Clinton strategy change?

[Adelante]

This is from yesterday's Campaign Diaries. It takes a look at what Clinton might do to pull herself out of what appears to be a losing strategy.

And if she fails in Iowa, she is not likely to sink like Howard Dean did: She has the money and the organization, and she will likely compete all the way to February 5th at least even if Obama sweeps IA and NH. She would be unlikely to beat him then, but the race will not be over on January 8th for her as it was 4 years ago. So while it appears unlikely that Obama and Edwards could win without stopping her in Iowa, Clinton could still find ways of winning if she loses the caucuses. She has more possible paths to the nomination than her rivals, and that alone is a huge advantage.

Yet, Hillary's troubles are much deeper than poll numbers indicate, for it is her entire strategy that has been demolished. Her campaign was built on a sense of inevitability: Hillary was not only sure of winning, but she was the natural choice, the candidate around which the base would rally and protect. This led her to do things like vote for the Iran resolution -- just imagine how much stronger she might look right now if she had not convinced herself that she was in general election mode already and that it was safe for her to cast that vote. And it did look safe until recently, but her slide has made that strategy non-viable. If Clinton wants to win the nomination, she will have to rethink her campaign entirely and earn it like any other candidate. She could do it, but she needs a Plan B -- and fast.

For now, her Plan B has been to attack Obama -- but that does not sit well in Iowa, as the Des Moines Register cartoon from last Wednesday demonstrated. But that might also be Clinton's goal: She knows that she'll have a much easier time if Edwards wins Iowa than if Obama does, so she might be trying to bring him down with her to let Edwards win the caucuses. That could very well work... though it could be a dangerous game for Clinton. For one, she could come in third; her reliance on inevitability means that her backers in later states could immediately start looking elsewhere if Clinton comes in that poorly in Iowa; and Gephardt failed miserably at this game in 2004, as his attempt to bring Dean down landed me a miserable 11%.

In other words, Clinton knows she can win this by going down into the mix and run a state-by-state campaign that takes her opponents seriously; she got the warning early enough for her to come down from her general election clouds and realize she will have to fight for this. Whether she manages to change her strategy enough will determine whether she can survive an Iowa loss -- and whether she can clinch the nomination.

http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/how-bad-is-it-getting-for-hillary.html

[Dawgs]

1. She better hurry up. She only has a week and a half.

Today is the 11th, only 10 days before the Christmas weekend.

Most people won't pay attention from 12/21 to 1/2(two holidays, college football bowl games, vacations, etc..).

The Iowa caucus is Jan. 3rd, and the New Hampshire primary is Jan. 8th.

[Adelante]

2. Another interesting tidbit

National Journal ranks Edwards as third in likelihood of winning nationally, Clinton first (and Obama second), with this reasoning.

The biggest hurdle in Edwards' way? It's Clinton, not Obama. Edwards and Clinton share more supporters than Edwards and Obama. Edwards is hoping for the blue-collar, older Dem support. That's the heart and soul of Clinton's support.

http://nationaljournal.com/racerankings/wh08/democrats/

[karynnj]

4. Interesting

I had always wrongly assumed that an Edwards implosion would hurt HRC by moving Obama up.

[Adelante]

5. I've been seeing for a while

that Edwards voters moved to Clinton instead of Obama (off-line). I started thinking it might have to do with the blue collar vote very recently, so I was interested to see this call on it.

[karynnj]

3. In December 2003, it was assumed that Dean had the money, the energy and the people behind him

HRC could be in more, not less trouble. Dean had the most money than, far more than Kerry. He also had an issue and some enthusiastic support. HRC has the media and the party as well as money. Money and the media will shift with a win by someone else.

The question is how controlled the party is by the two Clintons themselves. If they begin to see that she is not winning, will it end the spell the Clintons had over a wing of the party. For the last 3 years, all I've read is BC speaking of how he knows how to win and to fight back - if the curtain is drawn back, and it is seen that BC is not a wizard, but the beneficiary of running in a Democratic year, what happens. I don't know if all the styories of arm twisting are true, but if they are and it appears she could lose, there could be an avalanche of superdelegates changing their support.