Wisconsin, I think, was a big blunder by the Clinton campaign.

[mmonk]

The initial strategy of ignoring it to jump to Texas was a bad decision. Now Obama has momentum going into Texas and even if she wins it, it won't be a large difference. Changing their minds late in the campaign there was too late to make a difference. Just my 2 cents.

[saltpoint]

1. Agree. There was an odd here-then gone-then back again feel to

that last week, all of it underneath the noise from Wolfson about "plagiarism."

Not a very effective political strategy, as evidenced by the 17% difference in their vote totals.

[Jawja]

15. Actually,

I believe it was the Clinton campaign's charge of plagiarism (and then denying it came from them) that was the big mistake. It smacked of Karl Rove and the politics of smear and Democrats in general are tired of this crap. Democrats saw it used on behalf of the GOP on two good candidates in Al Gore and John Kerry; so perhaps they cringed a little at seeing one of their own resort to it in what came across as a silly act of desperation.

I know Hillary supporters don't see it as silly, but I think it came across that way - especially when she denied that the "plagiarism" charge was initiated by her campaign.

[XemaSab]

2. Noit having teams in place for the February 9th states was a bigger mistake, IMHO

I feel like she's ignored the grassroots in favor of the hyper-organized 1992 campaign to her detriment.

Here in Santa Barbara we've had a big squad of Obama supporters on the ground and ready to go for MONTHS before Super Tuesday. Did Obama know he was going to make it that far? No, but he had people ready just in case. :)

[TheDonkey]

3. Her ignoring all the states that "do not matter" was a big blunder. Strange because Rudy crashed

just the same weeks before using the same strategy.

[2rth2pwr]

4. HA! that's just what she wants you to think!

Would it help her to lose Wisconsin?

Updated Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2008, at 6:10 PM ET

"Is Hillary better off losing Wisconsin? My friend S called with a so-crazy-it-might-be-true theory about the Democratic primary contest, which is this: Hillary does best when Democratic voters sense she's about to get brutally knocked out of the race, as in New Hampshire. That prospect taps a well of residual sympathy for a woman who has devoted her life to politics, etc. But when Hillary is triumphant she seems arrogant and unbearable, and voters feel free to express those perceptions at the polls. It follows that Hillary will do better in the crucial states of Ohio and Texas if she loses in Wisconsin and has her back to the wall. If she wins Wisconsin, and holds a big happy victory rally trumpeting her newfound momentum, the result will be a another surge of support for Obama. ... In other words, it's not that there is no momentum from a primary victory this year ("nomentum"). There's reverse momementum ("mutnemom!"), at least where Hillary is concerned. If she wins a primary one week that makes her more likely to lose the next one. .... 3:06 P.M."

http://www.slate.com/id/2184672/#mutnemom

[Levgreee]

5. I think she's had "reverse momentum" for a long time now

she didn't need Wisconsin to be a blow out too, for it to happen.

[TheDonkey]

7. I think it is disgraceful to even think she's want to play a "sympathy play" to win the primary

Mutnenmom? That is shameful to even suggest and pretty much sexist. That a women needs to be clinging for life until people feel bad for her, then step up to vote for her? WTF??? I am a little in shock that people are seriously saying this with a straight face.

[grantcart]

6. When you think that she has been waiting her whole life for this

and she puts all of her eggs in the Feb 5th basket and wakes up Feb 6th with no money no message and no plan I cannot help but compare the management style that was used in Iraq that put all of its eggs in the invasion and failed to consider the occupation.

[FlyingSquirrel]

8. Oh... My God.

Oh No You DI-INT!

That was good.

[grantcart]

13. I wasn't being flippant please see post # 12

[FlyingSquirrel]

14. I know you weren't.

I'm just in such a good mood tonight that I can't really express myself well. I was really saying that I was surprised to see such an important revelation in GDP tonight. I can completely see the similarities, and I know you weren't saying she's evil or a warmonger or anything like that.

[Bucky]

10. Boo. Hiss.

Clinton's made a few mistakes along the way. I'm not supporting her, but making it sound like she wanted the war in Iraq rather than simply didn't want to risk standing up against it, is off the mark and unfair.

Now that we're on the verge of winning it, I think Obama supporters have the responsibility of bringing the party together--and that means no more cheap shots against a great senator like Hillary Clinton.

[grantcart]

12. This is not a cheap shot and I am entirely serious about it

Again the point is management style.

Hillary is a smart person, good senator and I will stipulate to 15 more nice things that you can name. She is not evil.

But what she has in common with him is his management style.

Here is a very well researched and widely discussed article by Joshua Green
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/pat...

For a more detailed examination of this style please note:


1) There was an indepth article about the inner workings of the Clinton campaign that HRC had killed because she wanted to control the press (very Rumsfield like)

quote
I’ve spent a fair amount of time over the last two years reporting on “Hillaryland,” as Clinton’s inner circle is known, for pieces like this one and this one, and also, infamously, for one that did not run when GQ magazine opted to kill it after learning of the Clinton campaign’s displeasure, unquote


2) The campaign started with an "air of inevitability" in fact that was what the campaign was selling. This again is very reminiscent of Rumsfield:

quote
Such arrogance led directly to the idea that Clinton could simply project an air of inevitability and be assured her party’s nomination.
unquote

3) Here is where the qualities of the campaign manager are discussed loyalty over independent voice (please think about Rumsfield and the Joint Chiefs of staff and the way that Rumsfield selected his generals - very similar)

quote
No one could have predicted Barack Obama’s sudden rise, though the Clinton campaign was slower to recognize it than most. Solis Doyle’s failure is another matter. As much as Clinton touts her own “executive experience” and judgment, she made Solis Doyle her campaign manager because of Solis Doyle’s loyalty, rather than her skill, despite a trail of available evidence suggesting she was unsuited for the role.
unquote

Substitue Obama for the Iraqi insurgency and Doyle for the Joint Chiefs and it reads like Iraq.


4) Once the Iraqi war started to go south Rumsfield sent his henchmen in to discipline doubters not find out what was going on
Here is HRC version in her campaign

quote
With her staff’s squabbling threatening to torpedo her campaign, Clinton dispatched Solis Doyle to New York in August to serve as an enforcer and get things under control, which she largely managed to do. The leaks were contained, the play-it-safe camp of Penn and Grunwald ultimately prevailed
unquote

5) Rather than ask questions and seek out independent voices Rumsfield was complacent. Meanwhile the Clinton campaign

quote
This belief in Hillary’s unassailability fostered a complacency that may cost Clinton more dearly than anyone could have imagined
unquote

6) Her staff structure similar to ?

quote

Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else. This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president’s than her supporters might like to admit.

unquote


To summarize: Hillary is good. Her campaign management terrible (and in many ways reminiscent of Rumsfield) and whatever else you think it is now most clear that she is not ready for day one.

No matter how close it is it is not over until Hillary says its over.

I have excerpted it from a previous post I made. But here is one of Obama's main points. He didn't move to Washington - there is a pattern of thinking there that is endemic and it is filled with hubris. This is the reason why he cannot postpone his campaign. 8 years would increase the possibility of his being sucked into the same hubris.

It isn't about her wanting a war. It is about the serious consequences of over estimating your own strengths and your opponents
weaknesses. For both Rumsfield and Clinton it has led them into the most disastorous decisions of their career.

[Bucky]

9. Clinton will probably do better in Ohio than Texas

The TDP has been razed to the ground several times over since 1986. What's left of it here is young and dynamic. I think Clinton's true firewall is Ohio. Obama should be able to take Texas by 53-56%. Ohio will be much closer... and I wouldn't rule out a Clinton victory there.

[johnnydrama]

11. exactly

What could she do in Ohio & TX in 3 weeks that she couldn't do in 2.

Does she really think that sending Bill & Chelsea into a state instead of her helps her all that much?

[SoCalDem]

16. Their strategy did not go beyond "Super Tuesday"

They have been playing catch-up since then.. In Washington-speak..."mistakes were made"

[Tesha]

17. Everything Hillary has done since her IWR has been a big blunder. (NT)

[tishaLA]

18. Did Ms Williams Devise that Strategy?

If she did, is she better than the person she replaced? Or is this a Penn/Wolfson thing? Who makes these stupid decisions? She SHOULD have been competitive in WI and she just blew it.

[Vinca]

19. Her mistake was going negative. People have had it with negative.

That's why Obama's positivity is causing a tidal wave.

[Maribelle]

20. The exit polls: Hillary lost most to the Independent vote, the vote that will abandon Obama

She won with households under $50,000; Catholics; Women

Most Independents are not women and not Catholics.

Independents are union members.

If you look at the Democratic votes in the exit polls, it was pretty darn close. But even then, I know that Independents are claiming they are Democrats, as well.

All in all, I think Hillary did great among true and honest Democrats.