The Christian Science Monitor looks at a question political scientists will be studying: why did Barack Obama suddenly rise and Hillary Clinton suddenly tumble in the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination race? You can boil down the answer to: a feast of the assumption on the part of the Clinton campaign that gave them food poisoning:
What happened? On Clinton’s part, her straits represent a massive failure of planning and organization, analysts say. Her campaign operated on the assumption she would have the nomination effectively locked up with the 22 contests on Feb. 5, and it spent accordingly. The lack of a Plan B has left her scrambling for cash and organizing late in the post-Super Tuesday contests.
Of course, the race isn’t over. THIS LADY hasn’t sung yet.
And the danger between now and the vital March 4th Texas and Ohio primaries is that the mainstream media (which has effectively started writing Clinton’s 2008 Presidential nomination obituary), new media, weblogs and broadcast and cable pundits will make NEW assumptions that prove the old adage: Assume makes an “ass” of “u” and “me.”
But at this point some handwriting is appearing on the wall — although the wall hasn’t fallen down yet.
That this is happening to the Clintons – until this campaign, a team skilled like no other in Democratic politics in running and winning elections – has left the political world dumbfounded. But even the senator’s supporters see how one faulty, central assumption can lead to disaster.
“If an entire campaign strategy is framed around the belief that a particular date will be decisive, and if in the face of contrary evidence you find it difficult to abandon that assumption, then it’s possible to be very smart and experienced and still be caught short,” says William Galston, a former senior adviser to President Clinton who backs Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
In retrospect, let me add a couple of faulty assumptions that will be pointed to if Clinton does not win the upcoming primaries and fizzles, gets the nomination by a just hair, perhaps even if Obama self-destructs or is helped in destructing by some scandalous new press revelation before March 4:
(1) The Giuliani assumption. The GOP former New York Mayor made the same mistake with the early primaries, not continuously revising his strategy and insisting on banking it all on Florida where he didn’t produce as his associates predicted.
(2) The Experience Assumption. Read blog and columnist commentary and you’ll see that some critics rejected Clinton’s First Lady experience as actual experience. In fact, in many ways it WAS solid experience. But not everyone would accept that argument.
(3) The Bill Will Be An Asset Assumption. If she loses I predict you will see in future books on the 2008 race a section on how Bill Clinton’s aggressive entry into the race after Iowa marked the point where her campaign stumbled and slid, damaging both her poll lead and built up positive imagery as a competent Senator who clearly is an impressive policy wonk (and has an excellent reputation in her home state of New York as well) who was running on her own as a strong center-to-center-left Senator. He brought the idea (rightfully or wrongfully) to the forefront that it wasn’t just about Hillary Clinton for President but Hillary and Bill Clinton for President.
(4) The They’ll Never Go For That Smooth-Talking Upstart Assumption. Obama was underestimated. YES. Words do and have mattered in American politics in written documents, speeches, and in aggregating support. Making a major campaign theme that your opponent is too eloquent assumes the average person who can barely afford to fill his/her car, is possibly losing his/her home or is worried about the war really cares about a campaign style. Bloggers, campaign loyalists and media types do. But they don’t provide winning margins.
There are a bunch of others — but of course if Clinton pulls it off and wins, all of the above will have made an “ass” of “me.”
The Monitor raises another issue:
Obama, in contrast, has put together a team that appears to work well together, and has fashioned and executed a game plan skillfully, Mr. Galston says.
“People are going to be writing about his campaign for a long time, as a textbook of how to take advantage of changing circumstances – and to leverage your strengths while muting your weaknesses,” says Galston, now a senior fellow of governance at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Indeed: that will be the MOTIF if Clinton won. 2008 will be remembered as the year when the TWO perceived front-runners — Giuliani and Clinton blew huge leads in polls, watched their fat campaign bankrolls shrink, and allowed their images to wither because they and their campaigns were not nimble enough to adapt to the changing political landscape.
The stark contrast in how the campaigns have unfolded raises an inevitable question: Do they indicate how each of the candidates would operate as president? For Clinton, whose own husband is telling voters she has to win both Texas and Ohio on March 4 to remain viable, the question is acute. As she vows to voters that she would be ready to lead the nation from Day 1, are they noticing the failings in the largest enterprise she has ever run?
Probably not. At the same time, Obama’s skill in putting together a team, and foreseeing and planning for a long campaign, may not tell the public much about how he would operate as president. After all, every president has arrived in the Oval Office after demonstrating some skill as a candidate and an organizer, but American history is littered with failed presidencies.
Ultimately, astute planning takes a candidate only so far. In Obama’s case, analysts say, his ability to tap into the national zeitgeist and articulate an appealing message is central to his success so far.
“This election is going to be something akin to the election of 1980, when the mood was sour and there was malaise in the country,” says Stephen Wayne, a political scientist at Georgetown University in Washington. “Ronald Reagan offered hope, and Obama’s offering hope – it doesn’t have to be like this, he’s saying.”
And there were assumptions that have been wrong from the start about Mrs. Clinton: that she wouldn’t be elected to the New York Senate, that she wouldn’t prove an effective and responsive Senator, that she’d be a far left Senator, that she would be wooden in debates. All wrong, particularly the last one — since she has grown and shines in most televised debates.
Meanwhile, the Monitor adds its journalistic “hedge” — just as we did above — stressing that Clinton can’t be counted out yet.
Because it really isn’t over yet.
Because the press, bloggers and pundits are now operating on a new set of assumptions.
And because the Obama campaign may have adjusted its assumptions…which could prove faulty and fatal to its candidate’s prospects. And his own assumptions.
Still, with reports that some superdelegates are jumping to Obama and that Obama has about $10 million more than Clinton in campaign funds you can make some assumptions.
Which could be…wrong.
(Journalistic hedge…)
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.