Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Clinton on the Ropes

Richard Adams, writing in the Manchester (U.K.) Guardian, made a persuasive case today in explaining the Clinton campaign's descent into desperate straits. He attributed it to strategic miscalculation and lack of organizational foresight.

The big Super Tuesday primary elections were held on February 5. The titanic clash in 22 states produced a delegate draw, a virtual dead heat between the two democratic frontrunners. The next day Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million-a tacit admission that her team had shot the wad on Super Tuesday, expected a knockout victory, and had neither thought about nor prepared for what might come next.

The Barack Obama campaign had meanwhile been busy opening field offices and running ads in the upcoming battlegrounds: Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska, Maine, and the Potomac primaries. Caught flatfooted, the Clinton team was beaten to the punch in state after state. Contests that should have been close, such as Maine, Virginia, and most recently Wisconsin, weren't. The Obama ground teams were there first in every case; the Clinton effort gave every indication of not having expected a contest in any of these places. The result has been a 10-0 winning streak for Obama that has left Clinton facing daunting odds of catching up in the delegate count.

Even today, Obama's organization concedes nothing. Both sides are making maximum efforts in delegate-rich Texas and Ohio, which vote March 4. The difference is that Vermont and Rhode Island also vote that day. Obama has four field offices up and running in Vermont; Hillary Clinton's campaign has none. True, Vermont is a small prize compared to Texas and Ohio. But a small professional organization in a small state can make a big difference. As an electoral strategy Obama has made the most of winning big in a lot of small states and losing close in the few big ones. Like an inexperienced boxer, the Clinton campaign walks into that same punch in every round.

The organizational facts on the ground, the smooth, well-thought-out nuts and bolts operations directed by David Axelrod, and the repeated inability of the Clinton forces to learn from their mistakes and plan ahead do much to obviate Clinton's central campaign pitch: that she is the experienced, savvy, competent leader who can get things done. What we have seen since the race hung in the balance two weeks ago points instead to Barack Obama as that candidate.

No comments: