What would've been a winning Clinton strategy?
Posted by Little Ms Purple at 2/24/2008 9:44 AM 
Categories: 2008 Election, Political strategies, All Posts
Categories: 2008 Election, Political strategies, All Posts
Senator Clinton and her handlers played this race extremely harsh from the beginning and are just now debating whether to either go nuclear or instead play nice with Obama.
A better question for us outside of her team is, what would have been a winning Clinton strategy if she saw and acknowledged Obama for the threat that he was earlier on?
First of all, I do think they were tone deaf, blinded by past experience and thus incapable of hearing or seeing the gathering movement that they are now trying to stop. I saw and heard it the first day that Obama announced his run by how many people came out in the freezing cold to see and hear his announcement.
I would also argue that it would have been best to have played it nice up front in the summer & early fall with Obama. Talk about Democratic unity and how honored she is to be running against a son of a mill worker and an African American community organizer. But then, just before the first votes were cast in Iowa, slowly increase the pressure on the experience screws. They played it so harsh up front that they didn't have anywhere to go when the goin' got tough. Now they're playing "the nice" but it's too little too late... they should have played the reverse... nice up front, experience screws down the home stretch beginning just before the first vote is cast in Iowa. They jumped the gun with a general election strategy during the primaries because they thought they had it all sewn up.
Such a strategy would have set up the perfect situation to create buyer's remorse between Iowa and Super Tuesday but since Clinton thought that she would have it locked up on the Wednesday after, she didn't have the time or playing field to create that remorse before the train left the station with a draw on Super Tuesday.
A better question for us outside of her team is, what would have been a winning Clinton strategy if she saw and acknowledged Obama for the threat that he was earlier on?
First of all, I do think they were tone deaf, blinded by past experience and thus incapable of hearing or seeing the gathering movement that they are now trying to stop. I saw and heard it the first day that Obama announced his run by how many people came out in the freezing cold to see and hear his announcement.
I would also argue that it would have been best to have played it nice up front in the summer & early fall with Obama. Talk about Democratic unity and how honored she is to be running against a son of a mill worker and an African American community organizer. But then, just before the first votes were cast in Iowa, slowly increase the pressure on the experience screws. They played it so harsh up front that they didn't have anywhere to go when the goin' got tough. Now they're playing "the nice" but it's too little too late... they should have played the reverse... nice up front, experience screws down the home stretch beginning just before the first vote is cast in Iowa. They jumped the gun with a general election strategy during the primaries because they thought they had it all sewn up.
Such a strategy would have set up the perfect situation to create buyer's remorse between Iowa and Super Tuesday but since Clinton thought that she would have it locked up on the Wednesday after, she didn't have the time or playing field to create that remorse before the train left the station with a draw on Super Tuesday.
Comments