I am pretty depressed about the results last night like many others here. I know things are still pretty dismal for HRC, but I hate to see her win the perception game. However, we can only change the future, so here's my kitchen sink list of strategic issues which need to be dealt with (not necessarily in order of importance):
(1) Barak's alleged inaction on Afghanistan via foreign relations subcommittee chairmanship. I think HRC's attack on this ground was particularly effective because it buttresses her assertion that Barrack is all talk, no action. Like all her arguments, however, it is a straw horse. Barack's explanation that he was busy campaigning, offered during the last debate, isn't sufficient. Andrew Sullivan dealt with this assertion very effectively yesterday on his site. The full committee, chaired by Biden, has first jurisdiction over all issues and has specifically addressed NATO's involvement in Afghanistan in its hearing. Moreover, HRC has missed two significant hearings on Afghanistan held by the Armed Services Committee because she was campaigning. This needs to be brought out.
(2) "Vetting" HRC has not been fully vetted and this needs to be played out now. Its clear that Barack doesn't like to go negative, but we can not afford to wait until the GE to find out what new attacks Hillary is susceptible to. This means hitting harder on the tax return and presidential record issue. Further, there have been many rumors that the press is sitting on stories concerning new Clinton dirty laundry. These issues need to be exposed now if they in fact exist. I'm not saying that Barack needs to be the one making allegations, but the vetting of both candidates needs to be complete during the primary season.
(3) The MSM press's story line. Its abudantly clear that the press wants to keep this going for their own bottom line. I have no idea how this is controlled, but more needs to be done than was done over the past week.
(4) The HRC Can't Win/Must Drop Out Contention. Yes it is true. But coming from Axelrod, it doesn't help. It makes Barack's campaign look arrogant and it rallies HRC's base (which clearly still exists) and other voters who like an underdog. This lesson should have been learned after New Hampshire, but it wasn't. The inevitable HRC defeat message needs to come from places other than Barack's campaign leadership.
(5) Experience. As many people have pointed out, HRC continues to get a big pass on this. McCain would clobber HRC on foreign policy "experience." It needs to be emphasized that visiting countries ceremonially as first lady is not real foreign policy experience (seems so obvious, yet it hasn't happened). I also don't understand why HRC continually is allowed to count her years at the Rose law firm as public service. It seems like it would be fairly easy to contrast HRC with McCAin on their resumes since HRC keeps inviting the comparision.
(6) Machine Politics. It appears we keep underestimating the extent to which it still exists. Yet many of HRC's victories -- NH, NV, NJ, MA, Los Angeles area, and most recently, Ohio and RI are probably attributable to her support of those controlling the local party apparatus. Really, I don't know if anything can be done about this-- but this is going to be a big issue in PA. I knew Barack was in trouble in Ohio Sunday when on 60 Minutes, several of the locals interviewed that they supported HRC because their governor supported her.
Not much new here, but I feel better writing it all out. Thoughts?