If you hang around in English departments long enough, you might hear something similar to the above posted title.  All it means is that, in a piece of writing, the elements are interconnected.  In a great literary work, everything is of a piece. 

The principle probably would not apply to a political campaign in exactly the same way, but it might be said that a true campaign, or one that connects with voters on a deeper level, will somehow reflect in action what it promises in theme.  At the very least, an observer of a campaign should not be able to point, over and over again, to inconsistencies between message and action. 

Senator Clinton, unfortunately, has never been able to connect the elements of her campaign, not even in a two hour debate.  Her unquestionably fine, warm, closing, for example, was undermined by her ridiculous pursuit of the plagiarism subject. 

It's just impossible to give her the benefit of the doubt when she pursues this preposterous angle.  She said something like, "If you're going to make your candidacy about words, then your words should be your own..."

Well, in a democratic system, it's no great revelation that political campaigns are about words.  They are the means by which the message, the theme, is delivered to the public.  Obama's candidacy is about words to the extent that his words are effective.  The man can't be blamed for having gifts.  Senator Clinton's candidacy is about words as well.  Her problem, all along, is that she never connected her words to her theme and to her action.  If you follow the logic, therefore, her warm, eloquent closing did not connect with the flailing, hollow aspect of her plagiarism accusation. 
The structure of the Clinton poem is not the theme of the poem in action.