Campaign Strategy Consequences

While Kos mocks the Clinton campaign, what I see happening is the consequence of listening to the old guard DC Beltway crowd, the same bunch that ran Al Gore's campaign and John Kerry's campaign.  The same bunch that worked overtime to knife Howard Dean in the back, the same bunch that mocked his 50 State strategy, the same strategy that Obama seems to be using to good affect.

It's not because Hillary is a DLC sell out or because Barack is JFK and JHC born again, or whatever the latest self defeating circular firing squad battlespeak is today.

It's because choices were made, judgements made, decisions made.  I believe that Hillary Clinton is far more liberal and progressive than many think, don't confuse tactics and strategy with values and beliefs and ideals please as many do on the internets, just as Barack Obama may be a bit less progressive than many think as well, again, tactics and strategy are not the same thing as values and beliefs and ideals.

Hillary has run her campaign as if she were the nominee, not the candidate, saving her resources for the battles in the swing states of Ohio and Florida and Iowa and Wisconsin and Missoura and others, not battling for every state and taking the risk of running out of money like Kerry did that summer of Ought '4.

But the intransigence or adherence to the tried and true, albeit losing, ways makes it hard for people to look ahead, you see it every day as the Democrats in Congress more often than not flop around like a beached rainbow trout trying to find its way back to the water.

Nobody really knew what impact the primary schedule would have on the campaign, not enough people saw battling for every state as they have done as a good thing for the party and for turnout.  What her campaign has demonstrated is that politics and policy are two vastly different creatures, we've seen what a presidency committed only to politics can and will do, and what one ostensibly committed to policy can do (Carter).

Candidates cannot do it all, and I for one really don't want one that leans more towards politics, the necessary evil, than policy.  We all need to recognize that the candidates, however wonderful and brilliant and attractive and ugly and miserable and devil incarnate they may be, made decisions based on what they knew, what they had, what they felt they could do and get, decisions that by themselves forced other actions and reactions, just like when you look at that electron surrounding the atom.

Hillary's overall strategic choice may be failing her now, but how long ago did it seem like she was inevitable because of how her campaign was running like they were inevitable?  What if Barack had screwed up something early on, or if Edwards had won in Iowa or South Carolina.  Then Hillary's strategy might have had her wrapping things up shortly after Super Tuesday.  You never know.

But it's time we get over this trashing of our candidates because of their tactics and strategies and surrogates.  Edwards was my preferred choice, with Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson next.  But Clinton and Obama ran better campaigns, so now I have my lessor choices.  I already voted for Hillary in the primary, be sure that whoever earns the nomination will have my complete and total support.  Which does not mean that I won't castigate them for doing things I don't like, or urge them towards policies I prefer that they may not.  

To my mind that works a lot more effectively, having an elected official in the office and actually DOING those sorts of things.  As opposed to so undermining or trashng our nominee that a crazy old hack hero like John McCain gets the job.  Don't you think?