Here’s a dumb question. Why would "Clinton campaign officials" be telling the New York Times about an enemies list? To sabotage the VP vetting, of course.
Here’s a dumb question. Why would "Clinton campaign officials" be telling the New York Times about an enemies list?
It makes no sense that Clinton campaign officials would want to put out a story like this. Which, of course, makes one wonder if there are other objectives here than meet the eye. Here's the answer: The objective is to wound potential Obama running mates, who might otherwise benefit from appearing to be Clinton friends.
Chief among those targets is Bill Richardson. He is always mentioned as "leading the list", both in the New York Times article, and also in subsequent cable news shows. In fact, "Clinton campaign officials" have been gunning for Richardson since his Obama endorsement, at a pivotal time. That’s the reason James Carville went after Bill Richardson like a frenzied attack dog. What’s important is not to have enemies, but to harm them. By underlining their deep hatred of Richardson, by smearing him and calling him a Judas, Clinton campaign officials are able to influence the decisionmakers. The Obama strategists would have to think twice about the reaction of loyal Clinton activists to the nomination of a "Judas", wouldn’t they?
This is another failed strategy of a deeply flawed campaign. Their vitriol only makes sensible Democrats rally to oppose them. Amazingly, they still can’t see the damage the vitriol does to them. Though at this juncture, all that they have left is the ability to hurt others. Which, if not victory, is yet revenge.