Clinton Campaign is Off Balance

The pundits are puzzled and the Clinton campaign is shocked that they are now the underdog in the Democratic primary race. Double digit (huge margin) losses, lagging in the delegate count and short on cash is not the way the campaign planned on spending the latter part of February but that is the situation that faces the once unstoppable Hillary Clinton. In a nutshell, Hillary believed the hype and did not plan past the Super Tuesday primaries.

Hillary Clinton entered the race for the presidency over a year ago just after young upstart Barack Obama. Instantly, she was the front runner and she was believed to be the inevitable winner. Hillary had it all; name recognition, a vast wealthy donor base, early Super Delegate support, and the power of a former president in her camp. Certainly she would win the nomination early and then get prepared to take on the Republican machine.

That thinking might very well cost her the nomination because by buying into the inevitability, Clinton failed to plan past Super Tuesday. She counted on early wins to build her momentum going into the February primaries and figured on delivering a knock-out blow by capturing the nomination. Her opponent had other ideas and set up offices in early states as well as those whose primaries were after Super Tuesday. His victory in Iowa shocked the Clinton camp and with the prospect of a double digit loss in New Hampshire looming large, things did not look good. She righted the ship in NH but was unable to build on that victory as one tactical misstep after another beset he campaign.

Instead of planning ahead the Clintons stuck to the idea that they would win it all on the big day. When things started to go poorly, they decided to go on the attack. Her campaign played the gender card while her husband’s rhetoric got out of hand and led to accusations of racial overtones. This is trademark Clinton but this time they did not have the MSM in their pockets and they were stunned by the response. All was not looking well for the campaign and it became obvious that the nomination would not be decided on Super Tuesday. The problem by that time was money. While she was spending like a drunken sailer on shore leave in the early states, her opponent was seeking small donations from all over the country. Clintons big name supporters had donated the maximum amount and she did not have as strong a mechanism in place to bring in smaller donations, as did her opponent. Perhaps she was being overly cautious after the Norman Hsu incident

Clinton ended up lending her own money to the campaign, a disclosure made after the Super Tuesday primaries. If it had been made any earlier, she would have been toast. Since there was little time to campaign in states that followed and since she had failed to plan for active campaigning after the big day, she was overwhelmed by Mr. Obama who planned very early on. He has won eight states since Super Tuesday while she has looked ahead to Texas and Ohio as a firewall to prevent further losses. She is taking in more money now but it might be too little, too late.

Hillary Clinton bought into the hype that she would have a cakewalk to the nomination and now she is very close to watching the nominee from the sideline. She criticized the Bush administration for failing to have a long range plan in Iraq, and yet she demonstrated the same failure in her campaign. The question now becomes, do we want a person who spends carelessly and gets minimal results running this country? Do we want a president who fails to plan for the future? This has been a big criticism of George Bush with regard to the war so will Democrats apply that standard to Hillary and move toward Barack Obama?

I do not agree with Mr. Obama’s positions on anything and I believe his claim not to support the war is irrelevant because he was not in the Senate at the time so there is no way to tell how he would have voted (especially since the vote was viewed as needed to get weapon’s inspectors back in Iraq). And while he offers a message of hope and change his speeches are long on lilt and short on substance. He talks a good game without telling anyone what he will do or how he will do it.

Regardless, people like to listen to him and the one thing he has going is that he was forward looking enough to plan well past Super Tuesday. He never bought into the hype that Hillary was the inevitable victor and he planned to fight to the end. In the short term, that strategy has paid off and in the long run it might be the single biggest factor, should he become the nominee.

Should he become President, I don’t think he will be a good one but at least he has shown that he has better planning skills than someone who claims to have 35 years of experience.

Perhaps she should have spent more time planning for the primary and less time being fitted for the crown.

Related Story:
New York Times
WSJ
Time

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

4 Responses to “Clinton Campaign is Off Balance”

  1. No doubt about it….Obama has run a more civil campaign than Hillary. I think that’s one reason that many Dems have switched over to support him.

    Plus, Hillary is toxic and always has been.

    Always On Watch’s last blog post..ALERT! BLOGGER TO BE ARRESTED! (Amended & Updated)

  2. […] Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Allie is Wired, third world county, The […]

  3. Adam says:

    I think the reality is that most campaigns don’t last longer than Super Tuesday, and the Democrats actually though this season would be even shorter given the bigger Super Tuesday than ever before. Few people expected it to be like this before the start.

    I would say Obama’s upper hand now is less about foresight and more about lack of choice. He had no choice but design his campaign to target smaller states because he couldn’t fight Clinton in the larger states. He energizes voters in caucuses and locks up the black vote.

    After Super Tuesday he was perfectly positioned to take the lead because of the nature of the next few states and the demographics there. If Ohio and Texas were right after Super Tuesday we wouldn’t be having this conversation, but since there was a swath of smaller states with Obama’s base in them then everybody is criticizing Clinton’s campaign.

    I don’t think there was some massive lack of planning. I just think that the way thing are turning out now are virtually out of their hands and not the work of some Obama magic.

    I think she’s doing okay all things considered. She’s in a tight spot of course, but she just needs to keep doing what she has been doing when it comes to winning the bigger states and hope for the best. She’s still got decent leads in Ohio and Texas, and she’s close enough in Wisconsin to make it a fight.

    Adam’s last blog post..The Potomac Primary

  4. Big Dog says:

    This is from Time:
    “This is not the race that Clinton thought she would be running. Her campaign was built on inevitability, a haughty operation so confident it would have the nomination wrapped up by now that it didn’t even put a field organization in place for the states that were to come after the megaprimary on Feb. 5.”

    Seems that they have the same opinion.

    Obama has won some larger states but the Dems award the delegates proportionally so no matter what size the state everyone gets something.