Wednesday, February 10, 2016

The Hillary Clinton Campaign Implosion

At the New York Times, "It's Clinton Déjà Vu — New Hampshire Brings Snow and Rumors of Campaign Implosion":
Periods of intense hand-wringing and recrimination always occur in Clintonworld around the New Hampshire primaries, if history is any guide — and what is Clinton history, if not utterly repetitive?

These brawls traditionally follow difficult results in Iowa. In 1992, the native Hawkeye Tom Harkin beat Bill Clinton in the year’s first caucuses. Barack Obama beat Hillary in 2008 (as did John Edwards, who finished second). And last week, Bernie Sanders essentially tied the former secretary of state, setting up the latest Clinton bloodbath-in-waiting. Hillary is down big in the New Hampshire polls. Her nervous staff and extended community of sycophants, hangers-on and self-professed “confidantes” keep unburdening themselves in the press — while being granted anonymity in exchange for their self-aggrandizing candor.

We’ve been here before. This is how it all rolls in the Clinton precincts of Blue America. The situation is so familiar to be its own Democratic Party cliché, like nominating unelectable liberals in the 1980s or engaging in nasty platform fights in the 1990s.

Say this about the Clintons, for better or worse: They are predictable. Thrush and Karni’s New Hampshire pre-autopsy contained all the paint-by-number refrains of Clinton crackups past:

· The term “staff shake-up” would need to appear in the story’s headline (or, at least, the lede).

· Also, somewhere, the phrase “lack of trust” or “mutual suspicion.”

· The story would have to include a nod to the trusted old Clinton hands who were selflessly offering themselves up as potential campaign saviors.

· Embedded in the article would be the clear implication that all of this could have been avoided if only Mark Penn, Clinton’s 2008 strategist, were more involved.

· The story would also inevitably include at least one blind quote from a former Obama campaign aide who knows how to do things better.

· The story would have to offer up for sacrifice at least one scapegoat, whose job was allegedly in peril.

· Bonus points if said scapegoat hails from Obama’s campaigns (watch your back, Joel Benenson).

So, yes, this latest chapter in the Clintons’ book of Supposed Looming Implosions, 2016 edition, contains all the predictable elements...

It is repetitive, for sure. I remember this movie from 2008. I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of a Bernie Sanders nomination, but it's not far-fetched at this point.

Also, at Politico, "How Much Trouble Is Hillary Clinton In?"

(Via Memeorandum.)