Hillary Clinton’s very bad campaign

Everybody’s talking about the Atlantic’s piece on how Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign fell apart, so I’ll keep my comments to a minimum.

What mainly struck me was this: In the most important professional undertaking of her life, Clinton surrounded herself with a staff full of miserable, backbiting leeches. And even to the degree that they had any talent, she showed little inclination or ability to manage them.

Given that she ran as the candidate of experience, it’s telling that she wasn’t even close to being ready for prime time.

Photo (cc) by the World Economic Forum and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.


4 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton’s very bad campaign

  1. mike_b1

    And by the same metrics, why 1) isn’t Old Man McCain being spanked for being an equally poor manager — after all, he basically was the last man standing after a bad bunch of pretenders fell apart — and 2) Obamabeing praised for his competence?Instead, I hear references to those stupid 3 AM ads in the middle of CNN stories on the Russia-Georgia skirmish. (As if Old Man McCain is anywhere but his bed at 3 AM, hoping he doesn’t die in his sleep.)

  2. Bill Baar

    Mike… a person in good health at age 70 has excellant odds of making it to a 100.A male, with a history of heavey smoking, turning 50 is facing the decade when a lot things start catching up with him.just an FYI….

  3. Peter Porcupine

    DK – having read the article, all I cn say is – wow.Have these people never heard of a shredder? I cannot IMAGINE sensitive opinions like some of these being circulated on email – I am even leery of conference calls. The need to CONTROL access and information is crucial to enhancing a candidate in a competitive race, and it’s almost impossible in a cyber-campaign. While the net and email are important, there are ways of controlling access – a shared confidential blog comes to mind – that makes it easy to pinpoint a leak.Another impression is that these leeches, as you call them, weren’t working on the campign they wanted to be on. They sound like the applicants to Obama’s glamour campaign that never got the second interview. They were more concerned about being ‘right’ in the eyes of personal political rivals than advancing their candidate.Mark Penn desrves a lot of credit for spotting and mounting what could have been a winning strategy. HRC needs to learn that more staff never compares with loyal staff.

Comments are closed.