Yesterday, a Washington Post/ABC poll came out with Hillary at 53% and Obama at 20%. Most of the time, political candidates consider it to be really good news if they make that kind of big leap in the polls. But I think 53% is more Trojan horse than gift horse for the Hillary campaign . . . If the numbers are real, they might be a sign that Hillary is peaking too soon. That's especially because Hillary's going to become more of a target for negative media coverage and right-wing smears the farther ahead she gets. If Democrats start listening to the negativity, the numbers will go back down. Being so far ahead also creates the likelihood of complacency, decreasing creativity, and lower energies as candidates and their staffs sit on their huge leads. That can also bring the numbers back down.
According to Karen Tumulty of Time, one of the problems with the Hillary Clinton's campaign is that Hillary's top people didn't think that Obama was going to be really competitive and that Hillary consequently didn't have to organize much in the way of caucus operations or a get out the vote ground game.
.As a veteran of Democratic presidential campaigns who is not affiliated with any candidate this time around puts it, the Clinton forces "get to every state later. They spend less. They don't get the best people." . . . The campaign's inner circle has finally begun to expand. Austin, Texas, advertising man Roy Spence (who helped come up with the state's "Don't mess with Texas" slogan) will aid in shaping the candidate's message . . . Adviser Harold Ickes, who for months has been urging the Clintons to focus on ground-game vulnerabilities . . . Moaned a top official: "The work on the ground was never done. We have been consistently outhustled in the field."
I think Hillary would make a better president, but that's not all that primary elections are about. They're also about whose campaign organizations are going to do the best in the general election. If Barack Obama's campaign organization has indeed consistently more effective than Hillary's, then that's an argument for nominating him. It's also an argument for Obama's potential effectiveness as a president. After all, any president has to maintain an on-going political campaign if they're going to be successful in office.
Posts
5 comments:
"Staff?" Speaking of yourself in the "royal we" now, Caric?
Everyone knows you have delusions of grandiosity, but do you have to be so pathetic about it, Caric?
Usually I bow to the greater wisdom of people who are very careful not to have any ideas or make any arguments of their own. But I couldn't resist the temptation to reply to "Mr. I-Have-No-Sense-of-Humor." In this case, "staff" is used in the "they" tense rather than the "royal we."
And I guess you have no sense of irony (or shame, for that matter).
While you are busy liberally "borrowing" the ideas and arguments on Kos and TPM and passing them off as your own insight, you claim that the original commenter has no ideas/arguments of his/her own.
Pull the board out of your eye, Ric.
What ideas are you saying that I "borrowed?"
They're also about whose campaign organizations are going to do the best in the general election. If Barack Obama's campaign organization has indeed consistently more effective than Hillary's, then that's an argument for nominating him.
Hillary "has indeed consistently more effective" in spots,
http://tinyurl.com/2koxtg
unfortunately it is a nationwide campaign. If timmy is still lurking here I would love to hear his analysis on how something like this could happen.
B Moe
Post a Comment