Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Caught With Her Pantsuit Down
By Courtney Goodloe
The Clinton scold heard yesterday 'round the world was 'shockingly' not about direct mail or tactics or anything but the defensive posture of someone whose central character and resume point has been so thoroughly and embarrassingly debunked as myth.
The irony is that we have all been chasing the 'authenticity' story as it relates to Obama. But as this campaign wanes, win or lose, whose persona appears to be deflated here and whose currency has risen?
The self-described (other-described) uber-prepared and hardest working pol in the biz has been shown to be exactly, well, not. In fact, so unprepared and apparently outworked so as to confound. If you could not summon these traits from the opening shot - then hmmm.
Is Clinton now actually more vulnerable to the infamous 'talking vs. doing' contrast than her opponent. It seems that while she was 'talking' about being prepared and working hard -- he was 'doing' just that.
I need not recount every single Clinton campaign mis-step here as they have now become legion -- as has a closer analysis of "ready on day one..." But the mind-bending whoppers -- choice of personnel, money mismanagement, lack of ground-operations in key places, forfeiting caucuses, playing catch-up in understanding the TX delegate process -- show a candidate who was anything but ready.
Interestingly, what it speaks to is one of two possible explanations (perhaps both). Either very Bush-like -- over-delegating and just 'stepping in' after blindly accepting what was offered by staff -- without keeping some degree of a personal handle on things, OR, as many others have floated -- having staff so unwilling or unable to speak truth to her that things fell apart while she was being told otherwise. Either scenario is troubling because they illustrate a lack of competence that is quite frankly, stunning.
In my mind, more telling than yesterday's cringe-inducing "shame on you..." was Clinton saying, "enough with the speeches and rallies..." Really, do you mean essentially, enough with campaigning??? Seriously?
Next, was the bizarre line about, "Let's start having some elections and seeing the results..." I don't know where Clinton has been since February 5th - but the last ten contests qualify as results - unless she's confusing her zero wins with meaning 'nothing' happened.
Every Clinton campaign negative gambit, tactic, ploy, response, attack -- reveals a certain level of tone-deafness and a drifting ever farther away from an accurate reading of the national mood. This inability to 'see' and to 'hear' does not bode well for adjustment.
What is the definition of insanity -- repeating the same... well, you know the rest.
Comments (24)
I couldn't agree with you more. It is really sad to bear witness to Hilary's coming undone this way. At the end of the day, although I am an Obama supporter, as a woman I have always respected Hillary's intelligence and knowledge on the issues and early on actually felt torn between the two candidates.
I became an Obama convert after the SC victory speech but at the same time the "feminist" in me has always wanted to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt. Now however I would just like her to to take the high road and step down with some dignity in tact.
I think anyone who saw the debate in Austin would agree that most people would prefer a united Democratic team rather than this unfortunate divisive tirade we saw yesterday.
No one can really refute the fact that BO represents the American dream in its most purest sense and quite frankly that is what is so unnerving to Hillary because even she has to admit that it is hard to knock someone who started with many less opportunities and was able to pull himself up by the bootstraps, make human mistakes along the way, LEARN from them, later go on to graduate from one of the most prestigious universities in the US AND have the ability to connect with people who would normally stay away from politics to come and get involved like never before.
It is what it is and his story and accomplishments should instill a sense of pride in all of us and does which is why she has not been able clinch this nomination. He has taken the hits and constructive criticism and only gotten better because of it. Who can hate on that??
February 24, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I admire the gracious tone you take and agree. The Clinton campaign seems to have been unable to shake that sense of entitlement borne of the belief that it was her turn and her due. She was 'ready on day one' but for Inauguration Day - while skipping right over day one of the fight for the nomination. What has thoroughly stunned though is that they repeatedly ignored, dismissed every warning sign that should have signaled the need for major campaign adjustments. After the first one or two of these signs, that myopia became an illustration of exactly what was awry. Sadly, because the signs were so numerous these shortcomings rest squarely on her shoulders. Even if she manages to win the nomination, there will be the nagging question re whether they will have finally learned the lessons to take into the general vs. McCain and ultimately to run the White House.
February 24, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Courgood: I agree with your assessment of the "Bush-like" qualities. I've been against HRC from the start because of dynasty issues -- when you have too much power in too few hands, the inevitable corruption and reality disengagement seeps in, no matter if you are a Dem or GOP! In that regard, it's hardly surprising that HRC has some of the same issues that GWB has.
I'd say the same thing if Michelle Obama tried to run in 2016.
I do know of two people who were big HRC fans. How big? They donated $4.6K between them. ;-)
They have since left the HRC camp because "she is a walking embarrassment."
My prediction is that she has already tarnished some of her effectiveness in the Senate and the longer this goes on, the more tarnished she gets. In theory, you can recover from it, but that means she wants to stay in the Senate past 2012 if she doesn't attain POTUS.
February 24, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker:
Excellent point re Clinton's continuation of her Senate career (and I'm a NY'er)- notwithstanding all of the predictions re her pick of leadership positions - nothing short of a miracle could reclaim the shine of her biggest selling point, competence.
Would she have the energy, desire left - to go back to the 'head-down' mode in order to rebuild her rep - w/out the carrot of the White House i/f/o her - the very reason she came to NY in the first place? One wonders & it would say a great deal about her heart and soul.
February 24, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me both the clintons have lost face during this campaign. And they're going to have to work hard to restore what they had prior to so many blunders of all types.
It is this short-sightedness which is most worrying. If they fail to bow out gracefully and tack in view of more farsighted goals, they will effectively undermine whatever good they might do in future.
February 24, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP -
Most definitely. Bill's So. Carolina performance and general squandering of Presidential currency in the most base fashion was puzzling to say the least. It was as if they completely lost sight of the potential majesty of the moment in Hillary's run - especially when coupled w/ that of Obama's.
The high-tone which should have been taken seemed obvious to everyone but them - whereby saving their vitriol for the current administration and general election opponent would have provided such opportunity for the Dems.
I can not forget an Obama quote - which speaks to the legacy any contender should want to leave whether the candidacy is historic or not - it was something to the effect of, I'm proud of the campaign we've run as we're running the one we should have and wanted to. That's the long-view -- which as your comment pointed out, the Clintons seem to lack. They seemed to either forget or discount that once 'stenched' it's nearly impossible to cleanse.
February 24, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Clinton's appearance yesterday really answered a question that's been on my mind over the last week: Is Hillary Clinton out to do what's best for the party and country or will she insist on what's best for Hillary Clinton. I had hoped it would be the former, but apparently she will insist on the latter. Part of this can be correctly attributed, as you've done, to a kind of tone-deafness, a failure really be able to see where everyone is at. But looking back I think the real story here is hubris. Clinton felt entitled from the beginning and her rant yesterday still does. The problem is that she's not.
The primary doesn't need to get nasty. If Clinton is as good as she claims, she should be able to win on her merits. If she loses in an honest contest, where's the shame in that? I was honestly shocked to see her take such an angry tone and I think the observations in this thread about what that might do to her future in the Senate are spot on.
There's something I've been thinking about with respect to Obama. I want to see him win, but I want to see him win in the general election with a campaign like he's run in the primary, one that rises above pointless negativity. If he can accomplish this, it will put to bed an idea in American politics that I've long despised, that all of the attacks and negativity are just part and parcel of the process, that there isn't a different way, a better way, of doing things.
Obama's taken a lot of crap for his oratory skills. Clinton has tried to cast it as a lack of substance, but I think this is just another failure on her part to read the situation correctly. The stump isn't for doing policy outlines, it's for rallying your people behind your. The point is to inspire. Attempting to criticize Obama for this is merely pointing out something that he's good at. Now, I thought the most ridiculous thing I'd seen out of her this campaign season was her ironic speech about how we need more than speeches (huh?), but yesterday's appearance was even worse.
Just who is crying foul, over the same kind of mailers she's been sending out mind you, supposed to play with? No one who follows politics even slightly will be able to take her outrage seriously. Obama was rather polite in referring to this explosion merely as getting a little "exercised" when he was asked for his impression.
I'm really wondering about what ominous purpose calling out Obama has. She was sharply booed for her pointed personal attacks in the last debate. Does she intend to tack straight into disapproval?
February 24, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF -
Thanks for thoughtful comment. Curious to me was the Clintonian perfection of Orwellian - that, while denouncing the Obama health care mailer - she never once pointed exactly and directly to what's false. Families who can't afford it may be mandated - until such time as the Tax Code is changed to offer credits - will this happen simultaneously?
As many pundits have highlighted - the Clinton campaign was more on fire b/c more vulnerable re NAFTA - while pretending they were most indignant about Health Care - to try to divert Ohio's attention from the trade agreement that they were adversely affected by - while deflecting to her ostensible strength on Health Care - by trying to fuse the two mailers as inaccurate. Whoo - circles go round and round.
And much like the Iraq War - where she couldn't admit a mistake - she's parsing re her 'secret' opposition to Bill's plan. She should either own NAFTA or say it was wrong - but once again, the dance.
February 24, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, watch this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NGpnGKnbks8
At about 2:00 Clinton goes on the stump and says, "Let's get real about NAFTA. It simply isn't working for all Americans. So, I'm not just going to talk about what's wrong with NAFTA, I'm going to fix it."
I've seen some speculate that her display yesterday is a change of tack, that she's decided to go hard on the offensive. That may be true, I really don't know.
But watching this video causes me to wonder whether she was only made aware of the Obama mailers this weekend? My mind invents a scenario where she comes off of the stump, having railed against NAFTA, only to find out that Obama had aleady informed them of her long-standing public stance on NAFTA by mail weeks before. It probably didn't happen this way, but in my mind it explains her rage and it's kind of funny to think about.
February 24, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF -
Thanks for link - goes to why her campaign is moldy & easily outmaneuvered - moves are and have always been so predictable.
This sounds a lot like the war right? All this 'experience' - means initially supporting misguided and downright harmful policies and then promises to 'fix' them. Well too late for too many.
February 25, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are so good!!
February 24, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to chime in and say how nice it was to read such a series of well-thought out set of reasonable posts (it helped , of course, that I agreed with them).
February 24, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear. Obama 2008, moving from thoughtless negativity to thoughtless positivity. Setting a new tone for Washington, perhaps a bit of rose mixed with fuschia pink.
February 24, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you implying that you can't be mindful and optimistic at the same time or just that anyone who supports Obama is thoughtless? Simply another catty narrative from the Clinton campaign that won't do anything to sell her as a candidate or win voters.
Way to alienate your party, Hillary.
February 24, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to see him win, but I want to see him win in the general election with a campaign like he's run in the primary, one that rises above pointless negativity.
I'm a little concerned about that, only because McCain's long history of corruption, including but not limited to the Keating Five, his penchant for writing letters to regulators to "get things done" for people whose corporate jets he's just climbed off of (or maybe written while he's still on them), and on and on, absolutely must be exposed. It would be easy, and shallow, and a shame, to dismiss these substantive and highly relevant criticisms as "pointless negativity". That may not have been what you meant, but my two concerns about Obama (in the campaign) are that he won't respond effectively to swiftboating, and he won't do what's necessary to highlight the very real and relevant flaws in his opponent. I am hoping that I'm wrong on both counts.
February 24, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you can be mindful and optimistic.
But if a train's coming your way, get off the tracks. If you're digging out from a tsunami, there's more than "whistle while you work" involved.
February 24, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero -
Normally a pessimist, I had to open my eyes & get on - not out of the way of - the train coming down the tracks. This is not thoughtless positivity - but something that has been brewing for all the years that our government has been hijacked. The fundamental principle here is engagement. In the last several decades, We got the gov't we deserved b/c we voted @ the lowest rate of any industrialized democracy. So even for those of us who have always engaged in the process - we could cry about Gore's mugging and everything before - but the reality is that the last seven, tragic years were what we collectively earned as a nation. Sadly, even for those of us - who I'm sure on this website - vote @ every opportunity - our apathetic brethren sucked the wind out of our sails.
Nothing thoughtless about the level of participation we're seeing - that's the train - not any one candidate. Although it's quite clear who has inspired this.
February 25, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is not thoughtles rhetoric. He is using rhetoric to build a citezens movement of the kind one needs if one wishes to change things in a radical way in DC. Hillary's insistance that competence is enough it the delusion. You must lead the nation not just the administration.
February 25, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Courtney, I'd like to add a third explanation - The Clinton campaign was so utterly and arrogantly sure of victory on Super Tuesday, so sure that it would be a cakewalk, that they were completely flummoxed and undone with the actual results. They had no game plan, no ground plan after Super Tuesday and they've been in a tailspin ever since.
February 24, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And though this may not the be the actual, factual story behind closed doors, the fact that her campaign can't immediately produce evidence to the contrary is startling.
February 25, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I recall seeing some fuzzy math recently showing that assuming Obama won all the remaining states/other by a 55-45 spread, Hillary would need to win Texas and Ohio 70-30 to have enough delegates to overcome this. I think this assumed superdelegates all went the way they were "supposed to", though.
February 25, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, she'd have to win Pennsylvania by that margin as well.
February 25, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carol -
I agree - the sense of entitlement and this being 'their due' permeated Clinton's campaign. They just counted on the tried & true steamroll. But they gamed themselves when her Senate campaign blew through tons of money vs. a strawman opponent & then repeated same of late.
There have been whispers about party elders conversations w/ Obama pre-run to ask that he defer - would've loved to have been a fly on the wall there.
Appears he knew better.
February 25, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must agree Carol Soprano - think you hit the nail on the head! HRC's campaign completely underestimated Obama and his campaign knew this going in and has used it to their advantage every step of the way.
I think Sun Tzu would be proud : )
BA has proven to be a master strategist...
Been a long time since we've seen any real intellectual talent in the WH.
Go BA!
February 25, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment