The Clinton Campaign: Too Arrogant to Work for the Nomination
I know it has become conventional wisdom among the giant brains of Hillary backers that Barack Obama is personally responsible for stifling democracy in Florida and Michigan.
But do you mind if I ask a few questions?
- How is Obama personally responsible for the parties in Michigan and Florida moving up their primaries against the DNC rules?
- What role do the DNC sanctions have on the process?
- Were state party officials aware of the DNC sanctions and consequences?
- Who bears the greatest responsibility for the sanctions being imposed on these states, and, by extension, their voters? State officials, the DNC or Barack Obama?
I know it is convenient for the Clinton camp deep thinkers to pin the blame on Obama and make Hillary the True Champion of Democracy©, but if she is, indeed, the True Champion of Democracy©, why has her campaign constantly belittled the states Obama won and cried about how undemocratic caucuses are?
Weren't all these rules and caucuses in place before the primaries started? And shouldn't the wishes of all these good Democrats count, too?
Why all the whining and moaning and gnashing of teeth after Clinton got her ass handed to her throughout the month of February?
Blame her campaign for her failure. They were too arrogant and too lazy to work for the nomination.
Here's a good read on the topic from Jay Cost at the RealClearPolitics HorseRaceBlog today:
What Went Wrong with the Clinton Campaign...
There is no doubt that it has been a poorly run campaign. But what has been so bad about it? We could point to a lackluster message, or Bill's various gaffes over the last three months, or the staff that couldn't stop watching soap operas long enough to pay the bills. There's something to all of these things, but I think they are symptoms of an underlying malady.
...
This is an organizational failure of monumental proportions. There is no other way to put it. The question is why did it happen?
There is no great skill that the Obama campaign possesses that the Clinton campaign lacks. Organizing caucus states still has a lot in common with 19th century politicking. You need a friendly smile, a good handshake, and a sturdy pair of shoes. Obama didn't develop a new way to organize. He just chose to organize while the Clinton campaign chose not to.
The only reason it would choose not to organize is if it did not think it was worth the cost.
That's right. All the whining and moaning and gnashing of teeth would have been avoided had Clinton and her campaign actually worked for the nomination.
Instead, they were hugely arrogant. As Cost summarizes:
I think its mistake was its starting point. It bought the same inevitability line it sold to the press. It began with the assumption that Clinton could not lose the nomination. If you assume this a priori, you will inevitably interpret all of the evidence in a way that reinforces your preconceived notions. It's like adding epicycles. If she cannot lose, there is no reason to worry about Obama's money, no need to anticipate that this might be an early indication of his appeal. If she cannot lose, those summer polls are not mere artifacts of her name recognition; they are critical pieces of evidence that demonstrate how the race is over before it begins. If she cannot lose, there is no need to organize in the caucus states because the race will be over by then.What we are talking about here is plain old arrogance. I think this is the central mistake of the Clinton campaign. It presumed that the nomination was Clinton's. Not Clinton's to lose. Just Clinton's. Period. As a consequence, it behaved in an unduly confident manner. Mark Penn is to be blamed, for sure. So is Patti Solis Doyle. But so also is the entire upper-echelon of the campaign. Above all, it's Hillary's fault. She's the candidate. She sets the tone.
Truer words were never spoken. Place the blame for Hillary's failure squarely where it belongs: on the candidate, herself. And her campaign's incredible arrogance.
The whining about the process, after-the-fact, and after her campaign chose not to work hard in more than a dozen states, simply backs up the old adage, "There's no substitute for hard work."
In the best American tradition, nothing is handed to you. You have to work for it. And Obama and his campaign have outworked Hillary and her campaign.
Them's the facts, friends.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 257 Comments :: Post a Comment
|