Clinton’s campaign in disarray as staff squabble over ‘attack adverts’
There is talk of ructions within Hillary's campaign over the decision to launch attack ads aimed at Barack Obama in Texas and Ohio.
Spats between her senior staff have leaked to the press and are causing embarrassment for Mrs Clinton as she struggles to find a message that resonates with voters and blocks Mr Obama's progress in the crucial states of Ohio and Texas. Mrs Clinton badly needs to come up with a successful advertising strategy if she is to win the 4 March primaries. This week she launched her first negative ad in Wisconsin – which votes on Tuesday – saying that Mr Obama was refusing to debate with her. But as fast as it went on air, the Obama campaign fought back saying there had already been 18 debates.
The seeds of the implosion in Mrs Clinton's campaign were sown months ago. From the outset she surrounded herself with a tight group. These were friends and former aides whose loyalty was tested in her days as First Lady.
Running far ahead in the polls, Mrs Clinton's campaign was top-down and media driven. She believed it would all be wrapped up by 5 February, Super Tuesday, and didn't bother building an organisation in those states voting later in the primary calendar.
The organisation burned through more than $100m in cash. Most of the money was spent on private polling, advertising and transfers of large amounts of cash to local Democratic Party hacks in the belief that they would get out the Hillary vote.
The longer this goes on, the less prepared it seems Hillary was for a genuine challenge.
As I've always said, it's never wise to write off the Clintons, but stories like this do illustrate just how much Obama has got under the skin of her presumptions.
Click title for full article.
4 comments:
"It's almost as if the script never considered anything other than a stroll to the White House"
Oh, great, like we need a president like that again.
I doubt she's going to become President, unless she goes down the super delegates path, which will be spectacularly undemocratic.
unless she goes down the super delegates path, which will be spectacularly undemocratic
That's kind of the point of the "super delegates". The DNC put the system in place in (I believe) 1983. The purpose in general was to try and keep "undesirables" from winning the party's nomination, but at the time this was specifically targeted at Ted Kennedy.
Jason,
Are you stating that if Obama won more delegates than Hillary but the Super delegates awarded Hillary the presidency anyway, that this wouldn't be undemocratic?
I know the purpose of the super delegates, I'm talking about how democratic that would be.
Post a Comment