What follows is the inside account of how the campaign for the seemingly unstoppable Democratic nominee came into being, and then came apart.Īs long ago as 2003, the Clintons’ pollster, Mark Penn, was quietly measuring Hillary’s presidential appeal, with an eye toward the 2004 election. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency. What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Major decisions would be put off for weeks until suddenly she would erupt, driving her staff to panic and misfire.Ībove all, this irony emerges: Clinton ran on the basis of managerial competence-on her capacity, as she liked to put it, to “do the job from Day One.” In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel. But her advisers couldn’t execute strategy they routinely attacked and undermined each other, and Clinton never forced a resolution. Surprisingly, Clinton herself, when pressed, was her own shrewdest strategist, a role that had never been her strong suit in the White House. The second was the thought: Wow, it was even worse than I’d imagined! The anger and toxic obsessions overwhelmed even the most reserved Beltway wise men. It sweated the large themes (Clinton’s late-in-the-game emergence as a blue-collar champion had been the idea all along) and the small details (campaign staffers in Portland, Oregon, kept tabs on Monica Lewinsky, who lived there, to avoid any surprise encounters). The first was that, outward appearances notwithstanding, the campaign prepared a clear strategy and did considerable planning. (See for yourself: much of it is posted online at Two things struck me right away. Everything from major strategic plans to bitchy staff e-mail feuds was handed over. The result demonstrates that paranoid dysfunction breeds the impulse to hoard. To find out, I approached a number of current and former Clinton staffers and outside consultants and asked them to share memos, e-mails, meeting minutes, diaries-anything that would offer a contemporaneous account. How did things look on the inside, as they unraveled? But as a journalistic exercise, the “campaign obit” is inherently flawed, reflecting the viewpoints of those closest to the press rather than empirical truth. Through it all, her staff feuded and bickered, while her husband distracted. The after-battle assessments in the major newspapers and newsweeklies generally agreed on the big picture: the campaign was not prepared for a lengthy fight it had an insufficient delegate operation it squandered vast sums of money and the candidate herself evinced a paralyzing schizophrenia-one day a shots-’n’-beers brawler, the next a Hallmark Channel mom. But we still don’t have a clear picture of how it happened, or why. For all that has been written and said about Hillary Clinton’s epic collapse in the Democratic primaries, one issue still nags.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |