Missteps Mar Clinton's Competency Message

Politico: Shake-Ups, Miscalculations And Financial Woes Cause Some To Question Her Leadership Ability

(The Politico)  This story was written by David Paul Kuhn and Jim VandeHei.

---

Hillary Rodham Clinton wants voters to decide the nomination based on who can coolly and competently run the country. She had better hope they don’t study her recent campaign too closely for the answer.

Clinton has overseen two major staff shake-ups in two months. She has left a trail of unpaid bills and unhappy vendors and had to loan her own campaign $5 million to keep it afloat in January. Her campaign badly underestimated her main adversary, Barack Obama, miscalculated the importance of organizing caucus states and was caught flat-footed after failing to lock up the nomination on Super Tuesday.

It would be easy to dismiss all of this as fairly conventional political stumbling - if she hadn’t made her supreme readiness and managerial competence the central issue of her presidential campaign.  

But since she has, a growing number of Democrats are comparing the Clinton and Obama campaigns - their first real exercise in executive leadership - and rendering harsh assessments of her stewardship.

In twin columns in Tuesday’s Washington Post, left-of-center columnists Peter Beinart and E.J. Dionne Jr. condemned Clinton’s overall management of the campaign and inability to build a durable message and infrastructure. It’s a common theme in Democratic circles these days.

“Any time you are involved in a long campaign, there are going to be major substantive and procedural gaffes,” says former Democratic Rep. David Bonior, an uncommitted superdelegate who served as the campaign manager to John Edwards. “The question is how a campaign handles those gaffes and how a candidate handles them. And I think it’s fair to say that Sen. Obama has handled [his] problems better than Sen. Clinton.”

Obama can rightly claim he has run a more consistent, disciplined and technologically savvy campaign. While Clinton has blown though nearly a half-dozen campaign slogans and failed to put concerns about her credibility to rest, he has clung to essentially the same leadership and governing message he outlined in his 2004 speech at the Democratic convention. There has been little drama inside his operation - or at least if there was, it has been kept largely concealed.

“In every campaign, the strategy is important and the day-to-day management is important. And in Obama’s case, it’s hard not to argue that they have run a great campaign,” said Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager for Kerry’s 2004 bid and a Clinton supporter. “It’s been one of the best-run presidential campaigns in the last 20 years. I think they are focused and disciplined and on message. … The test of a good campaign is having a plan and keeping an operation on track to execute a plan.”

Put simply, Obama has shown he can offer a compelling vision, execute a complicated strategy to convey it and, all the while, keep the ledger in the black. That’s not a bad first step to becoming a strong leader.

There is no question he has stumbled in ways that will haunt him in the general election. His handling of the Tony Rezko affair was exceptionally clumsy. It’s still puzzling why he was so cozy with a known influence-peddler and why it took so long to make all of the details clear and public.

His relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright - his pastor who railed against America and accused the government of purposely spreading AIDS to kill blacks - is a ticking general election time bomb. For now, though, many are praising his efforts to defuse it and move forward.

“Under different circumstances, that would wreck a campaign if not handled right. And so far, it’s not been a mortal wound,” said Dennis Johnson, professor of political management at George Washington University. “It seems to me it’s been a much smarter-run campaign.”

The Clinton campaign, by cntrast, has been marked by strategic missteps, financial uncertainty and personnel drama. Its strengths - a supremely disciplined candidate and remarkable fundraising - have been undermined by other aspects of the enterprise, such as a headstrong, factionalized staff and a spendthrift approach. The conventional wisdom once held that it was Bill Clinton who was chronically improvisational and unable to run a tight ship. That flaw, it seems, runs in the family.

Strategist Mark Penn’s ouster was the latest staff dispute to unfold in the media, accompanied by a surplus of finger-pointing and a divulging of private details by aggrieved insiders. The pattern was a familiar one, having surfaced after Clinton’s Iowa loss and right before Clinton jettisoned Patti Solis Doyle as campaign manager.

Howard Wolfson, a top Clinton aide, acknowledges that in a campaign, blame ultimately resides at the top. But he also contends that it’s important to appreciate the value of a candidate who has the self-confidence to allow dissenting voices within the leadership structure and who accepts responsibility for tough choices - such as ousting longtime friends and advisers when they become ineffective.

“It is fair to say that every candidate is ultimately responsible for what his campaign does or doesn’t do,” said Wolfson. But, he noted, “The number of times that I’ve read [of] Sen. Obama blaming his staff for problems in his campaign, I can’t even count.”

In interviews, several veteran Democratic strategists said the business of running a campaign offers limited insight into a candidate’s performance in the White House.

And Clinton’s defenders argue that the relatively smooth-running Obama operation obscures the reality that the first-term Illinois senator is an untested, naive politician who showed little spine or genius during his unremarkable four years in the U.S. Senate. Clinton loyalists think the Obama story has a predictable conclusion: He gets torn apart by a ruthless GOP and crushed in the general election.

All of this could be true. But it is also true that a fair measurement of the candidates’ leadership skills is their management of their campaign. Easily the largest enterprise they have run in their lives - in February alone, Obama had 1,280 paid employees, at a cost of $2.61 million; Clinton had 935 employees and a monthly payroll of $1.63 million - the campaign reveals flaws and strengths that will only be magnified in the Oval Office.

[b-easy63]

Shut UP Bill!!!


Hillary! I don''''t support, like or trust you--but...COME ON!! are you absolutely sure the Columbian government did not give Penn 350K and Bill 800K to RUIN your Presidential bid?

*** is Bill doing bringing Bosnia back up--and telling a bunch of lies when he does it? The issue was almost gone. Comedy of Errors? Is Hillary really as awful as she seems? Or is she just surrounded by awful, inept, ridiculous people?

[b-easy63]

Finally for those in either party that resent the Independent vote and what it will decide, understand this--as an American--you only ever had 1 vote. You may have deluded yourself into thinking it was more powerful than it really was by joining like minds and voting--but here''s the thing--you chose to use your vote in a collective--others did not--they do not have to--when those who do not join either party are more or significant in number--the club you joined does not matter any more. don''t like that? tough, this was never your game, it is not your ball and you don''t own the field. One vote--to join others en masse or exercise on your own--but that is all you EVER really had and with the rise of over 30% now Independent--your 1 vote--in a collective or not---is back to being what it should always have been--your choice alongside the others some in your corner--many maybe not--but nothing says the rest have to agree with you. AND if they exercise their vote on a whim or in anger or Know nothing about a candidate or research--that is none of your business. IN the end, they still have that one vote--and educated or not--it counts just as much as each one of yours--and if the outcome is not what you like--too bad--this is not your country--it''s all of ours.

[b-easy63]

IN the end, for me as well as many others--neither party fits--so my votes are well thought out and are individual by individual. I don''t vote straight ticket, because people are not great just because the Pres candidate is, it must be case by case and yes--usually I look at their records.

Not every Independent is the same, or even remains Independent--but I love being Independent--because I want the freedom from dogma and party mantra and affiliation--I don''t own a party --but they don''t own me either and my vote is ALWAYS my own--and I will not allow any party to take it for granted. I hope more and more people go Independent--it is the only way we will ever be able to take back our government.and contrary to popular teachings--the 2 parties are not mandates or holy--they can be replaced and others can win--they will have a chance as more people leave the Dems and the GOP.

[b-easy63]

But is spending what we don''t have stopping the Dems? No. For decades, they have had what seemed like an unlimited amount of largesse and they simply can''t fathom those spend happy times ever ending. Just like the Romans could not imagine their empire falling. So they spend--Bush want a defense budget? Add 30 billion more--even though they don''t want to spend the money. Rebates? Add billions more...bailouts--find some more stuff and add a few more billion--always take more--add more. Surplus in SS? let''s take the 35 billion for 20 years and spend it--and leave IOUs. Too many IOUs? Let''s not pay it back--let''s just tell the country the program is bankrupt...on and on--it is truly irresponsible. And Of course the GOP has joined in the spending spree and they are into torture and illegal wars, besides they don''t believe in choice, gay rights or racial equality. I also believe in having convictions and principles and standing by them win or lose--not standing by people--win or lose--ideas and moral or ethical principles. I believe in honesty too and fairness, I don''t believe either party embodies that--though Dems are closer to that than Republicans.

[b-easy63]

One of the main reasons I left the Democratic party was their spending habits and their failure to note how many social programs--don''t help--they hurt people. But maybe they can see that now that Welfare rolls have been cut from over 13 million down to less than 3 million for the entire country. No body learns how to stand on their own 2 feet with a crutch --but in their zeal to corner the Help market--the Dems often dev programs that not only were enablers to crutches--they actually crippled the recipients. Dems first reaction to helping anyone is the check book--that is not always the right choice.


and given their propensity to pump up any budget (they even swelled the rebate budget even though they knew the economy and the gov was in trouble) they act like a shopaholic with someone else''s credit card. Everyone knows that when the gov spends money that they do not have, and it is not backed by anything inflation goes up. So every time they pad those budgets, our dollar becomes more worthless-- it takes more of the devalued dollar to get back to an acceptable price. For instance we could say gas is not really 110.00/barrel. It is still 33.00/barrel only since our dollar is worth only .35 it takes 3 times as much to equal the old 33.00. Which is why gas, oil , food, etc is up 300%. this is a result of spending money as a country that we do not have.

[b-easy63]

I personally brought quite a few new voters to the process. They were excited but not about the Democratic party--about Obama. I already know that they may not continue to participate, really --a lot of Democrats are a turn off and their oratory sounds canned, boring and like some sort of indoctrination and is not matched by what we see around us. Some of it is ivory tower or ideologic pie in the sky. People DO want to help others--but they are sick to death of the whining and the dislike of wealth many Dems affect. They are sick to death of the hatred of the 2 parties for each other too. People can vote Dem and believe in war, not all wars--but some. They can believe in owning guns or the death penalty, they can believe in true racial equality and acceptance but not affirmative action and they can believe in immigration but not illegal immigration amnesty. A lot of that does not fit in the Dem makeup--so they don''t fit, the thing is--if anyone ever gets this demographic fired up again (after Obama) they will be formidable for the other side and maybe someday an Independent might win.


A lot won''t even become Independents--it all depends if they stay inspired, they are not into the rivalry between the two main parties nor the old grudges and pathos each has. I can guarantee you, that if Obama is not on the ticket--loss of any core voters is not going to be the biggest shock--it is going to be seeing many of the new voters not even bothering to vote.

[b-easy63]

Many of these new voters do not want to be Democrats--they are not here to "join the party" they are here to participate in something historic or they have been inspired. A lot will not vote 2 years from now or even in the next 4, the reason? there are many--but the fact is--the Democratic rolls have swelled but many of these people do not belong to you. They are not embracing the Dem platform, they don''t want to hear about what the Dem party is about--they are here and are inspired by a person and if he does not take them further into the game, this election will be as far as it goes.

It is not that they are Republicans--many are first time voters--it is that they are buying into a person (mostly Obama) NOT a party. When he goes--they will go. If he is maligned or they feel he is, they will be disillusioned (many already are) they see a very nasty game and they do not understand the rules or the sentiment. They want to be a part of his movement, they want to work with him and work on his vision. they do not feel the same about Hillary or any other Dem candidate--many do not even care or want to know about the others. They are new, it is enough for now that they want to be a part of the process at all.

[b-easy63]

In the end, the antics and behaviors of the Dems and the GOP will move many voters out. They may switch parties..or they may become Independents. I believe that within the next 5 years, Independents may well outnumber either mainstream party. This is a good thing--because it means Individuals are now investing in government and as Individuals, the party system loses its ability to cajole, humor or pander and lifetime career politicians lose their abilities to pimp a voting block or guarantee it for any reason.

I think it is needed. This will be alarming to those in the fold as will the realization that the outcome of any election will not be decided by them but by people who are not in their club. But that is good too. "The party" be it Republican or Democrat has always been a bit of an inside, go along with the program group. It was their strength but presently, is their biggest weakness. The weakness? That people end up compromising their principles and values in the hopes of at least getting a little of what they want. The parties have always presented themselves as inevitable and mandatory--not any more. those days are ending--and it will infuriate both sides--but the thing is--if there is an exodus (and even if Obama wins, there will be) the party has failed some group or person in a big way. People leave when they no longer want to be affiliated with a group.

[b-easy63]

Those that can''''t find a *** thing to praise or lift up their candidate who hasn''''t done a *** thing, besides accusing everyone else of racism, become lying shills trying to tear down the other canadidates proven success.

It is hateful shill! It''''s that simple.

Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 04:44 PM : Apr 10, 2008


every time someone points out something about race or this contest it is not about you--though if you feel it is and you are being maligned--you probably are subconsciously condemning yourself. I remember some of the first posts of yours that I read about Obama--you definitely have issues that extend past this race, but as far as what the marring on your soul really is--that is between you and God and your conscience. We really don''t care--not even if you are a flaming klansmen--you have to answer for that--and the one you have to answer to--knows your heart--so all the words and denials in the world--are moot. Either you are or you aren''t. If you aren''t the accusations or conversations should roll off your back (your calling me racist, means nothing to me--I consider the source) but if you are--then it is good to see you care enough to be tormented--that means there is hope for you yet. LOL

[b-easy63]

the largest growing electorate is Independent and the reason is--people are disillusioned with their original party, but do not embrace the platform of the other party either. Like you said--it has not changed in a while--but this is not your granddad''s platform anymore. For instance, many of the youth are tired of the racism and sexism of other generations. Some of the things being played out right now--will guarantee, though many have signed up to vote--that when election time comes or the next cycle is here--many of these voters will have nothing to do with voting--the reason why--the Dem and GOP perception and way of addressing things and the attitudes emanating from many of the members are a turn off. The general feeling is--they just don''t want to associate with or be like the people in the mainstream parties. Those in the party do not notice how they are (being inured to it) but those not in the party, don''t want to be tainted. So occasionally the agendas and votes coincide--at other times--no thank you--and if that upsets the 2 parties==too bad.

[b-easy63]

Posted by tazmjam at 06:49 PM : Apr 10, 2008


What changes is not the party spiel--but the people--and when people change or circumstances change or are nuanced and parties do not keep up with that--they fail to reflect the people and therefore, people either compromise or they leave. NO party can meet the ideology of most people 100% but when it becomes egregious, there is no room there. Right now, some of the antics of this campaign indicate that the Democrats actually are not that tolerant as they liked to pretend. I know for a fact that they are going to lose some of their staunch black support in the event Obama loses. Not because of Obama himself--but because many truly believe their race has been used as a wedge issue and resent being used that way by Democrats. AGain--this is the Dem reality NOT living up to their own platform. For such persons who also know the same attitudes for denigrating and exploiting blacks exists on the Republican side--the only new middle ground will be as an Independent. People become Independents for many reason, but one of the main ones is that they do not and cannot support certain aspects of either party--that the faithful cannot understand that--is too bad. Part of being free in America is supporting who we please and while you may not like or approve of it--as persons outside of your cabal--your approval or liking is not relevant. see last post

[b-easy63]

Posted by tazmjam at 06:49 PM : Apr 10, 2008


What I was pointing at was that parties are no longer following their own platform or dogma though they tout it. For instance, A party dedicated to the people would have put the people and the welfare of the economic viability of the people over business interests such as NAFTA. that was not done. A party dedicated to human rights and social justice for American citizens would never champion or advocate any breach of law that superceded or in any way subverted those rights like the retention of illegals in America (since illegals are presently holding jobs laid off Americans need). It is not the party platform that is in flux--it usually stays the same--it is the reality of what the party is really doing. There was a time when no Democrat would advocate torture--like Hillary indicates she would do under certain circumstances. There was a time, when no Democrat would have wanted to grant telecom companies who broke the law and Illegally wire tapped immunity--which Hillary appears to support by refusing to vote yes to denying such immunity. There was a time when even a hint that person could do something like that would have been the death knell for them as a candidate. see next post

[tazmjam]

The fact is political expediency rules the day-and the true fool is one too static to recognize the flux in political ideology and so like sheep-they continue to vote dogma long after the agenda and true actions of their party no longer match the party mantra. Grow a pair-free your mind-to vote any party by duty or training or "having thought it out" as if any idea or party position and situation is absolute--is to negate what makes America, America: diversity, and continual growth, change and adaptation.
Posted by b-easy63


I cannot help but think you are being deliberately obtuse. I don%u2019t recall stating that people should vote according to a belief in an ideology that the party no longer represents. Of course politically ideologies change, not only individually but also within both parties. However, the fact is there has been no major flux in the political ideologies of the two parties recently. As I have stated previously, if a person has rethought their own political ideology it is understandable that they might decide to swing the other way. If their political beliefs have remained the same then this swing across the political board is based on something far less then intellect. As for voting based on your own ideology and the ideology of your candidate, that most certainly does not negate what makes America great. If it did why even discuss the issues...just have a popularity contest.

[rowdytexan2]

Those that can''t find a *** thing to praise or lift up their candidate who hasn''t done a *** thing, besides accusing everyone else of racism, become lying shills trying to tear down the other canadidates proven success.

It is hateful shill! It''s that simple.

[repdemapart]

Go ahead and judge Billary how they will run the country based on how mismanaged the campaign is.

BUT KEEP IN MIND ...

The BUSHES ran d''impeccable campaigns and LOOK WHAT WE GOT?

This conversation is typical NOBAMA-inspired cheapshots.

BUT NOT SO FAST ... WE KNOW YOUR KIND.

[tibu987]

Simply put, Hillary and Bill are conniving liars who will use whatever fabrication to aid their cause, as they have throughout their careers.

Do you really want someone like that to again be the president of this country?

Simply put, I don''t.

[b-easy63]

"Clinton has overseen two major staff shake-ups in two months. She has left a trail of unpaid bills and unhappy vendors and had to loan her own campaign $5 million to keep it afloat in January"

Hilary supporters: "Honestly, we think everyone is just being mean and nasty to our candidate!! After all, doesn''t everyone want a lying. deadbeat of a candidate who can''t manage her campaign whose dirty tricks backfire and who does not keep her promises? We KNOW we do? What''s wrong with Americans--why won''t they just let our candidate win? So what if she lies, cheats and is untrustworthy--it''s not like honesty is not overrated--and so what if her hubby is in bed with lobbyists--that doesn''t mean she is. Besides, she''s a woman--it''s OUR turn now!!!" sniffle, whine, gripe, gripe.

[b-easy63]

There is so much evidence of talking head bias in this election, and double standards, that the whole process has been a mockery! It speaks to a totally corrupt nomination process.... is playing VERY UGLY politics and has been for sometime. m sick to death of being called a racist because I can''''t support a totally incompetent candidate "Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 03:03 PM : Apr 10, 2008



What you should be tired of is having to continually defend your doofus candidate. The game is the same as it always was--unfortunately despite her rhetoric and her own nasty campaigning--looks like Hillary has not been ready from day 1--and based on the info about NAFTA--looks like she has not been fully vetted either. Why won''t she pay her campaign bills? Honestly she gives the media and the candidates (if they were venal enough) the sticks to beat her with. I''d follow every single one of her commercial spots with a brief rerun of her lying about Bosnia--over and over ad nauseum. Then tie it up to flashes of her Nafta schedule and Bill taking 800K--lucky for Hillary--Obama is not me. LOL

Hillary--ready to fvck it all up--from day 1.

[b-easy63]

Obama doesn''''t have the strength and fortitude to be President . .. Hillary does! If not Hillary, then Nader! Never but never McCain!

Posted by myshiba at 03:04 PM : Apr 10, 2008


Nader. LMAO. that''s good--why stop there--If something happens to Nader--isn''t Ron Paul still running? LOL at least Obama has the strength and fortitude to run a competent campaign AND pay his bills so that other people don''t lose money due to his errant campaign. LOL

[b-easy63]

correction:

I have only voted for Democratic candidates--FOR PRESIDENT, BUT FOR OTHER OFFICES, I VOTE FOR WHO I THINK IS BEST. and I am a former Democrat--but I decided to go Independent since 1982, because I don''''t believe in following the herd or voting in accordance to dogma--the reason why? It seldom notes or addresses my specific concerns which may or may not be in sync with the party platform. So I vote based on who I think is best. Personally, I think a Dem President, but a Congress veering towards Conservative works best. It does not do to have absolute majorities--mass corruption always follows. checks and balances is the thing.