Reportage

Marc Ambinder brings the science:

One Clinton donor and two prominent surrogates said they had been led to believe the campaign that by that if Clinton were to lose Iowa, she would have placed a close second to John Edwards, a candidate viewed as eminently beatable by the Clinton operation.

But such is the lot of major Clinton donors. And in truth, despite a healthy measure of kremlinology,the truth is that the campaign does not have a strategy to turn away the challenge Obama has posed.

In Iowa, one Clinton adviser, speaking before the caucuses, said that were Obama able to turn out independents and Democrats in the number projected by the Des Moines Register poll, "he deserves to be the nominee."

It seems to me that the leaks about plans to attack Barack Obama as too liberal don't make much sense as a strategy. But they do make sense as leaks that filter out in the absence of a strategy. I've long taken the view that Clinton's status as someone whose perceived as much more liberal than she really is is a fatal weakness in her candidacy "except, perhaps, for the faction of her advisers whose views are probably too right-wing to be associated with the Democratic presidential nominee, unless they can latch onto the one candidate both blessed and cursed with an undeserved reputation for liberalism."

In the absence of a clear comeback strategy, some of those folks are perhaps letting their liberal-hating id flow out a bit.

Comments

Ambinder's post -- and your observations -- appear dead on. The Clinton campaign does not seem to know what to do next. One would have expected that -- given her high level of campaign experience -- that they would have prepared for the possibility that Obama would win Iowa.

But I guess even when it comes to campaigning, experience isn't everything.

Hmmm. I wonder if the above observation would be a useful analog to, say, governing?

Posted by Ryan Scott | January 5, 2008 12:34 PM

If I were running the Clinton campaign, I'd be trying to push Obama to the left.

It may not work, but I think it's the best card they have.

-----

BTW, all autumn long, I was saying that the Clinton campaign was running a disastrous campaign. Their lack of viable strategies at the moment should be evidence that I was right.

Mark Penn truly is as dumb as a suitcase full of rocks.

Posted by Petey | January 5, 2008 12:34 PM

With Clinton complaining Obama is too liberal, and Edwards complaining he's a corporate stooge, this is playing out beautifully for Obama.

Posted by right | January 5, 2008 12:39 PM

It's funny how closely this mirrors the Dean campaign, in that the frontrunner aimed at knock-out blow in Iowa coupled with a "make sure they're dead" strike in NH, followed by a "let's burn everybody's else's corpse" march with an organization already built in the later states. Funny how if you miss with the first punch, the second doesn't seem so deadly, and suddenly you don't enough fuel for your firewall.

Of course, Clinton could turn it around with a masterful debate performance tonight, or some other as-yet-unforeseen event could change things. But for now, that's exactly the way it looks.

Posted by Clark | January 5, 2008 12:42 PM

"except, perhaps, for the faction of her advisers whose views are probably too right-wing to be associated with the Democratic presidential nominee, unless they can latch onto the one candidate both blessed and cursed with an undeserved reputation for liberalism."

Oddly enough from my perspective that is a pretty good description of the relation between the Obama economics team (Goolsbee, Liebman, Cutler) and Obama. By most counts Obama's record as a social liberal is clear (though the 'Present' votes on Choice in the State Senate are troubling) but his choice of this particular team of advisors lines right up with the noises he is making on Social Security and mandates do not add up to any radical pushback on the corporatists. Which is to say that is he shows every evidence of taking advice from his advisors. Which of course is what you would expect him to do but does call for some scrutiny of who these guys are and whether you want them in major policy positions in an Obama Administration. The left economists I follow are a little skeptical. And me too, when your lead guy is George Will's favorite democratic economist it is time to count the spoons.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 5, 2008 12:57 PM

It might be too late for Clinton. Check out the polling in NH:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html

All the pre-Iowa polls had her with big leads. First post-Iowa poll has Obama by 10 points. Unless Obama murders a kitten tonight on television, his momentum and energy could lead to a historic route.

Posted by matthewcc | January 5, 2008 12:58 PM

I wouldn't expect Hillary Clinton or her supporters to give up the ship after one defeat, although Obama supporters on the blogs seem to think that both she and Edwards should concede immediately. One suggested that we should bow down and kiss his ring (now he's the Pope?!!!) and another, in all seriousness, suggested that he is a Bodhisattva. Should be a fascinating election if Barack Obama, a living Bodhisattva, goes up against Mike Huckabee, Christ's representative on earth. The heavens will open. Seriously though, Barack Obama makes exceptionally good speeches. However, there is a bit of excessive praise, almost a mania, to the Barack phenomenon at this point. One supporter (in a New York Times' blog) said that Obama's Iowa speech was one of the most memorable speeches of a lifetime, comparable to the Gettysburg Address. If that's the case, I challenge listeners to recite from memory any memorable line, aside from the repeated emphasis on 'hope' 'change', etc. Obama is blessed with an incredibly rich voice and a beautiful cadence and has the ability to move people using broad themes. This is one of any politician's best assets. I'm still supporting John Edwards, however. He is the only candidate who continues to speak with conviction and strength about the plight of Americans living in poverty, and is the candidate whose policies are actually much more progressive than those put forward by Obama. I would like to see us enter this race with a candidate whose healthcare plan actually covers all Americans and doesn't leave 15 million without coverage. Edwards is optimistic, but his optimism is grounded in realism. On a personal level this involves the way he and Elizabeth coped with the death of his 16 year old son, and with her cancer. On a political level, it is evident from his realization that it is going to take far more than nice thoughts about 'hope' and 'unity' to take on the corporate interests that are going to array against the progressive economic policies, healthcare legislation, and energy policy we want to see passed. It IS going to be a political battle, and it is going to take conviction and courage to win it. It is also going to take a bigger democratic majority in Congress. I still believe that with his rural, working class southern roots, Edwards is the candidate who can compete most strongly across the entire United States. We need a candidate who can reach out to "Reagan democrats." Some are saying that this is 'old politics.' If working and fighting for economic justice, better pay, truly comprehensive healthcare, speaking for the voiceless is 'old politics' then I'll stay old-fashioned. At least I know where this man stands, and I will stand with him. With his strong populist progressive message, and his background, John Edwards is representing true opportunity for change (to use a word that needs flesh on its bones). I was helping manage one of his Iowa caucuses, and we had several self-identified independents, and a Republican small business owner, attend the caucus for the first time and align themselves with John Edwards' message. Don't get me wrong. I like Barack Obama. He is my senator and I worked for his election in Illinois. I can understand the passion he evokes in some of his followers. But I worked for Edwards four years ago, and there are still moments from that campaign, and from this one, that I also had feelings we were looking at another RFK for the democratic party. So Obama supporters need to understand that others (including even some Hillary backers) actually have passion and commitment to their candidate. Most important, I still feel in my gut that Edwards is the one who would have the strongest 'coattails' in the general election, and is the man whose experience and life story will make him a great President of the United States. My own feeling is that Hillary Clinton, because her principal message was her inevitability, will now be falling in the polls. I hope that supporters from the campaigns of other candidates (Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kuchinich, perhaps even a few of Ms. Clinton's supporters themselves), will consider Mr. Edwards at this point.

Posted by progressivedem | January 5, 2008 1:01 PM

I wouldn't expect Hillary Clinton or her supporters to give up the ship after one defeat, although Obama supporters on the blogs seem to think that both she and Edwards should concede immediately. One suggested that we should bow down and kiss his ring (now he's the Pope?!!!) and another, in all seriousness, suggested that he is a Bodhisattva. Should be a fascinating election if Barack Obama, a living Bodhisattva, goes up against Mike Huckabee, Christ's representative on earth. The heavens will open. Seriously though, Barack Obama makes exceptionally good speeches. However, there is a bit of excessive praise, almost a mania, to the Barack phenomenon at this point. One supporter (in a New York Times' blog) said that Obama's Iowa speech was one of the most memorable speeches of a lifetime, comparable to the Gettysburg Address. If that's the case, I challenge listeners to recite from memory any memorable line, aside from the repeated emphasis on 'hope' 'change', etc. Obama is blessed with an incredibly rich voice and a beautiful cadence and has the ability to move people using broad themes. This is one of any politician's best assets. I'm still supporting John Edwards, however. He is the only candidate who continues to speak with conviction and strength about the plight of Americans living in poverty, and is the candidate whose policies are actually much more progressive than those put forward by Obama. I would like to see us enter this race with a candidate whose healthcare plan actually covers all Americans and doesn't leave 15 million without coverage. Edwards is optimistic, but his optimism is grounded in realism. On a personal level this involves the way he and Elizabeth coped with the death of his 16 year old son, and with her cancer. On a political level, it is evident from his realization that it is going to take far more than nice thoughts about 'hope' and 'unity' to take on the corporate interests that are going to array against the progressive economic policies, healthcare legislation, and energy policy we want to see passed. It IS going to be a political battle, and it is going to take conviction and courage to win it. It is also going to take a bigger democratic majority in Congress. I still believe that with his rural, working class southern roots, Edwards is the candidate who can compete most strongly across the entire United States. We need a candidate who can reach out to "Reagan democrats." Some are saying that this is 'old politics.' If working and fighting for economic justice, better pay, truly comprehensive healthcare, speaking for the voiceless is 'old politics' then I'll stay old-fashioned. At least I know where this man stands, and I will stand with him. With his strong populist progressive message, and his background, John Edwards is representing true opportunity for change (to use a word that needs flesh on its bones). I was helping manage one of his Iowa caucuses, and we had several self-identified independents, and a Republican small business owner, attend the caucus for the first time and align themselves with John Edwards' message. Don't get me wrong. I like Barack Obama. He is my senator and I worked for his election in Illinois. I can understand the passion he evokes in some of his followers. But I worked for Edwards four years ago, and there are still moments from that campaign, and from this one, that I also had feelings we were looking at another RFK for the democratic party. So Obama supporters need to understand that others (including even some Hillary backers) actually have passion and commitment to their candidate. Most important, I still feel in my gut that Edwards is the one who would have the strongest 'coattails' in the general election, and is the man whose experience and life story will make him a great President of the United States. My own feeling is that Hillary Clinton, because her principal message was her inevitability, will now be falling in the polls. I hope that supporters from the campaigns of other candidates (Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kuchinich, perhaps even a few of Ms. Clinton's supporters themselves), will consider Mr. Edwards at this point.

Posted by progressivedem | January 5, 2008 1:01 PM

I wouldn't expect Hillary Clinton or her supporters to give up the ship after one defeat, although Obama supporters on the blogs seem to think that both she and Edwards should concede immediately. One suggested that we should bow down and kiss his ring (now he's the Pope?!!!) and another, in all seriousness, suggested that he is a Bodhisattva. Should be a fascinating election if Barack Obama, a living Bodhisattva, goes up against Mike Huckabee, Christ's representative on earth. The heavens will open. Seriously though, Barack Obama makes exceptionally good speeches. However, there is a bit of excessive praise, almost a mania, to the Barack phenomenon at this point. One supporter (in a New York Times' blog) said that Obama's Iowa speech was one of the most memorable speeches of a lifetime, comparable to the Gettysburg Address. If that's the case, I challenge listeners to recite from memory any memorable line, aside from the repeated emphasis on 'hope' 'change', etc. Obama is blessed with an incredibly rich voice and a beautiful cadence and has the ability to move people using broad themes. This is one of any politician's best assets. I'm still supporting John Edwards, however. He is the only candidate who continues to speak with conviction and strength about the plight of Americans living in poverty, and is the candidate whose policies are actually much more progressive than those put forward by Obama. I would like to see us enter this race with a candidate whose healthcare plan actually covers all Americans and doesn't leave 15 million without coverage. Edwards is optimistic, but his optimism is grounded in realism. On a personal level this involves the way he and Elizabeth coped with the death of his 16 year old son, and with her cancer. On a political level, it is evident from his realization that it is going to take far more than nice thoughts about 'hope' and 'unity' to take on the corporate interests that are going to array against the progressive economic policies, healthcare legislation, and energy policy we want to see passed. It IS going to be a political battle, and it is going to take conviction and courage to win it. It is also going to take a bigger democratic majority in Congress. I still believe that with his rural, working class southern roots, Edwards is the candidate who can compete most strongly across the entire United States. We need a candidate who can reach out to "Reagan democrats." Some are saying that this is 'old politics.' If working and fighting for economic justice, better pay, truly comprehensive healthcare, speaking for the voiceless is 'old politics' then I'll stay old-fashioned. At least I know where this man stands, and I will stand with him. With his strong populist progressive message, and his background, John Edwards is representing true opportunity for change (to use a word that needs flesh on its bones). I was helping manage one of his Iowa caucuses, and we had several self-identified independents, and a Republican small business owner, attend the caucus for the first time and align themselves with John Edwards' message. Don't get me wrong. I like Barack Obama. He is my senator and I worked for his election in Illinois. I can understand the passion he evokes in some of his followers. But I worked for Edwards four years ago, and there are still moments from that campaign, and from this one, that I also had feelings we were looking at another RFK for the democratic party. So Obama supporters need to understand that others (including even some Hillary backers) actually have passion and commitment to their candidate. Most important, I still feel in my gut that Edwards is the one who would have the strongest 'coattails' in the general election, and is the man whose experience and life story will make him a great President of the United States. My own feeling is that Hillary Clinton, because her principal message was her inevitability, will now be falling in the polls. I hope that supporters from the campaigns of other candidates (Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kuchinich, perhaps even a few of Ms. Clinton's supporters themselves), will consider Mr. Edwards at this point.

Posted by progressivedem | January 5, 2008 1:01 PM

"With Clinton complaining Obama is too liberal, and Edwards complaining he's a corporate stooge, this is playing out beautifully for Obama."

Huh? If Clinton attacks Obama as being to liberal, then Obama has to respond by protesting that he's not too liberal. Obama's left flank is already somewhat exposed, and this turn of events would leave it even more exposed to Edwards.

Posted by Petey | January 5, 2008 1:05 PM

Oddly enough from my perspective that is a pretty good description of the relation between the Obama economics team (Goolsbee, Liebman, Cutler) and Obama.

Agreed, and this brings back to MY's referring to the importance of Perot voters here and their importance in the general election. Obama is the anti-Perot voter candidate. He's not too interested in the economic insecurities of the Perot voter but is instead going after Judis/Teixeira Emerging Democratic Majority Democratic-leaning voters and is more a social liberal. This is the opposite of the Perot voter who is more likely to support an economic populist.
Now in the Democratic primaries this might be a good idea, but in the generals can he win while downplaying the concerns of the Perot voters? This is especially important if Huckabee (amazingly!) becomes the Republican nominee and does play the economic populist card.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 5, 2008 1:11 PM

Petey: Huh? If Clinton attacks Obama as being to liberal, then Obama has to respond by protesting that he's not too liberal. Obama's left flank is already somewhat exposed, and this turn of events would leave it even more exposed to Edwards.

Petey, this (has to respond by protesting that he's not too liberal) is one of the dumbest things I've seen you post.

Posted by hlah | January 5, 2008 1:12 PM

If Clinton attacks Obama as being to liberal, then Obama has to respond by protesting that he's not too liberal.

Nope.

He can criticize it as the same old politics of bluster and division--the antithesis of change. Or he could just ignore it.

Posted by southpaw | January 5, 2008 1:14 PM

Can someone who's perpetually in a pants suit credibly attack an opponent as "too liberal"? She needs to start dressing like Margaret Thatcher if she's gonna go that route.

Posted by Trevor | January 5, 2008 1:19 PM

"He can criticize it as the same old politics of bluster and division--the antithesis of change. Or he could just ignore it."

Of course. Obama will have many potential responses.

But IF Clinton does attack Obama from the right in a sustained way, and IF the attacks gain a toehold, Obama will be forced to defend his right flank. That's just how politics works.

Both of those "ifs" are capitalized to indicate they're pretty speculative. But if they do both come to pass, the opening on Obama's left will almost definitely become larger.

Posted by Petey | January 5, 2008 1:25 PM

Petey,

If I were running the Clinton campaign, I'd be trying to push Obama to the left.

It may not work, but I think it's the best card they have.

For NH and Nevada? Oy yeah.

I was just thinking about how blog deniznes creating buzz about how he might slant right economically can only add to his appeal in those two states.

The picture on the front page of today's New York Times from Concord, NH, was quite striking and the photographer and editor knew what they were doing using it. Bunch of grizzled and pinched looking "live free or die, don't you dare tax me" white folks in plaid shirts all pleased as punch to meet the nice young gentlemanly Senator... :-)

The associated article says: "he mentions at each stop on Friday that he would like the votes of disaffected Republicans."

Posted by artappraiser | January 5, 2008 1:32 PM

Petey is thinking of LBJ's line that went something like, "I don't believe he's a sheepfucker, I just want to make the bastard deny it." I don't think it works here. Obama need only that it's not a surprising attack coming from someone who voted for the war in Iraq and refuses to admit her mistake. I am wondering when we'll see Krugman slam Hillary for using the talking points of the rightwing, though.

Posted by Just Karl | January 5, 2008 1:35 PM

"I was just thinking about how blog deniznes creating buzz about how he might slant right economically can only add to his appeal in those two states."

The willingness of Team Clinton to allow Obama to get to their right over the fall totally blew my mind. If they'd tried to push him to the left back then, they'd have created problems for themselves in IA, but they'd have been far better situated right now for the campaign to come.

Posted by Petey | January 5, 2008 1:40 PM

One Clinton donor and two prominent surrogates said they had been led to believe the campaign that by that if Clinton were to lose Iowa, she would have placed a close second to John Edwards

Clinton's campaign were mislead into overestimating Edwards by reading too much Petey.

Posted by otto | January 5, 2008 2:02 PM

She's turning all Joe Lieberman to Obama's Ned Lamont, as it were.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | January 5, 2008 2:04 PM

Petey, the problem is that when a candidate is taking multiple seemingly contradictory attacks, the chances of any taking a hold are slim. It just gets all muddled and confused. When the context is that the target of attacks just won a major contest and both the attackers just lost, that's even more likely. Instead of sounding like either has legit criticisms, it just sounds like desperation.

Which is perfect for Obama, who's run as "above politics," to dismiss as "just the same ole Washington tear-you-down politics. Instead, I want to lift the country you up."

Posted by Michael | January 5, 2008 2:11 PM

Michael's right: when you've run an 'I float above the Old Politics' campaign, you can brush off questions that adopt the hoary liberal/not dichotomy.

The more telling criticism is 'no substance, ungrounded' -- or, if you're feeling really sharp and prepared to take a risk, 'no wonder he has the youth vote -- his airy, fairy rhetoric isn't meant for grown-ups'... but Hillary isn't in a position to make it.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 5, 2008 2:39 PM

Clinton's campaign were mislead into overestimating Edwards by reading too much Petey.

They didn't need Petey for that. That's what HRC is paying Mark Penn for. HRC right now is like the Japanese in WWII. When they attacked, they were an awesome force. Very disciplined. If the Americans attacked them, the Japanese become very disoriented. Basically, as it is showing, but Hillary and Co. is knocked back on their heels, they have no clue what to do. It's almost like they were so full of themselves they didn't even plan for the possibility of someone else winning(and taking the mojo in the process).

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 5, 2008 2:45 PM

I've long taken the view that Clinton's status as someone whose perceived as much more liberal than she really is is a fatal weakness in her candidacy

Clinton doesn't particularly believe in property rights and definitely doesn't believe in any sort of self-determination; read her book or look at her "HOW DARE THEY NOT VOTE FOR ME" attitude towards Iowans. How does that make her "less liberal" than anyone thinks she is?

What is your definition of "less liberal?" Does it have to do with specific ideology? If so, she's just to the right of Chavez and a bit more to the left of Edwards. Or is it merely her percentage adherence to the random grab-bag of junk positions (invading Sudan, picking on smokers, chastising the Turks for the actions of the extinct Ottomans) currently associated with Democrats? That's the only measure by which I can imagine a claim that Clinton "isn't that far to the left" could be anything but a sick joke.

Or maybe you're backtracking from your silly belief, expressed just two days ago, that Obama's the second coming of Barry Goldwater (if only).

Posted by Shinyk | January 5, 2008 3:04 PM

I've long taken the view that Clinton's status as someone whose perceived as much more liberal than she really is is a fatal weakness in her candidacy

she's just to the right of Chavez and a bit more to the left of Edwards.

Thanks, Shinyk, for proving MattY's assertion rather well.

Posted by Tyro | January 5, 2008 3:16 PM

...the problem is that when a candidate is taking multiple seemingly contradictory attacks, the chances of any taking a hold are slim. It just gets all muddled and confused. When the context is that the target of attacks just won a major contest and both the attackers just lost, that's even more likely. Instead of sounding like either has legit criticisms, it just sounds like desperation.

Also, if he's simultaneously being attacked as too liberal and as too conservative he can make a strong case that he must be representative of the average Democratic primary voter. Or, if he's too much of a Transformational Change Agent Who Believes in a New Kind of Politics to claim the mantle of "average Democrat," he can just say that he must be the only candidate that everybody likes.

Posted by JB | January 5, 2008 3:33 PM

"BTW, all autumn long, I was saying that the Clinton campaign was running a disastrous campaign. Their lack of viable strategies at the moment should be evidence that I was right.

Mark Penn truly is as dumb as a suitcase full of rocks.

Posted by Petey | January 5, 2008 12:34 PM"

You would have thought the media could tell that after the Trippi, Axelrod and Penn debate / did Penn just fart? thing that (IIRC) was on Matthews not too long ago. Then again, the media can't smell its own shit. The only close friend I have who has been backing Clinton all along thought that she could get things done because liberals had fought with her throughout the 1990's and felt connected to her. Boy did he get that wrong.

Posted by Reality Man | January 5, 2008 3:43 PM

Yeah Petey, as much as I want you to be right, the public images of the three candidates are too muddled for either charge to stick.

The problem is while the policies of the three candidates run--from most to least liberal-- Edwards, Obama, Clinton, the public perception is exactly the opposite. The Southern white male is perceived as the moderate-conservative, the female as the most liberal with the black male somewhere in the middle ideologically.

Do you realize how confusing it will seem to low info NH voters that the most conservative candidate is attacking Obabma for being too conservative and the most liberal candidate is attacking Obama for being too liberal?

They will easily buy Obama'a rejoinder that these are baseless political attacks. Of course that's bullshit, but low info voters go with their stereotypes (Edwards MUST be the DLC candidate, Hillary MUST be the superliberal) and Obama gets to play Goldilocks in the middle.

Oddly, I think both Edwards and Clinton would get more traction if they traded talking points--- JE hits him as too liberal, HRC attacks him for being the DLC corporate Democrat. Of course the press would go nuts (like they did at Huckabee last week) but the "criss-cross" attacks would make perfect sense to the low info voters and might actually strip off Obama voters from both his left and right flanks.

Posted by beowulf | January 5, 2008 6:28 PM