In response to all the schadenfreude about Bernie's campaign troubles
I'm trying to move on.
But opening DU and seeing the Polito post-mortum posted several times, and all of the nasty grave-dancing comments about Bernie (and of course his supporters), and gloating and mischaracterizations, it is important to provide some perspective from the Clinton campaign in 2008.
Yeah, Bernie "lost." Maybe he is not giving everyone as smooth a ride as they want. But, that's not unusual for a campaign or candidate. Clinton's own loss in 2008 was not smooth either. And, just as Sanders is only human, Clinton's own inner conflicts became reflected in dissension within her campaign, especially at the end.
Excerpt:
The Atlantic
The Front-Runner’s Fall 2008
Hillary Clinton’s campaign was undone by a clash of personalities more toxic than anyone imagined. E-mails and memos—published here for the first time—reveal the backstabbing and conflicting strategies that produced an epic meltdown.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/09/the-front-runner-s-fall/306944/
For all that has been written and said about Hillary Clinton’s epic collapse in the Democratic primaries, one issue still nags. Everybody knows what happened. But we still don’t have a clear picture of how it happened, or why.
The after-battle assessments in the major newspapers and newsweeklies generally agreed on the big picture: the campaign was not prepared for a lengthy fight; it had an insufficient delegate operation; it squandered vast sums of money; and the candidate herself evinced a paralyzing schizophrenia—one day a shots-’n’-beers brawler, the next a Hallmark Channel mom. Through it all, her staff feuded and bickered, while her husband distracted. But as a journalistic exercise, the “campaign obit” is inherently flawed, reflecting the viewpoints of those closest to the press rather than empirical truth.
How did things look on the inside, as they unraveled?
Two things struck me right away. The first was that, outward appearances notwithstanding, the campaign prepared a clear strategy and did considerable planning. It sweated the large themes (Clinton’s late-in-the-game emergence as a blue-collar champion had been the idea all along) and the small details (campaign staffers in Portland, Oregon, kept tabs on Monica Lewinsky, who lived there, to avoid any surprise encounters). The second was the thought: Wow, it was even worse than I’d imagined! The anger and toxic obsessions overwhelmed even the most reserved Beltway wise men. Surprisingly, Clinton herself, when pressed, was her own shrewdest strategist, a role that had never been her strong suit in the White House. But her advisers couldn’t execute strategy; they routinely attacked and undermined each other, and Clinton never forced a resolution. Major decisions would be put off for weeks until suddenly she would erupt, driving her staff to panic and misfire.
Above all, this irony emerges: Clinton ran on the basis of managerial competence—on her capacity, as she liked to put it, to “do the job from Day One.” In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel. What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency. What follows is the inside account of how the campaign for the seemingly unstoppable Democratic nominee came into being, and then came apart....MORE
= new reply since forum marked as read
I dunno. I am exercising some restraint by not saying everything that I really think here, but I am not happy about the contested convention idea and I am still a bit pissed about the general lack of civility around this place. Aren't we all?
