton’s key virtues was her ability to go toe-to-toe with the GOP attack machine, her campaign exacerbated instead of ameliorated her reputation for ruthlessness."

It's surely possible to make a positive case for HRC on her merits. So it's puzzled me that many of her supporters instead embraced the ruthlessness narrative, making a willingness to play dirty a virtue. You can see the temporary rhetorical advantages of this, because it lets you argue that the worse she is, the better she is, so to speak -- you can rebut any charge. But Obama is right that "cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom" and it's certainly unattractive: all he had to do was lodge himself on the other side of that argument, and the cynics made his case for him: OMG he inspires, OMG his supporters are enthusiastic, OMG his speeches are good, OMG he's holding out hope. This is a stance that crumples under light mockery, with no obvious fallback.

[AP]

"It's not clear to me at this point why folks are trying to gauge whether Clinton has run a good campaign or not. She's changed campaign managers, pretty tacit evidence she does not think so."

There's a world of difference between "good" and "good enough". The current discussion is in support of the former while acknowledging the real possibility of falling short of the latter.

[bakho]

The "Clinton has not run a good campaign" narrative is a backhanded slap at the rather remarkable campaign staged by Obama. By all measures, turnout in the Dem primaries and caucuses is UNPRECIDENTED.

If you schedule a seminar typically attended by 50 people in a room that holds 100 people and 300 show up, have you:
A) Done a bad job planning the seminar?
B) A good job advertising the seminar
C) Hit on a surprising confluence of interest in the speaker and the topic that was difficult to foresee when you booked the room but not possible to change the venue once the crowd arrived?

In this context, a very good Clinton campaign organization is being overwhelmed by "C", the influx of new committed voters. It takes a very different type of campaign when numbers are this high compared to a typical low turnout. McCain is in a worse position to deal with the surge than Clinton. This bodes well for Dems in November regardless of the nominee.

Had enough?

[Thorstein Veblen]

Yeah, I tend to think that the Clinton Campaign has been very good, and quite smart. On how the campaigns handled Florida & Michigan, for example, I think the Clinton Campaign was playing one step ahead of the Obama people. Crying was pure genius. I'm gonna half to disagree w/ Ezra Klein (again) though, I think the Clinton Campaign's real problem is that Barack is a better candidate than Hillary and there was deep worry within the party from day one that Hill would have trouble in the general... Anyway, Clinton is still trading at 28 on intrade & leading in Texas polls, which already makes it the closest, longest Dem primary in recent history...

[Mr Punch]

In my view, the Clinton campaign was well planned and, on the whole, very well executed -- but it didn't come off because of a basically uncontrollable problem, and has had to regroup. The same thing happened to Romney, but his execution was less good (and he was running from behind).

The trouble both had was coming up against "movement" candidates (Obama, Huckabee) who could overwhelm their organization-based professional efforts (and Obama had money too). The campaign begins with the Iowa caucuses, where organization should prevail, except in that one unpredictable circumstance. Clinton and Romney were expected to win in Iowa, and if they had, they'd be the nominees now.

It seems odd that the party establishments have allowed the campaign season to open with caucuses, which provide a ready springboard for a ceertain kind of anti-establishment candidate.

[anne]

Barack Obama has run a brilliant campaign, and rightfully captivated voters with ideas and hopes as seldom has happened since Franklin Roosevelt. Thereon is the open secret to the success.

[Cranky Observer]

> During periods when I see more of Hillary Clinton
> and less of her campaign, I'm more favorably disposed.
> During periods when I see less of Hillary Clinton
> and more of her campaign, I'm less favorably disposed.

The problem being that one has to assume that the people running Senator Clinton's campaign are there in part because they hope/plan to become the core of her Administration.

Cranky

[r m flanagan]

Either HRC was right to shake up her campaign management. In which case she made a mistake choosing them. Or , wrong. In which case she's making a mistake now.

Either way there was a failure.Perhaps not a major one. But reminds me of Brad's observation of her management of Health Care Reform.

Watching Axelrod and Wolfson(spelling?)representing Obama and HRC respectively on the Lehrer Hour provided another clue. Wolfson's macho style-interrupting, raised voice etc.- contrasted with Axelrod's less antagonistic one. Possibly just purely personal. Or perhaps representative of the campaigns' respective styles.

[anne]

Yes; however much I tried to dismiss them, I have been discouraged by the abrasiveness or detachment from more than immediate campaign practicalities of the advisers about Clinton, while being encouraged by the idealism of those about Obama. The difference gradually matters.

[jerry]

I have no clue what "post-racialism" is. Is that where Jesse Jackson Jr. threatens the seats of superdelegates that vote for Clinton? Is that where we can take it for granted that Obama has a majority African American vote?

When I hear "post-racialism" I think of post-feminist writers, and then I remember the scorn heaped on the post-feminists by our top tier feminist bloggers, the feministings, feministe, and pandagons, and I suspect that many of our African American leaders would laugh at you.

Oh, for you post-racialists, have you googled Tavis Smiley Barack Obama this weekend?

If you can prove there really is some sort of post-racialism movement, please do now. Otherwise, I'll assume "post-racialism" is exactly the sort of cult of Obama nonsense that so called Democrats that tell me stories of Hillary killing Vince Foster and Paul Krugman being shrill are.

I think identity politics are basically poison in the Democratic Party, but I can assure you many very elite, very comfortable, very tenured academics disagree with me and egg on identity politics every chance they get, until it comes to their own particular department or research.

[jerry]

Seth, I don't have access to lexis/nexus, and I am not the most enlightened, but I never heard of the term "post-racial" until about two weeks ago, and associated with Obama.

I would love for someone to show me this is some sort of movement that was identified before Obama and that means anything other than "Obama seems to be a nice safe african american, if we vote for him we can feel good about ourselves."

There's a difference, supposedly, between playing hardball, and threatening people if they don't vote along racial lines. Or in Clinton's case, if they don't vote along gender lines. One day, I am hopeful we will get there.

For better or for worse (for worse that is), our top tier feminists are linked to and endorsed by our top tier feminist pundits. 1973 feminism is pretty much dead, and women (and men) that take on the 1973 viewpoints are often called "anti-feminists" by our modern feminists. Academics that demand tenure will gladly state that any claim of anything like "political correctness" is a rightwing hoax. And so I welcome our new feminist overlords.

In doing so however, I am forced to conclude there is no such thing as postfeminism, and I suspect there is no such thing as postracialism, yet....

[john jansen]

I dont see how one can suggest that Senator Clinton has run a good campaign. She has squandered a massive lead and now trails. She lost it to a fellow who had one shining moment in the sun when he spoke to the Democratic convention and burst onto the national scene.Prior to that that he was not in the national spotlight as he toiled in the Illinois State Senate while she was on the national stage. She squandered her money and had to lend from her own pocket. She has changed campaign mangers. She is in the process of alientaing the one group which votes monolithically for Democrats. She failed to compete well in any of the post super Tuesday primaries and is now at the mercy of voters in three states.

If we judge her competency by her management of the most important project of her life then her 35 years of experience have not served her well.

It is time for a change.

The Reublicans live in the past with their excessive fidelity to Ronald reagan and his success at shifting the terms of the political debate and ending the 50 year Democratic hegemony.

Democrats who think that the 90s can be recreated are in for a wrenching wake up call too.

It is time for a new voice and new policies and that is why Senator Obama should be the Democratic nominee.

[Gerald Joseph]

Much of what the comments espoused by "Jerry" really hits the mark.

Getting back to the question of whether or not HRC has run a good campaign, I must conclude that on a qualitative basis her campaign has missed the mark and misunderstood a number of current developments within America. HRC's campaign overlooked the fact that the American populace is stuck in a pattern of self-indulgent, contradictory behaviors that are analogous to the electoral conditions that enabled Bush to reign for 8 underwhelming years.

HRC's campaign was supposed to throw her resume out the window and use Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Presidency as an inspiration in drafting a radical plan for the reformation of America from taxes to healthcare, from foreign policy to comprehensive aid packages for developing nations. This would be a risky and adventurous path, but it would have made her the exciting, interesting, progressive candidate ready to bring sustainable change to America.

By maintaining views and policies similar to many other Democratic candidates, HRC allowed Democrats to vote for who they liked over who had the best program and capacity to strategically execute a coferent plan for reforming America. On the basis of personal preference and not achievements, capacity, and potential, HRC is unelectable to many Americans.

HRC is not electable to many Americans on the basis of her gender, her last name, her husband, her perceived elitist intellectualism, her alleged aloof personality, and countless other reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with her capacity to function successfully in the roles of President and Commander-in-Chief.

Many Americans would find or conjure any reason imaginable to justify their votes for ANY candidate running against HRC. Today there is a war cry for CHANGE from so-called Democratic Party progressives and reformists. The present-day President Bush was elected and re-elected due to the need for CHANGE from a Clintonian Era that was tumultuous, yet progressive and productive in many respects to an amateurish mode of strategically defunct Bush leadership from surplus to deficit, from recovery to recession, from peace to wartime. The need to find an amateur, outsider, or rebel has resurfaced again and who knows what the consequences will be this time.

In my estimation, the campaign for either HRC or any other Democratic candidate ends the moment they lie and assert that they will bring troops home from Iraq. No President can pull troops from the field after they are briefed daily by National Security and Pentagon officials reporting on how a withdrawal will leave Iraq and the region's Muslim moderates in peril. When McCain asks the Democratic nominee to explain their views on Iraq, the Democratic party's ideological subterfuge, in repect to Iraq, will be revealed and McCain's respectability and honesty quotient will surge in the minds of the general electorate. I'm no diehard backer of any candidate presently running. As far as I'm concerned, the most interesting nominees the Democratic Party could have run against the Republicans would have been Delaware Sen. Biden for President and former Sen. Edwards for Vice President. I am an independent libertarian leaning quite responsibly to the right of most issues, however, I recognize honestly that HRC is the most qualified candidate presently running. She deserves a fair and open minded electorate.

[bob]

Gerald:
Anyone who believes in "McCain's respectability and honesty" hasn't really followed his career.

[Gerald Joseph]

Bob, I don't think too fondly of McCain, but he will appear to be a straight shooter on the Iraq issue since his position is not nuanced. The Democrats are not clear on the issue, they can not explain how they will reconcile their own feelings and past statements with the strategic and political realities on the ground in Iraq. Will the Democrats promise to the bring the troops home within their first year of the Presidency? If so, then how will they achieve this? What are the strategic and humanitarian costs? What is the Democrats' logistical plan for withdrawal? McCain can answer these questions.

[bob h]

I don't think the results of the Potomac Primaries, to take one example, are cause for criticism of her campaign. The justifiable pride of African-Americans in Obama led to them choosing him 80-90%, providing the entire margin of his large wins there. Voting on the basis of skin color is not something the Clinton campaign can do anything about.

[Colin Danby]

Obama got 52 percent of the white vote in VA, Bob, so "entire margin" is false. In MD Obama won white men; I haven't seen DC crosstabs. One could just as easily invert your silly "do anything about" statement to say that Obama can't do anything about people voting on the basis of gender. And if you look at the counties in the extreme western part of VA ... let's just say that the 80-to-90% Clinton votes there cannot be attributed to Appalachian feminism.

It really pisses me off that black people are assumed to be "voting on the basis of skin color" when they vote for other black people.

[r m flanagan]

"No President can pull troops from the field after they are briefed daily by National Security and Pentagon officials reporting on how a withdrawal will leave Iraq and the region's Muslim moderates in peril". Gerald

Yes , withdrawal will have those effects. And not withdawing will have its own particular effects: more dead US soldiers and handicapped ones flowing into Walter Reed, more dead Iraqi ,collateral damage. A distortion of our economy with world wide implications.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.Or a costless exit from a feckless caper.

But exit we must. We can't and shouldn't do what you want. I hope that doesn't cost us your vote. But even more I hope President Obama or Hillary rejects your honorable concerns..

"Let us face the problem squarely,
As a commercial people should.
We've learned no end of a lesson.
It will do us no end of good."

As quoted by Anthony Nutting after another feckless, failed invasion.

[r m flanagan]

Correct attribution: the verse itself is by Kipling. On the Boer War.

[Barkley Rosser]

Gerald,

Actually, the "improvement" in Iraq has little to do with the surge, although McCain and co. will certainly claim that it did and that therefore US troops cannot be withdrawn. The decline in violence (which has picked up again in some quarters) can be attributed to two things that had and have little to do with the presence or absence of US troops: 1) that the ethnic cleansing and implemented segregation of neighborhoods (along with a mass exodus of Sunnis, many fleeing the country) has now been largely completed, and 2) that al Qaeda in Iraq was stupid enough in mid-2006 to assassinate the sons of certain key tribal Sheikhs. That these sheikhs turned against them was definitely going to happen irrespective of US troop presence or not, although being provided with some arms by the US probably made it easier for them. Remember the old Arabic saying: "Me against my brother, me and my brother against our cousin, we and our cousin against the world." One does not off the sons of tribal sheikhs without some serious blowback.