If you haven't checked it out, you should read Josh Green's piece on the implosion of the Clinton campaign, and the internal memos he dug up while writing the story. The story, and the memos, emphasize just how many times the Clinton campaign shot itself in the foot--burning through money, struggling to find a clear message, and most of all, failing to manage the myriad superegos who were vying for control.
What may be underrated is the extent to which Clinton's indecisiveness was a result of the same thing that made it possible: her marriage to Bill Clinton. The campaign had multiple power centers, with the Clinton old guard fighting it out against Hillary's people. And Bill, heavily involved from the get-go, was naturally drawn to the kind of strategies and tactics that had made him a successful campaigner. But Clinton's strengths were not her husband's, and the campaign never really succeeded in crafting an image for its candidate separate from the shadows of the first Clinton administration. With the Obama campaign confidently offering a coherent, fresh political image, it was nearly impossible for the Clintons to compete.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
the myriad superegos who were vying for control
I've always tended to think of the Clintons' problems as arising more from the id than the superego.
How about a voluntary ban on the "hardly knew ye" line? I've seen it about 100,000 times in my life and that's more than enough.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are malevolent, mendacious, megalomaniacs and are a malignant cancer within the Democratic Party.
Hillary didn't follow all of Mark Penn's slash and burn recommendations because she didn't think they would work. Hillary is a ruthless, knee-capping thug who'd stoop to anything if she thought it would give her an advantage.
If Obama beats McCain, he'll always need to watch his back because Bill and Hillary will take every opportunity to try and undermine his administration.
Wow. This hardly seems true. Ms. Clinton managed a strong campaign. She carried the effort to June. While there may have been issues and struggles, I think there is much more credit than to say "...it never had a chance."
I am proud of her effort. Perhaps these struggles only help me appreciate what she did even more.
(BTW - A day one Obama supporter, but I still love Hil too.)
"What may be underrated is the extent to which Clinton's indecisiveness was a result of the same thing that made it possible: her marriage to Bill Clinton."
Speaking of somebody in need of a little coherence. Not to be a pedant, but my 9th grade English teacher would have just drawn a red line through that sentence. What is the "it" that you're referring to? I assume that you mean to say that Bill made her campaign possible, as well as contributed to her indecisiveness. If that's what you meant to say, isn't that the sort of sexist attitude that we had to put up with throughout her campaign? We heard endlessly about how Hillary was only in the race because of her husband, and that she's being propped up by feminists who only want to see a woman--any woman--in office. Just as we've heard endlessly about how Obama is only being propped up because he's black.
She ran a failed campaign and lost. Why do we have to keep placing blame on Bill, while at the same time awarding him credit for getting her there in first place? Let the woman own her own failures and take credit for her own achievements.
I don't know how you can call it strong. One of the memos released is dated March 5th, and contains an advisor's acknowledgement that they couldn't win--that they couldn't overtake Obama's lead in pledged delegates. They knew the campaign was lost, and hung on hoping for an implosion from the challenger who beat her, defaulting the nomination back to her. That's not strength, that's bloodymindedness.
And prior to March 5th, she and her campaign essentially pissed away a coronation. They spent money on high living and premature celebrations while Obama ate their lunch. She had an almost invincible lead in name recognition and money, and used it so ineffectively that she lost. That's not strength, that's hubris.
I do credit her with incidentally creating a narrative in which she, a woman, was the heir apparent, and lost it because of her personal failings, rather than her ovaries. History will remember that she should have won, that she should have been the one to kick McCain's ass in the election, which implicitly assumes that a woman can be an effective presidential candidate. The door for female presidents wasn't kicked open, but it was unlocked, unlatched, and left swinging on its hinges.
"...the campaign never really succeeded in crafting an image for its candidate separate from the shadows of the first Clinton administration."
She never would have had a campaign if it hadn't been for Bill's administration. To say that the "shadows" from those years somehow tainted her campaign seems to be overlooking the very duplicity of the Clintons' existence.
"Hardly knew ye," we hardly knew ye.
malevolent, mendacious, megalomaniacs and are a malignant cancer
Should've said "melanoma" rather than "cancer."
Tom T beat me to it, though I'll say it plainer: you shouldn't use "superego" to mean "really big ego", since it already has a meaning separate from "ego".