Why Is Clinton’s Back Against Wall? Nobody Prepared
‘We Didn’t Put Any Resources In Small States,’ Says Finance Chair Hassan Nemazee
“What’s gone wrong is very simple,” said Hassan Nemazee, a national finance chair for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
“If we had won Iowa and New Hampshire, as we had anticipated, projected, et cetera, you would not have been in a situation in which you are losing all of these small states—because we didn’t put any resources in those small states,” he said. “Obama, on the other hand, put resources in these small states.”
Compounding the damage of the bad defeats in Iowa, and then South Carolina, Mr. Nemazee explained, was the lack of the necessary foresight to invest the campaign’s resources in the states that Mrs. Clinton’s rival, Barack Obama, is now gobbling up as fuel for his ever more threatening momentum.
“You needed to have a Plan B, and Plan B was just doing what we are doing right now rather than having resources in the small states,” he said. “We basically ceded every one of these small red states that he has racked up victories in. And the reason that he has racked up victories at this level isn’t because he was so much more well received, or because his message was any better; it was because we didn’t put any resources in there. We weren’t campaigning there. We didn’t have anybody in Utah, in Idaho, in the Dakotas. In Alaska.”
On Feb. 12, the picture got even worse, as the voters of Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia all appeared set to hand lopsided wins to Mr. Obama. With a cold and bleak February calendar staring straight at them—other states set to vote this month are Wisconsin and Mr. Obama’s former home, Hawaii—some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are wondering how long she can keep losing without her support collapsing in the remaining contests.
Mrs. Clinton has made a show of addressing those concerns by replacing her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, with another loyalist, Maggie Williams. (Several donors interviewed for this story said, in retrospect, that they thought Ms. Doyle was in over her head.) But at this point, no change in personnel alters the campaign’s prescription for recovering its position: win Ohio and Texas on March 4, and Pennsylvania on April 22.
“If she doesn’t do well in these states,” said Mr. Nemazee, “it’s a completely different matter, and the momentum swings completely over to the other side.”
The Clinton campaign’s other scenario—Mrs. Clinton loses a majority of elected delegates but is protected by a buffer of party-appointed superdelegates to make up the difference—looks increasingly unlikely.
“The superdelegates are going to by and large mirror the popular vote,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, himself a superdelegate.
Mr. Schumer said he was “committed” to Mrs. Clinton no matter what. Asked if there wouldn’t be a revolt in the party if superdelegates undid the results of the state primaries and caucuses, he suggested that there was some wiggle room. “If the election is that close that 10 superdelegates going one way rather than the other way [decides it]? No. People will say it was a very close election.”
But, he said, “I don’t see a massive move of superdelegates different than how their states voted.”
The states may well end up voting for Mrs. Clinton in the end. But the realization that seems to have set in, somewhat jarringly, among her supporters is that there’s no safety net if they don’t.
“Everybody is taken aback—nobody expected it,” said John Catsimatidis, a supermarket magnate and prominent donor to Mrs. Clinton. (He was bestowed with the title of “Hillraiser” by the Clinton campaign, signifying that he had raised more than $100,000.) “Nobody expected Obama to be so strong. And at the end of the day, I think the Clintons will win out. But I have been saying that all along and it is getting harder to keep saying that.”
“Here’s the thing,” said Yashar Hedayat, a prominent fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton in Los Angeles. “I have a lot of donors who are nervous, who are looking at the calendar like you are and saying, ‘How is this possible?’ But I feel very good about Ohio and Texas and Pennsylvania.”
The bad news is that an Ohio-Texas-Pennsylvania strategy sets a very real deadline, past which it becomes just about impossible to argue that there’s still time to turn things around. It’s March 4 (and April 22) or bust. Next Page >
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.6
- 44.2
- Obama +2.4
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.8
- 35.8
- +20.0
- McCain
- 54.8
- 36.6
- +18.2
The reality is that we have all had enough of the Clintons. 16 years of bitter, devisive politics in this country is enough. HILLARY AND BILL'S POLITICS OF 'DIVIDE & CONQUER' WILL NO LONGER WORK. 15 YEARS OF DIVISIVE, DAMAGING,GRIDLOCK, PARTISAN POLITICS WERE BROUGHT ON BY THE CLINTONS. HILLARY IS IN DENIAL NOW AS SHE WAS WITH MONICA LEWINSKY.
I don't see how she can pull it off. With the proportional-delegate system, she has to not only beat Obama in OH, TX, and PA, but beat him BIG (like he did to her in the Potomac Primary). Because that's very unlikely to happen, Obama wins: the superdelegates follow the popular vote/electoral delegates; not doing so will destroy the Democratic Party.
Oh, and by the way, folks like Marc Penn and Tina Brown seem a whole lot more "establishment" and "Manhattan chattering class" than the million regular folks who voted for Obama last night.
Here's a great oldy for the Clintons to spin on their player: "Yesterday."
The donor that wanted Clinton to show more personality and put less stress on experience was wrong on two counts.
The major reason she is losing is that her personality has begun to come out: arrogant or supercilious (appears condescending to others), exclusive (closet's self with small coterie of advisors), phony (artificially supports previous positions which were incorrect).
The experience issue is misguided. Longevity seems to be the basis of her experience, unless a failed health care plan, uncontrolled spending in the NY Senate race which depleted here financial reserves, and making decisions on people based on loyalty rather than competence count as experience. What the article in the Atlantic Monthly shows is that she ranks right up there with W in terms of useful experience. Like him she's ridden on others' coat tails.
"Listen, there is not a single person in America today that doubts her résumé."
Um, yeah, actually there are a lot of us. For all the talk about her so-called "experience" and "résumé," she hasn't named a single accomplishment. Getting post offices renamed isn't exactly the most convincing example of "experience."
I wish Senator Clinton well in the Senate, which is a good place for her to serve. But her personal leadership style is all wrong. Like George W. Bush, she values loyalty above all else (as in the case of Solis Doyle). Her political tactics, as in the pardon of Puerto Rican terrorists to support her senate election, suggest that she will betray just about any principle if it brings her advantage.
In Senator Clinton, I see George W. Bush's leadership and Carl Rove's tactics. I don't hate Republicans, but I do hate the tone that Republicans established in Washington. I don't want to see more of that in the White House.
McCain or Obama, either one, can make some progress toward healing America. And as an American living abroad, I think that Obama's election would be a great first step in repairing the damage America's reputation has suffered under George W. Bush.
I really hope to vote for Obama. If Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for McCain. And I wish Mrs. Clinton continued effectiveness in the Senate, where I think she can continue to do much good and little damage.
The comments that Hillary Clinton and her advisors make about caucus votes and primaries in small states are diverting attention away from the fact that this is a primary not a general election. Sooner or later Barack Obama is going to say - Everybody's vote counts and Democrats in solidly Republican States should have an equal chance to nominate the Presidential candidate. This includes those who vote for Mrs clinton -. At the moment Mrs Clinton stands a real chance of being branded irremediably elitist
HRC's people finding it "interesting spin" that Sen. Obama is doing better among the highly educated and Sen. Clinton got more $ from large donors... Let's look at the facts: Sen. Clinton's fin. backing came in large numbers from large ind. donors who had maxed out (as well as more $ from lobbyists than any candidate in history); Sen. Obama does indeed better with the more educated segment - could that not "just" be because they are better informed (and really reluctant to let the circus back in town), and can see that it will be highly unlikely that another Pres. Clinton would get any cooperation from a GOP congressman who needs to get re-elected back home (that is, assuming she could win in Nov, with NO cross-over appeal - on the contrary - uniting the entire GOP, and losing the indies to McCain). But the facts have overtaken this spin - look at Sen. Obama's support in VA: ALL income groups and races, gender -.. Mrs. Clinton is smart - now she'll have to prove that she is wise, and does care about the party and not just about herself. I wish her well in the senate - her many qualities seem ultimately suited for this post - maybe we can all agree we need better leadership there.
The reason that the Clinton Camp wasn't prepared was that they expected Mrs. Clinton to be handed the nomination on a silver platter, garnished by peas and carrots. No one in Team Hillary actually expected her to go out and work for the nomination, least of all Mrs. Clinton herself. Now that she is losing states, she is dismissive about the people who partcipated in the races -- whether they voted for her or not. The very citizens that she would depend on come November, if she won the nomination. That, when combined with her imaginary 35 year "résumé", the willingness to divide the party along gender and racial differences, the murky finances, the curmudgeonly treatment of her opponent, Mrs. Clinton exhibits all the gracelessness of a toad. Not very Presidental. And not the candidate for me.
Why on earth does anyone want Hillary to be the dem nominee?
Her negatives are astronomical, she is a page from the past where partisanship and divisiveness are part of her platform. She obviously is a terrible manager (witness the Solis Doyle fiasco and the $30 million uncontested senate re-election campaign). I sense that Americans are ready to turn the page on the politics of the past and in that regard, McCain and Obama are superior to Hillary Clinton.
I am a life-long Democrat living in Virginia. I have never voted for a Republican for President in my life (8 national elections). I voted for Obama yesterday and will vote for him again in the national election. If HRC gets the nomination, I will vote for McCain in the national election. There are many white gentlemen here who will vote as I will.
Ms. Clinton's experience?
She spend eight years using her dignity to mop up her husband's problems,and had the nerve to blame his problems it on a "right wing conspiracy." She participated in giving pardons to fugitives who donated money to her husband's library. She fouled up the health care plan because no trusts her. She had problems distinguishing between government furniture and her own. Her husband lost the Congress and almost got thrown out of office. Had trouble finding her billing records ON HER DESK!
Bottom line, democrats are decent people who have certain core beliefs but do not want them drowned out by the Clinton's predilection for attracting "problems." I do not agree with Obama's stance on many issues, but atleast the guy is honest about his positions, a refreshing change.
For the first time last evening, while watching Sen. Clinton in El Paso, I got the feeling that this was someone who had gotten in above her head. Perhaps it is she, rather than Obama, that should have waited untill another time to run. Her pact with Bill that she would run and he would support her if she stuck with him through his serial adultery was the main impetus for her run - not an independent political reason for being for her campaign. Hers was a derivative campaign, born of minimal competence and professional victimhood. She is being defeated by a movement. BUT I don't discount the ability of the Clintons to pull out a victory through some devious means - what I don't know, but they do - that's why they're the Clintons.
I was one of Pres. Clinton's strongest supporters. I reveled in his fight against the vast right wing conspiracy. His political combat against the Republican Congress was a competition upon which I thrived-- Almost as good as football. Then came 8 years of President Screwball. Bush and the republican Congress took partisanship to a level that even the Clintons never approached. Every issue, no matter how unimportant, became a struggle for political superiority. The acrimony that existed in Washington spread throughout the country and left us a squabbling bitter mess. Thus, while I still respect Hillary Clinton, I have finally realized how wrong I was to thrive on the partisan battles between her family and the Republicans. After 20 years of the Clintons and the Bushes, this country must find a new leader, one who will change this poisonous atmosphere. I hope and believe this leader to be Barack Obama. To me his lack of experience in the politics of Washington is not a drawback, but his most virtuous quality.
Hillary and her team are good at coming up for excuses for why they keep losing. And last night, I saw one of her strategists on CNN saying the DNC should "Seat the Florida and Michigan delegates at the Convention." Wolf Blitzer said "But no campaigns were run in those two states and Hillary was the only name on the Michigan ballot, is that fair?" And her supporter said "Yes, the people have spoken."
I agree, the people have spoken in eight straight primaries and caucuses, and they don't want Hillary. And if campaigns are conducted and a fair vote takes place in Michigan and Florida, the voters will add two more losses to the growing list of Hillary defeats.
The arrogance of Senator Clinton continues to amaze me. She is trying to use the same type of campaign tactics that got her husband elected 11 years ago, but I think the American people, and their mindset, have changed. It is my impression that the people (myself included) are tired of “politics”. Let’s be honest, most Americans don’t know enough about the inter-workings of their own government, economy or international relations to make intellectual decisions. They go with how they “feel” about a candidate. We have learned that character really does count, and you want to “feel” that the person you are voting for is sincere in their desire to move our country forward. As a registered Independent I will vote for Obama over McCain, but McCain over Clinton.
Hello Mr. Appel, that was very insulting. Have you ever heard of the middle class? Trust me, there are alot of millionaired who don't even have Associates Degrees. Idiots who think like this is why Hillary Clinton is losing.
Hello Mr. Appel, that was very insulting. Have you ever heard of the middle class? Trust me, there are alot of millionaired who don't even have Associates Degrees. Idiots who think like this is why Hillary Clinton is losing.
Hillary will lose because she has shown that she can't adapt. She claims a wealth of experience, but when she is tested, she goes back to the same failing strategies that got her where she is now. The bottom line is that she had no plan for how to wage a contested campaign. She went to the bank on inevitability. How's that working for you now, Hillary?
The statement that Hillary's heavy reliance on single large donations somehow reflects that she's doing better among college educated, intellectual voters is ridiculous.
There are a number of professions out there full of well-educated and intelligent people whose earnings and life-situations won't allow them to donate $2000 to a campaign. They are social workers, teachers & professors, nurses, public defense attorneys, etc.
I for one teach history at a secondary school, have a Master's in History. As an independent voter, I've rarely donated to any campaign. Yet, I've reached into my pocket to give to Obama three times since Iowa: after New Hampshire, after S.C., and after Super Tuesday. And, I'm going to do it again.
Barack has raised historic sums of money this way...from lots of small donors, rather than Hillary's reliance the entrenched interests of the establishment.
Sure, try to twist the arms of the DNC to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates after the candidates agreed to not campaign in those states, and then claim that the people there who voted there should have their votes count. Lie, cheat, steal, do whatever you need to do to get what you want. You want your friend to run the White House Travel Office? No probably, just have the head of the Travel Office indicted on bogus charges. Why any Democrat would even consider supporting Clinton here is beyond me. I'm still waiting for the typical scorched earth strategy of HRC to kick in. Her campaign says they have dirt on Obama, they have videos of Obama from when he was a state legislator in Illinois that prove Obama isn't electable. Hell, they already tried the Obama is a drug dealer ploy. Let's see what else the Clintonistas can scrounge up.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/02/13/political_wars/
[On the Democratic side, rank-and-file party members have been shocked to discover that there is a ruling elite of 800 superdelegates, who have the power to crown the presidential nominee and who can be easily swayed or corrupted by lobbying.
The old-guard feminist establishment has also rushed out of cold storage to embrace Hillary Clinton via tremulous manifestoes of gal power that have startlingly exposed the sentimental slackness of thought that made Gloria Steinem and company wear out their welcome in the first place. Hillary's gonads must be sending out sci-fi rays that paralyze the paleo-feminist mind -- because her career, attached to her husband's flapping coattails, has sure been heavy on striking pious attitudes but ultra-light on concrete achievements.
The angst and fury boiling on talk radio, from both hosts and callers, have been truly operatic in drama and intensity. It's been a riveting spectator sport. But this eruption would come as no surprise to longtime listeners. What the mainstream press has failed to realize is that nationally syndicated hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, have always drawn a very firm distinction between their views and those of the party establishment in Washington. They have consistently maintained, and supported it in detail, that they are conservatives first and Republicans second. They have fiercely denounced the party when it has strayed from conservative principles. McCain, who has co-sponsored liberal legislation and courted and flattered Beltway journalists, has been a longtime target.
This disarray among Republicans, which may depress voter turnout or even spawn a protest splinter party, offers a fantastic opening to Democrats, if the party can only seize it. The galvanizing energy aroused by Barack Obama's thrilling coast-to-coast victories gives Democrats a clear shot at regaining the White House. However, the three-faced Hillary, that queen of triangulation, would be a nice big gift to Republicans, who are itching to romp all over the Clintons' 20-volume encyclopedia of tawdry scandals.
John McCain's courage under torture during the Vietnam War deserves everyone's gratitude and respect. But as a national candidate, the stumpy, uptight McCain is a lemon. Oy, that weaselly voice and those dated locutions and stilted intonations. Who needs a weird old coot with a short fuse in the White House? This isn't a smart game plan for the war on terror. ]
If they can't even run a primary campaign well, why do people think Hillary should be our candidate? The Republicans will wrong a strong campaign in the fall. We need the best possible campaign to run against them. Thank goodness Obama hasn't blown it like Clinton has.
It would appear that Hillary may well benefit by hiring Rudy Giuliani as a campaign consultant, as she seems to emulating Rudy's strategy of declaring Florida as his firewall, and everything will fall into place after that. Now we have Hillary with two firewall states, Ohio and Texas. If she does not blow Obama away in those two states, will Pennsylvania be the next firewall?
Yeah...virtuously inexperienced just like George Bush.
Here we go again...electing a "uniter".
The most disturbing aspect of this article is Schumer's assertion that voters won't care if superdelegates steal the nomination from Obama in a "close election." Sorry Chuck, but the last "close" election my favorite lost was by a handful of votes in Florida, and I'm not prepared to be forgiving this time around. What I would like to see is you, the champion of our current torture-tolerant AG, declared the loser of a "close" election in which you got the most votes. I can just imagine how eagerly you would concede! Fact is, your comments reveal nothing more than the sleazy thinking and rancid morality so rife within the Clinton camp. And HRC backers wonder why people find her so unappealing!
Who is it again, who will be ready to lead on Day One?
Judging from Clinton’s complete lack of foresight or plan B plus her arrogance and what seems like a healthy form of denial, I don’t think it’s her. In fact, this kind of sounds like our current train wreck of a president.
Be grateful that all her "experience" and lack of preparation took down just her own campaign and not the entire American economy, or defense system. For the smartest woman in the world to fail to oversee her campaign, and to fail to develop a Plan B contingency, is inexcusable for someone who wants to rule over the country.
50 million Elvis fans (and/or Hillary Haters) can't be wrong!
"Mr. Penn suggested that Mr. Obama had simply turned out to be a tougher candidate than originally expected."
(Ditto, the Iraq war.) And when Ready-On-Day-One Mrs. Clinton becomes Commander-in-Chief, and encounters "tougher than originally expected," will we be handed a similar flurry of flat-footed excuses?
Madam Clinton should not become the next president. I'm so very, very tired of the divisive politics both she and Mr. Clinton practice. We've suffered through 8 years of divisive Bush politics and I want no more of that. In that sense, she and Mr. Bush are cut from the same cloth.
She continually shows poor judgment...witness the health care fiasco when Bill was prez, and her sending attack dog, Bill to SC.
Guess what? I want a politician who is somewhat of a straight-shooter, who is just a bit honest--someone is just a bit likable. I don't have to agree with all his stances.
Mike Huckebee made me laugh when he was on "Colbert Nation." And I hardly agree with anything he represents (no, I don't believe in evolution and yes, I support legalized abortion) At some point style becomes substance.
Whenever I think of Hillary, I think of Lady MacBeth.
I'm a registered independent and I'll vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, but if Hillary wins it, I'll vote for McCain. ANd I don't think that's a minority position.