Posted on 01/05/2008 12:41:21 AM PST by JohnHuang2
MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 4 -- After an unexpectedly thorough defeat in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton faced a barrage of second-guessing Friday from supporters worried that her campaign strategy could cost her the Democratic nomination.
In a flurry of conference calls throughout the day, described by several participants, anxious Clinton advisers agreed to stick to her original message -- that only the former first lady has the experience to bring about change. And while they decided to increase the pressure on Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) here, campaign officials were debating how hard to hit him on his experience level in the few short days until the New Hampshire primary.
So far, no senior Clinton advisers have been ousted for failing to produce a victory in Iowa, despite their spending many months and millions of dollars there only to see the candidate's status as the Democratic front-runner vanish. But supporters outside the campaign were quick to question Mark Penn, the chief strategist, whose polling data suggested she could win in Iowa; Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign manager, who moved to Iowa to try to eke out a win; and an inner circle of operatives whose "inevitability" strategy failed to blunt the message of "change" that swept Obama into first place Thursday night.
As Clinton flew from Iowa to New Hampshire, her supporters were divided over how she should handle the early defeat. Paul Begala, a campaign strategist for her husband and a Hillary Clinton supporter, said she could take one of two approaches: explain away Iowa by dismissing it as unfamiliar territory, diminishing its odd caucus system and portraying it as Obama's neighboring state; or accept responsibility for the loss, saying, " 'I've been knocked on my rear end. It's not fun, but the view from the canvas can be
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Her, "I'm the one with years of experience" and, "I'm the one that can implement change" mantras apparently fell on pretty much deaf ears.
From the article:
The message to the lawmakers [on a conference call Friday morning] was that the campaign will tweak the message to focus on equal parts experience and how to effect change. "It requires experience to bring change," Howard Wolfson, Clinton's top communications adviser, told the lawmakers, according to one participant in the call.
Pardon me, but isn't that the same mantra they used in Iowa? Seems to me the thing that should be changing is Senator Clinton's strategy.
Wasn’t that delicious reading? Poor Hillary.
“This country has tilted so far to the left it no longer resembles the nation we grew up in. The Republican party is now the Democrat party of our youth: Big government and socialist. The Democrat party is tilted so far to the left that they have literally become dangerous.”
“Our political role has been to hold fast to our values, the same upon which this nation is founded, and that which the left seeks to destroy by attrition, tyranny and open treason.”
My thoughts exactly and have been for a long time. Well said.
At my age, I will be long gone when all the drastic changes will occur and be cemented in so my concern is for the ones that will be here after I am gone.
My generation had the best this country had to offer and I can only hope and pray it gets back to where it use to be.
IMHO the ones that should be concerned are not paying close attention and their sovereignty is being taken away from them little by little.
Can any of her supporters recognize that rather than the thoroughbred they thought she was, she is, in fact, an old nag headed for the glue factory? I guess they might be reluctant to admit that to the lamestream media.
Ah, Strategy! That’s the problem. Never thought of that. I just suspected that it was because she was a lying, socialist, bi**h.
Looks like the Barbara Streisand hoopla didn’t pan out for Hillary. Maybe Hillary should bring on Rosie to the podium.
Amen to every word of your post.
While savoring the Hillary debacle- I’ve thought about her alternative.
Here’s what’s worrying me- we don’t have an Obama. It’s too early to know if this is a trend- but consider that in Iowa 10’s of thousands of NEW voters registered and caucused- for OBAMA. They are young, they are passionate and they are idealistic. IF that catches on- if young people really do start becoming active- who are they going for? What they perceive as a party of war-mongering, greedy, Bible-thumpers? Or the hope-filled, young, articulate, black guy?
Huckabee may be the least of our worries.
I believe that's wrong. Some candidates just aren't marketable. Hillary may be one of those people who, the more voters see of her, the less they like her. You can be handed a NY Senate seat by hiding the candidate but not the Presidency. For some, there's no winning strategy.
Good. I hope she keeps taking that advice. It will only highlight the extent to which she, like Gore and Kerry, lacks authenticity and sense of self. People value that, even if subconsciously. It's uncomfortable being around someone who never settles in to being themselves.
The constant superficial tinkerings are jarring; much more unsettling to the populace at large than any failures of stylishness. IMHO, the much-maligned pantsuit is at least consistent and signals some level of confidence and sense of self. Her handlers cannot succeed in making her look stylish and feminine. They will only make her look vain and flighty.
And her face. She has no one to blame but herself (and her handlers) for the petty criticisms about her wrinkles and sags. By alternately showing up one day all dewy-faced and taut, then the next day wrinkled and haggard, she underscores the startling contrast, practically demanding the difference be noted. If she'd simply decided on one or the other--a real 60 year old woman subject to the same laws of gravity as the rest of the world, or air-brushed ingenue--she'd have been much better off. Just pick a look already. She's like a strobe light giving everyone a headache.
On the other hand, maybe her handlers DO know what they're doing. Obsessive attention to her appearance du jour does keep the focus off what she's actually saying, which is far more off-putting than a dowdy pantsuit or crepey skin.
Good analysis. There are intangibles that simply cannot be packaged. If I were confident in a 100% fair election, I’d be wholly unconcerned about the prospect of President Hillary. Unfortunately, I’m not.
“Camp Clinton is about to get medieval on Obamas ass.”
Yup. And Bill is signaling that the devil (right wing conspiracy) is making them do it. Hill is saying that she’s been “vetted” and found “innocent” code words for here it comes.
If there is any dirt in Obambi’s past, get ready for a mud bath. Let’s start a pool on the name of Obambi’s Monica. I have five bucks that says it’s Nancy.
On the bright side, it’s better the Clinton’s slime Obambi than us.
The problem isn’t strategy, it’s the candidate. If her name were Hillary Smith, she’d have never even entered the race.
As Dick Morris points out, she’ll clumsily come off as racist. He’s not “ready”, he not “electable” etc.
No why in the world would her supports question anything this woman does? After all, Bill says she is a “world class” genius.
This world class genius who didn’t know that Pakistan’s president is not up for re-election this year, and did not know that Bhutto’s father was executed (not assinated), and who though that Bhutto had only two children instead of three....oh, yeah...a world class genius.
I disagree with those who see a loss in Iowa as such a big deal. Somebody posted that Reagan lost in Iowa and Pat Robertson won there.
That's where her constituents live!
Leni
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.