Hillary's Staff at Odds

Last fall I'm remember reading that the magazine GQ removed an article it was going to publish about the strife within the Hillary campaign. Her campaign threatened to prevent GQ from having their scheduled interview with Bill Clinton if they went forward with the article.

Anyway, throughout this primary cycle there have been indicators in the media that her campaign is having internal problems. Her campaign manager and deputy campaign manager were replaced not too long ago.

Today in a LA Times article, Mark Penn, Hillary's pollster and chief strategist, tried to downplay his role in the campaign. However, Howard Wolfson, Hillary's communications chief, kind of contradicts what Penn claims. The article mentions how other staff wanted a more humanizing Hillary earlier in the campaign, but Penn resisted.

Penn usually gets the blame for Hillary's failures. Last week in an article I read (I don't remember which one) Harold Ickes, Hillary's senior advisor, put much of the blame on Penn also and criticized him.

Her campaign keeps on changing slogans more than any other presidential candidate and the tension between her staff gets more media coverage than the other candidates from both parties. I don't remember ever coming across information about other candidates having problems like hers. McCain had a change in staff much earlier in his campaign, but he has bounced back since. Her campaign's internal tension has been ongoing and it doesn't seem to be helping her campaign. She went from the inevitable frontrunner to the underdog.

The Clintonistas Downplay Their Losses

Clinton's pollster  and strategist, Mark Penn, was partly blamed for her Iowa loss and her calculated actions based on polling data. Now he's dismissing recent polls that favor Obama over Clinton up against McCain. In this situation and others, people leave out important details. For example, this is old news about Obama beating McCain in the polls. In RealClearPolitics' averages, both Obama and Edwards did better against McCain than Clinton, and this happened months ago. 

Penn goes on to say that the polls showed her losing in California and Massachusetts. Actually, Obama only beat her by a small margin in one poll out of the four most recent from Massachusetts. Penn is skewing the truth and trying to portray her as the underdog.

In her latest interview she downplays the significance of the red states Obama won since they're likely to be taken by the Republican nominee. Instead she emphasizes the the importance of big states like California. Isn't it safe to claim that no matter who the Democratic nominee is, he or she will take the liberal states of California, Massachusetts, and New York? I don't get her rationale.

Here's a blog I like that sums the Clintonistas' attitude towards Obama's wins: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/11/121758/950

I thought of the comparison between Obama and Jesse Jackson after Obama's South Carolina win. Bill didn't mention how Edwards won South Carolina in 2004. What he really wanted to say is that Obama won South Carolina because he's black.