Breaking LAT: Feuding and Second Guessing
Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:26:26 PM PDT
In 2009, we are going to need to get some work done. Thanks to George Bush and an enabling Congress, we've got an overextended military in the wrong country, we've got an economy plummeting towards recession, and we've got a health care crisis.
Hillary Clinton's main argument has been that she will be ready to start putting the pieces back together on day one. But, as the LA Times discusses in detail in tomorrow's paper, her own campaign has been wrought with feuding, rivarly, and the turf wars common to Washington, and uncommon to success.
Chief strategist Mark and pollster Penn clashed with senior advisor Harold Ickes, former deputy campaign manager Mike Henry and others. Field organizers battled with Clinton's headquarters in northern Virginia. Campaign themes were rolled out and discarded, reflecting tensions among a staff bitterly divided over what Clinton's basic message should be.
The head not talking to the feet. One hand and the other, more often in opposition than in synch. A discordant campaign staff, working towards one goal, is not a good omen of an Executive Branch working towards many.
Last month, following a series of defeats, Hillary Clinton replaced Patti Solis Doyle as campaign manager. But she left in place many of the senior people, including Penn and Ickes, who have been involved in incessant turf wars.
Loyalty and seniority rewarded over competence. A failure to execute clear and meaningful change away from a failed path. Where have we heard these stories before? One certainly cannot compare Clinton and Bush in terms of policy, but in terms of management, they may be closer than we've been lead to believe.
And, of course, there's this:
As the campaign faces a make-or-break moment, some high-level officials are trying to play down their role in the campaign. Penn said in an e-mail over the weekend that he had "no direct authority in the campaign," describing himself as merely "an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to me."
Do we want another White House where the staff sees their current job as a simple stepping stone to their next, highly paid gig? Do we want another President who sees changes in direction as more threatening than not changing course at all? Do we want more disfunction, more back-biting, more in-feuding in Washington?
Do we need a President who is ready for more of the same on day one? Or do we want change?
Sign up to Phonebank.
Or just donate. But please, be an advocate for real change in the White House.
Update Per Turneresq, below, don't think that this is anywhere close to being over. That's why you've got to do something tonight, tomorrow, and Tuesday.
Permalink | 84 comments