Clinton's Shakeup Indicative of Larger Slump

Imagine if Barack Obama had lost four contests in a row over the weekend and appeared likely to lose three more on Tuesday. He wouldn't just be replacing his campaign manager. His candidacy would, for all practical purposes, be done.

Such are the perks of being the frontrunner. Hillary Clinton can lose seven states in a row and remain in the race, with a very plausible shot at still capturing the nomination. After all, the Clintons are at their best when faced with adversity. But it will take more than replacing a campaign manager to counter the incredible momentum Barack Obama has begun to accumulate.

After all, Patti Solis Doyle--the exiled campaign manager--"had played a role that was more operational than conceptual," the Politico reported. Axing the campaign manager at this late stage, in a move that was in the works since New Hampshire, is similar to Clinton's argument for what went wrong in Iraq--it wasn't the war itself that was the problem but the way it was executed. A similar "incompetence dodge" narrative has now been spun about her campaign--the problem was how the message was assembled, not the message itself.

If Clinton was serious about fundamentally reorienting the campaign, she would have shown her chief strategist, Mark Penn, the door months ago. After all, it was Penn who packaged Clinton as a corporate-friendly, poll-driven technocrat, long on experience and short on inspiration.

Comments (42)

1. oh well,

   what a sham(e).

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 12:44pm

2. Clinton may well lose the TOTAL delegate lead on Tuesday, which would include Superdelegates!

   This is incredible when you consider she has a 2-to-1 advantage in Superdelegates!

   And Ari is correct, Mark Penn is Clinton's "real" staff problem but she wants to keep him around to run more Rovian politics. Until she renounces dirty trick politics and rids herself of the Rove worshipers, she will continue to lose ground in this campaign.

   Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 12:45pm

3. BERMAN: ....poll-driven...

   S/He who lives by the polls.........

   Posted by Happy at 02/11/2008 @ 12:45pm

4. Until she renounces dirty trick politics and rids herself of the Rove worshipers, she will continue to lose ground in this campaign. Posted by METTEYYA 02/11/2008 @ 12:45pm

   Hmmm, that would mean dumping Bill, firing Penn, a full Monty makeover, all in a few days. Sends a message, of sorts.

   Posted by sloper at 02/11/2008 @ 12:53pm

5. Ari, that's what Clinton's "inevitability" really means: the determination of the party leadership to elect one of their own.

   Charlie Cook (Cook Report), Donna Brazile, strategist and super delegate, and Tad Devine, authority on delegate selection, were on the Diane Rehm show (WAMU)this morning as part of an effort to clarify the role of the super delegates. Almost drowning out their efforts at clarification was the loud roar of Democratic party machinery clanking in tandem with their explanations. It seemed to this listener than they were seeking to justify what could turn out to be a questionable win for Clinton based on super delegates' votes. And they only barely got into the Florida-Michigan messes.

   Perhaps unconsciously they were used the arrogant "we know best" speak of Washington. It's very similar in intent to the arrogant attitude of the Bush administration (secrecy, we-know-best) which so many of us are voting against. I have to admit I came away from that discussion with a feeling that we are up against a party leadership who should be Democratic voters' facilitators and representatives, but who really want us to sustain their modus operandi, who cling to the old ways in spite of the clamor for reform and, uh, change!

   Over the past several years, many of us have stayed away from contributing anything to the Democratic party, sending our nickels, dimes, and dollars to individual candidates around the country.

   The rules put in place by the Commission three decades ago -- the delegate rules which have become so aggravating in 2008 -- need rethinking. Well before the convention, they will have to convince their party's voters that our votes count no less than theirs.

   Posted by saetias at 02/11/2008 @ 1:13pm

6. The panic of the Hillary folks will be nothing compared to the panic with the DNC if Hillary has a SLIGHT lead at the end of the primaries and it's almost entirely (or even partially) based on super-delegates pledges.

   If she insists on winning that way...McCain might as well start picking out his Cabinet.

   Even an "open convention" for the supers (i.e. everybody agrees to drop their pledges and it becomes a "campaign within the Convention")...the recipe for disaster is inherent.

   Frankly outside of a TOTAL, FRANKGRITS' prediction blow-out of Texas, Ohio, AND Pennsylvania (i.e. a totally NON-super delegate victory for her)...I don't see how a Hillary nomination at this point doesn't turn off so many Democrats that they lose by 50 electorals and 6-7 states.

   Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 1:49pm

7. Posted by MASK 02/11/2008 @ 1:49pm

   which looks good for the o train...(guarded optimism based on naive trust in ultimate sense of dem elites...uh oh...)

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 2:18pm

8. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/11/2008 @ 2:18pm

   Still a lot of variables. Her Nibs can still win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania...and that means she nudges ahead again.

   At that point, I don't see how she doesn't offer Veep to Obama though and he accept, else risk looking like SHE is the magnanimous one and HE the "poor loser".

   But I think even the Clintons are smart enough to realize that if she wins "on the supers"...she splits the Party right down the middle and could destroy not only her Presidential bid, but possibly even the Party's hopes for holding Congress. And the backlash make them more ostracized by the Dems than Jimmy Carter in the early 80s.

   Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 2:41pm

9. Posted by MASK 02/11/2008 @ 2:41pm

   question is - how long does the accelerating obama momentum go? at this rate of accelaration he could blow her out of the water.

   ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

   the undiscovered country...the land of wishes...the audacity of hope?

   har har...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 2:51pm

10. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/11/2008 @ 2:51pm

    Momentum SOUNDS good...but is meaningless unless backed up with ELECTION WINS.

    True, Obama is having a terrific week and looks like a terrific month upcoming (everything trending his way all the way upto Texas and Ohio)....but She-Who-Must-Still-Be-Obeyed isn't dead, buried, stake in the heart, and garlic stuffed in her mouth...yet.

    Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 3:05pm

11. Posted by MASK 02/11/2008 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person

    momentum is measurable...by election wins and increase in average size of wins...

    looking forward to next round.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 3:22pm

12. I'm utterly amazed with the news right now. Why can't anyone agree on a delegate count? Some sources have Obama leading in both delegates & superdelegates, some say only in delegates. CNN reported last night that the Maine victory gave Obama the lead, but this morning named Clinton as the "frontrunner" without printing any sort of retraction. Given that Obama has won 20 states compared with 11 for Clinton, it's hard not to consider him as the frontrunner.

    Posted by nicR at 02/11/2008 @ 3:44pm

13. Posted by NICR 02/11/2008 @ 3:44pm | ignore this person

    noticed that too...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 3:48pm

14. Posted by NICR 02/11/2008 @ 3:44pm

    "Supers" aren't all pledged...and can revoke their pledge at their will. Bill Clinton's a super-delegate and pretty easy to guess who he'll vote for...but so is Al Gore and nobody knows if he'll go with Hillary or Obama. So are dozens of others.

    The counts (of SDs) is probably influenced by the campaigns...Hillary makes hers seemed higher and "locked in stone"; Obama the same.

    Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 3:49pm

15. The Clinton machine, wheels falling off one side and the other right now, are still counting on the "firewall" states of reaction to save them from disaster: Ohio, Pennsylvania & Texas. However, there is a better than even chance that Ohio & Pennsylvania will both go into the Obama column now. He will be carrying massive momentum from his wins tomorrow in VA, MD & DC.

    But Texas? Not a chance. Those people down there are just plain nutty. I've always said that it's something in the water or some similar environmental factor. In any event, TX is the center of the redneck/Nascar universe and they will sooner vote for a yellow dog or a dead armadillo than an African American for president. Count on it. And I'm just talking about Dems, not the nutso loopy Wacoed survivalist Klan Revivalist Born-Again snake-dancing evolution & holocaust-denying Republicans that populate those infernal regions. Why oh why did we ever admit Texas into the union? Big mistake. Better to have let them Lone-Star it on their own all these years.

    Posted by goyadad at 02/11/2008 @ 3:58pm

16. Better to have let them Lone-Star it on their own all these years. Posted by GOYADAD 02/11/2008 @ 3:58pm

    An extreme dream that would have spared US 22 Nov 63, LBJ, Bush Sr & Jr.

    What a dream.

    Posted by sloper at 02/11/2008 @ 4:14pm

17. Posted by GOYADAD 02/11/2008 @ 3:58pm

    You DO realize you're talking about a DEMOCRATIC primary with DEMOCRATS as the voters?

    Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 4:19pm

18. Bill Clinton's a super-delegate and pretty easy to guess who he'll vote for...

    Posted by MASK 02/11/2008 @ 3:49pm

    yeah, obama.

    'nuff said.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 4:56pm

19. Posted by JOMAMMA 02/11/2008 @ 3:52pm

    What?

    You do realize it was the repubs that wanted to stop counting?

    Maybe one day you will be able to see cause and effect.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/11/2008 @ 4:58pm

20. John, perhaps you could replay for us Kathleen Harris decision to broad stroke thousands of voters from voting lists because they might be felons, and how that was the fault of democrats?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/11/2008 @ 5:01pm

21. Coming from Europe, I am rather shocked by the way Hillary Clinton is treated by the media. Many of the comments are clearly sexist. It is also clear that HRC is loosing among men. Is the true story behind what is now going on, that USA is not ready for a female president.

    Posted by Skarpheden at 02/11/2008 @ 6:23pm

22. Posted by SKARPHEDEN 02/11/2008 @ 6:23pm

    Several factors may account for the "media treatment" of HRC that you seem so to abhore. First, she is a component of that WJC/DLC power complex that managed to maintain hegemony in the Democratic Party through its infamous use of "triangulation" and its concommitant sell out to reactionary interests. These earn her no special favors from the media. Second, HRC has indulged in these tactics herself, most notably in her Iraq War vote where she calculated that the citizens of New York might not return her to the Senate unless she voted to avenge the Ground Zero martyrs by granting Bush the war powers he hungered for. Third, we assume that all candidates are contenders of equal status and that any particular gender, religious, or ethnic identity does not immunize an office seeker from scrutiny of his/her past political record or current political practices.

    Posted by goyadad at 02/11/2008 @ 6:55pm

23. The super-delegates didn't parachute in from the sky. They were chosen under a series of Democratic Party rules--rules, by the way, that nobody has challenged, or griped about.

    Until, of course, now--when there's a sickening fear that the super-delegates might determine the candidate and that candidate might not be Senator Obama.

    Here's a prediction:

    If Senator Clinton is ahead in the pledged-delegate count by the time Denver rolls around, Obama and his supporters will suddenly discover the true, glorious, democratic value of super-delegates.

    Bank on it.

    Posted by camorrista at 02/11/2008 @ 7:01pm

24. ...USA is not ready for a female president.

    Posted by SKARPHEDEN 02/11/2008 @ 6:23pm

    The media had been very favorable to Hillary Clinton for a long, long time....it `pardoned' all sorts of shenanegans by the Clintons. Mark Penn wasn't off his rockers to run HRC as the `incumbant'....the wild card NOBODY foresaw, is the Magic Candidate. As late as Jan. 1st, anybody who can claim he/she saw his rise to Co-Front Runner status (today), is simply lying.

    The media is smitten by Obama Maniac.....even Right-wing political observers are playing along.....All in all, it's NOT that America isn't ready for a female POTUS--though for sure some of us on the Right aren't ready for HRC as a female POTUS (the 1st or 2nd female, no matter)--it's America has found a new Idol...not meant to demean a very likeable BO, just my take on the `phenomenon'!

    What can one say to his proclamation: "We're the ones we've been waiting for!!", but kow tow and send in offerings and adulations???

    Posted by Happy at 02/11/2008 @ 7:13pm

25. Posted by SKARPHEDEN 02/11/2008 @ 6:23pm

    I smell another "one-time newbie" who "just happens" to be a Hillary supporter...never to return...

    except under the NEXT hotmail or Gmail account registration!

    Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 7:43pm

26. Posted by SKARPHEDEN 02/11/2008 @ 6:23pm

    Coming from the U.S., I am rather shocked by the way Europeans offer facile analysis of the media. Many of their comments are clearly ignorant, reducing a complex issue to sexism. While HRC may be losing among men, jumping to the conclusion that the true story is that the USA is not ready for a female president rather than other possibilities such as: you don't understand the true story, the USA might not be ready for another Clinton Presidency (everyone knows sequels are terrible), or some other reason.

    Also, care to share when the last time a woman was prime minister, president or whatever in your country?

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/11/2008 @ 10:14pm

27. It is also clear that HRC is loosing among men.

    Posted by SKARPHEDEN 02/11/2008 @ 6:23pm

    must have learned something from bill.

    ah, the perils of english orthography.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 10:17pm

28. Posted by SKARPHEDEN 02/11/2008 @ 6:23pm

    it's not sexist at all.

    hrc is simply untrustworthy.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 10:18pm

29. http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Current-Women-Leaders.htm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 10:22pm

30. As soon as you let yourself think things are going to happen in a certain way, you're bound to be surprised. That said, Obama is favored to win all the races tomorrow. If he wins by big margins, which is very possible, it could well sway Wisconsinites. Looks like no one's ever bothered to poll Hawaii, but my money's on Obama in that state as well. That would be a profound win streak, and the Clinton camp would have to spin anything less than 13%-15% victories in both Ohio and Texas. In other words, barring big surprises, Mrs. Clinton's campaign is literally all over but the shouting.

    Except, of course, for the superdelegates. I'm sure many, like CAMORRISTA, will spin the superdelegate debate as a sour grapes argument. To my mind, the onus is on the other side to prove how a superdelegate override of the primaries' selection would be a good example of democracy.

    Posted by Donald Weed at 02/11/2008 @ 10:50pm

31. Posted by SKARPHEDEN 02/11/2008 @ 6:23pm

    Dumma, dumma Dig. Du forstaar ingenting om USA.

    1st: read, study, learn. Then pontificate, if you still insist. But at least try to know what you're talking before you do.

    Ellers, hold kaeft.

    Posted by sloper at 02/11/2008 @ 11:17pm

32. Obama did the right thing. Liberals TOLD YOU that Iraq would be a disaster, YES WE DID, and we knew, that is a fact, WE KNEW, and we told you so, and you can not take that away, WE WERE RIGHT. Posted by LIBSWARNEDU 02/11/2008 @ 11:38pm

    This is all true. But too many Americans don't want to hear that the Iraq invasion was wrong, anymore than they ever wanted to hear that invading Vietnam was wrong.

    Libs must not get self-righteous, smug, self-congratulatory about the past. Libs must concentrate on producing practical programs for solving present problems, including withdrawal from Iraq. Big challenge for Obama, a challenge Billary are loath to assume.

    Posted by sloper at 02/11/2008 @ 11:47pm

33. letting other people Sacrifice THEMselves, just like the 5 un-patriotic Romney kids. Posted by LIBSWARNEDU 02/11/2008 @ 11:56pm

    But those 5 lucky lads are simply following in their Dad Willard's Vietnam-era footsteps. Dad & almost that whole class who profited during Nam, sacrificed zip & went on to wave the bloody shirt of patriotism for the rest of their comfy lives. Includes Rudy G, W, Bill C et al. Yeah, Hillary too: she wouldn't have been drafted in '69, but she still could have enlisted. Ha. Not them, not their kids. Sacrifice is for little people, just like taxes.

    Posted by sloper at 02/12/2008 @ 12:06am

34. Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/11/2008 @ 11:47pm

    been chewing glass again?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 01:33am

35. Coming from Europe, I am rather shocked by the way Hillary Clinton is treated by the media. Many of the comments are clearly sexist. It is also clear that HRC is loosing among men. Is the true story behind what is now going on, that USA is not ready for a female president.

    Posted by SKARPHEDEN 02/11/2008 @ 6:23pm | ignore this person

    Here we go with the last card that Hillary can play -- the gender card. We don't have the luxury of putting Clinton in office just because she is woman. Nancy Pelosi is a first, and I don't see Congressional approval ratings rising even though she is a woman. Men have absolutely no problem voting for a woman....but she has to be the best candidate...which Clinton clearly is not.

    Watching 60 Minutes the other night and hearing Clinton complain about harsh treatment by the media nearly made me puke. All of us were complaining months before that MSM's darling was getting all the media attention with a purely positive light and that she was America's manifest destiny. I am not sure what media you are talking about -- perhaps you would care to enlighten us?

    The Clintons have more skeletons in the closet than a graveyard, and the media has totally ignored their corrupt past and present. Lets talk about Hillary's experience.....like stealing White House property upon Bill's leaving office, or having her brother broker pardons in Pardongate. You have got to be joking. You are undoubtedly a Clinton campaign worker peddling your poison or a "feminist" with monomania that most women find abhorent.

    Get real and take your lies elsewhere. Nobody is going to buy it here. Facts are that the more informend you are, and the more educated, the more you are likely to be for Obama. What does that say about your gender argument? More important, what does that say about you and your candidate?

    Don't forget that Clinton opposed merit pay for teachers based on excellence. Here was a woman's issue that clearly would help women being that the majority of our teachers from high school on down are female. You think Clinton is going to push womens' issues ahead of her corporate cronies and donors? Think again. Another fact to consider is that perhaps Clinton dislikes women and will do anything to sabotage them given her husband's penchant for skirts. Ask the Secret Service about Hillary's love for women. Many women would rather work for men than women given some women's tendency to sabotage their competitors. I've seen it in the workplace. I've got a feeling that you are of this ilk.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/12/2008 @ 09:46am

36. hey look! the gop is recruiting cute young asian women! whats that all about?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 11:14am

37. Posted by SKARPHEDEN 02/11/2008 @ 6:23pm

    You are dead wrong. The media is treating her very well considering the past few weeks. As Ari wrote, if Obama had lost seven or so states in a row, all the talking heads would declare Obama's candidacy dead in the water.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/12/2008 @ 11:34am

38. Posted by HMAN23 02/12/2008 @ 11:34am

    SKARPEN, I'm 70% sure, is another of these "newbie posters" who support Hillary, and then "magically disappear" after one or two posts.

    In other words...a paid operative for the HRC Campaign using up Hotmail and Gmail accounts by the bushel.

    Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 12:54pm

39. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2008 @ 11:14am

    Wouldn't you?

    Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 12:55pm

40. Posted by MASK 02/12/2008 @ 12:55pm | ignore this person

    no comment...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 1:21pm

41. no comment...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2008 @ 1:21pm

    What are you fellas going on about here? The GOP recruiting Asian women? Most of the Asian women I know see the GOP for the slicked up used car sales party that it is.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/12/2008 @ 4:25pm

42. Some report GOPers in VA voting for HRC becasue they so fear Obama victory.

    I can believe it. I would have loved, loved, to have watched my rightwing acquaintances in Alexandria vote for Billary today. They HATE them. But there's one thing they hate & fear more ... in one CPAC member's words, "it's a nigger with the badge." Bottom line, for that hard core (& well heeled) crowd, in the privacy of the home & the voting booth, racism tops sexism every time.

    Posted by SLOPER 02/12/2008 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person

    Posted by sloper at 02/12/2008 @ 5:04pm