Skip to content

Hillary Clinton’s Front Runner’s Fall

August 17, 2008

Hat Tip: The Atlantic.com

Hillary Clinton’s campaign was undone by a clash of personalities more toxic than anyone imagined. E-mails and memos—published here for the first time—reveal the backstabbing and conflicting strategies that produced an epic meltdown.

by Joshua Green

The Front-Runner’s Fall

Also see:

The Clinton Memos

Read the full collection of the campaign’s strategy memos and emails.

For all that has been written and said about Hillary Clinton’s epic collapse in the Democratic primaries, one issue still nags. Everybody knows what happened. But we still don’t have a clear picture of how it happened, or why.

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. Through it all, her staff feuded and bickered, while her husband distracted. But as a journalistic exercise, the “campaign obit” is inherently flawed, reflecting the viewpoints of those closest to the press rather than empirical truth.

How did things look on the inside, as they unraveled?

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. The result demonstrates that paranoid dysfunction breeds the impulse to hoard. Everything from major strategic plans to bitchy staff e-mail feuds was handed over. (See for yourself: much of it is posted online at www.theatlantic.com/clinton.)

Two things struck me right away. The first was that, outward appearances notwithstanding, the campaign prepared a clear strategy and did considerable planning. 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 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. Surprisingly, Clinton herself, when pressed, was her own shrewdest strategist, a role that had never been her strong suit in the White House. But her advisers couldn’t execute strategy; they routinely attacked and undermined each other, and Clinton never forced a resolution. Major decisions would be put off for weeks until suddenly she would erupt, driving her staff to panic and misfire.

Above 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. 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. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency. What follows is the inside account of how the campaign for the seemingly unstoppable Democratic nominee came into being, and then came apart.

2003–2006: Laying the Groundwork

As long ago as 2003, the Clintons’ pollster, Mark Penn, was quietly measuring Hillary’s presidential appeal, with an eye toward the 2004 election. Polling suggested that her prospects were “reasonably favorable,” but Clinton herself never seriously considered running. Instead, over the next three years, a handful of her advisers met periodically to prepare for 2008. They believed the biggest threat was John Edwards.

Decisions made before her 2006 reelection to the Senate were to have important consequences downstream. Perhaps the biggest was Clinton’s choosing to forgo the tradition of visiting early states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Even if she was presumed to be the heavy favorite, Clinton needed to win Iowa to maintain the impression of invincibility that she believed was her greatest advantage. And yet Iowa was a vulnerability. Both husband and wife lacked ties there: Bill Clinton had skipped the 1992 caucuses because Iowa’s Senator Tom Harkin was running; in 1996, Clinton had run unopposed.

With her Senate race looming, she feared a backlash if she signaled her presidential intentions. If New Yorkers thought her presumptuous, they could punish her at the polls and weaken her national standing. A collective decision was made not to discuss a presidential run until she had won reelection, leaving the early pursuit of Iowa to John Edwards and Barack Obama.

The effect of these choices in Iowa became jarringly clear when Penn conducted a poll just after Clinton’s Senate reelection that showed her running a very distant third, barely ahead of the state’s governor, Tom Vilsack. The poll produced a curious revelation: Iowans rated Clinton at the top of the field on questions of leadership, strength, and experience—but most did not plan to vote for her, because they didn’t like her. This presented a basic conundrum: Should Clinton run a positive campaign, to persuade Iowans to reconsider her? Or should she run a negative campaign that would accuse her opponents of being untrustworthy and under-qualified? Clinton’s top advisers never agreed on the answer. Over the course of the campaign, they split into competing factions that drifted in and out of Clinton’s favor but always seemed to work at cross purposes. And Clinton herself could never quite decide who was right.

You can see the rest of the Article: Here

Advertisements
6 Comments leave one →
  1. Jody V permalink
    August 17, 2008 11:54 am

    Did any catch the forum with obama and McCain, what a crock obama, when they talked about religion Obama wanted to still say like he did 7 months ago, and in his book Rev, Wright, was his Mentor and spiritual advisor,
    but like alway Obama fliped floped again and again,

    Obama showed today he is not ready for the 3am phone call,, he would get scared, and start stammering again,

    When Obama and McCain when they really debate, is Obama going to agree with everything McCain says, like he did with Hillary Clinton, and him give Obama all the answers ,,, and take him as his own later,,,
    Just like Hillary,, Even CNN News claims Obama Adopted all of Hillary’s Agendas, Why so many Obama supporter can not think for them self, the love the reality TV crap, Rock star image, Boy is this country going to suffer if Obama elected,,, I am a Hillary Supporter, this will be the first year I vote Republican because I don’t believe in throwing alway my Vote, and to me it still best for the job,

  2. August 18, 2008 11:20 pm

    I would like to share a women’s history learning opportunity.

    Thanks to the suffragettes, women have voices and choices.

    But most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won.

    Now readers can discover the shocking truth of how the suffragettes did it, and it’s as easy as opening their e-mail.

    “The Privilege of Voting” is a new e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 – 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.

    Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes — Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt and two gorgeous presidential mistresses.

    There are tons of heartache for our heroines on the rocky road to the ballot box – but in the end – they WIN!

    Presented in a unique sequential e-mail series — each inspiring episode is about 10 minutes — perfect to enjoy during coffeebreaks, or anytime.

    Subscribe free at

    http://www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html

  3. April 3, 2017 2:36 pm

    I have been exploring for a little for any high-quality articles or weblog posts in this kind of area . Exploring in Yahoo I eventually stumbled upon this web site. Studying this info So i am glad to exhibit that I’ve an incredibly just right uncanny feeling I found out exactly what I needed. I such a lot for sure will make certain to do not put out of your mind this web site and give it a glance regularly.

  4. August 30, 2017 11:40 pm

    You saved me a lot of hassle just now. Interesting content. Exceptionally well written! I truly appreciate this article. I really love your pages but… I do not read well. Do you have videos on the subject?

  5. September 5, 2017 5:53 pm

    This will definitely be very useful for me when I get a chance to start my posts. This information is great. I was reading your post and my dumb little sister threw a pitcher on my brand new computer. Old school Google professionals would agree with your page.

  6. September 7, 2017 6:17 pm

    Very nice write up. That is the thinking of a creative mind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: