When I read this Los Angeles Times story, I thought “man the lifeboats.” I especially liked this part:
Last month, after a series of defeats, Hillary Clinton chose a new campaign manager, replacing Patti Solis Doyle. But she left in place many senior people, including Penn and Ickes, who have been involved in incessant turf wars.
As the campaign faces a make-or-break moment, some high-level officials are trying to play down their role in the campaign. Penn said in an e-mail over the weekend that he had “no direct authority in the campaign,” describing himself as merely “an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to me.”
“I have had no say or involvement in four key areas — the financial budget and resource allocation, political or organizational sides. Those were the responsibility of Patti Solis Doyle, Harold Ickes and Mike Henry, and they met separately on all matters relating to those areas.”
The man who insists on being called “chief strategist” now wants us to believe he had nothing to do with the whole mess: he was just minding his own business while Ickes and Grunwald screwed the whole thing up. Maybe it happened that way, but I doubt it. Penn may regret those remarks as Clinton seems on her way to at least one win tomorrow.
One win, of course, won’t bring Clinton even with Obama; however, she’s laid the groundwork for staying in the race if she manages to win Ohio, which looks like a pretty safe bet. The Texas polls are very close. If you haven’t heard, the Texas Democratic party has an odd system of awarding delegates. We have both a primary and a caucus.
Saying turnout is the key is only a little more sophisticated than saying the key is getting the most votes. The difference between the two is most vividly demonstrated by the Florida presidential vote in 2000. Al Gore had a better turnout in some key areas. The problem was that he didn’t get the most votes as some of his elderly supporters (many of them Jewish) voted for Pat Buchanan, who may not be an anti-semite but occasionally plays one on t.v. and isn’t known for his support among Jewish voters. If the early voting numbers are any guide, the turnout may be extraordinary.
I fear that the Democratic party is in for the worst possible outcome tomorrow: a narrow Clinton victory in both Texas and Ohio. If you believe the delegate counters, there is no realistic way for Clinton to catch Obama in pledged delegates. If he wins either Texas or Ohio, she should quit. If she trounces him in both states, my money would be on HRC as the nominee, as she will carry Penn (the state, not her bloated chief strategist and finger pointer).
It’s the narrow win that’s so problematic. If she pulls out a narrow win in Texas and even a respectable win in Ohio, Obama could still end the day with essentially the same lead as he had going in. If he ran close enough in Ohio, I suspect there’s even a scenario in which he could extend his delegate lead. There’s no question that the Clinton campaign would press on in such a circumstance (and I think she will do so even if Obama wins Texas). Clinton has benefitted from her negative attacks in the last few days and if this race continues, I believe it will only turn nastier by the day. In the end, the Democratic party will have a damaged nominee no matter who it is and the only person who benefits from that is John McCain.
