A few thoughts about the presidential campaign:
1.) In 2003, it made sense for campaigns to build a strategy around the possibility that Dean would implode. I mean, Howard was a ticking time bomb. Every time I saw him about to speak, I would cringe and hold my breath, praying he said nothing damaging to the campaign.
In 2007, it's been frustrating seeing everyone except Edwards run a safe, milquetoast, non-threatening race, thinking it would somehow challenge the Hillary machine.
Clinton is no Howard Dean. In fact, she may be the most disciplined politician I have ever seen. She's a machine, always on message, relentlessly perfect on everything -- appearance, message, and policy. It's that discipline that has allowed her to fool people into thinking she'd pull all of our troops out of Iraq and that her vote on Iran wasn't REALLY as horrible as it really was.
She won't make a mistake. She will not implode. She's too good to make the obvious mistake, and even if she erred (she's human, so we can assume), her campaign wouldn't waste any time setting things straight.
2.) Any campaign seeking to overcome her institutional advantages and personal talents had to be based on more than "keeping up with the fundraising".
Instead, Obama fundraised like crazy, making his campaign NOT about personal empowerment, but about sending in the cash, and Edwards took public financing, endangering an Edwards nomination by limiting how much he could spend through the summer if he won.
The annals of political history are replete with examples of Davids slaying better-funded Goliaths. Had they focused on undermining Hillary's message, rather than engaging in a fundraising race, perhaps we wouldn't see Hillary pulling away from the pack.
3.) The polls don't lie -- the more people see of Hillary, the more they like her. I once wrote a post titled something like "if Obama runs, he wins". The fat lady hasn't sung yet, so I might still prove prescient. But I'd be shocked if I was. I expected Hillary's numbers to drop as people became better acquainted with Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and some of the others. But in fact, the opposite has happened.
What I'm seeing is lots of people take a look at HIllary, then say, "Why was it that I hated her again?" The right-wing press told everyone for so long that they hated Clinton, that people simply assumed they did. When they see her, they're no longer so sure.
On that same vein, I recently talked to a federal candidate in a tough, red-leaning state. I asked the candidate if Hillary would make for a more difficult race. A year ago, the universal answer was "yes". But this time, this candidate said, "You'd think so, but I'm no longer so sure. I'm hearing a lot from my constituents, 'I used to hate Hillary, but...'"
On the merits, I would put Hillary fourth on my list. But I don't think she's an electoral disaster in the making. In fact, seeing the sheer effectiveness of her campaign machine -- it truly is a well-oiled machine -- I feel pretty confident that she'd win the White House and win it BIG.
Comments are closed on this story.