Many, including me, were shocked at the replacement of Patti Solis Doyle as campaign manager.
Yes, many have complained about Mark Penn and Doyle. About them both being replaced. Penn after the Philadelphia debate and Doyle after Iowa.
But no money left prior to New Hampshire? WTH? What happened?
There are many variables in running a campaign, whether a local congressional race or a national presidential race. Both are the same, only the larger more working parts. When you get to the national level, you need to have people/staff in place to douse any flames that come up, did Clinton have this?
Before word of Obama’s caucus victory arrived today, the Clinton campaign’s manager, Patti Solis Doyle, announced she was stepping down – a shakeup long rumored and perhaps inevitable following Clinton’s mixed results on Super Tuesday, at a time when Clinton had to loan her campaign $5 million of her own money.
Although Clinton had carried her home state of New York and the biggest prize of the day, California, in that coast-to-coast contest, Obama also had carried more states – ranging from Colorado to Connecticut and from Minnesota to Georgia – nearly evening the score in convention delegates committed to the two.
Many on this board have been critical of both the Clinton and Obama campaign when you write, speak about money. That is fair, but the reality is this, you can't run any campaign without it.
Why? GOTV and GOTCV cost money. Opening field offices with paid staff, cost money. Phone banking cost money. Utilities cost money. Supplies cost money. Canvassing cost money. All you have to do is see which campaign is being successful at this and which is not. Right now, the Obama Campaign has a foot up on this one. How? He has been winning that is why. This past weekend sweep was about organization, running television ads, and GOTV/GOTCV. And Obama got his people out, Clinton did not. Simple as that.
Patti Solis Doyle had been living on borrowed time as Clinton's campaign manager following the disastrous showing in Iowa and the rockiness leading up to the New Hampshire primary.
"What happened today would have happened the day after New Hampshire had we lost," one source said, adding that others may soon follow Solis Doyle's departure.
What does this mean? It means that Doyle spent an enormous amount of money in Iowa to lose, and not only lose but come in third.
Iowa, I was there. A tall tell sign. The Clinton Campaign hired up to 1000 paid staffers just for Iowa. Why? You mean that they did not have boots on the ground, as in volunteers just for Iowa? Well, they did not. Not in the boots as Obama. That is not the kind of campaign she ran and is still running. Remember, chit driven or machine driven politics? That was how she was trying to run it, but it failed in Iowa. Succeeded in New Hampshire. Lost the delegate race in Nevada, but won Clark County of Las Vegas. Had the machine in place for South Carolina, but was shockingly defeated by Obama.
February 5, 2008 exposed everything to me. This was the day of the Clinton TKO to Obama, but she failed. How? She concentrated on the machine driven politics in targeted states, while Obama, again came close enough in these states but picked up the crumbs. Crumbs? Yes, every other states she did not have any presence, organization. Why did she do this? She thought she would have blowouts in the targeted states but failed and let Obama get enough delegates to stay in this game.
So now this? No money?
But even more problematic was the campaign's money crunch. Over the last seven years, Clinton had raised $175 million for her reelection and her presidential campaign. But Solis Doyle didn't tell Clinton that there was next to no cash on hand until after the New Hampshire primary.
"We were lying about money," a source said. "The cash on hand was nothing."
In turn, Clinton didn't tell Solis Doyle that she was lending her own money to keep the campaign afloat. Solis Doyle found out third-hand. And when she asked Clinton about it, the senator told her she couldn't understand how the campaign had gotten to such a point.
I don't know about you, but how can you lie about money? You either have it or not, at least in the real world.
Many claim the Clinton money trick was to get her supporters going and it was, but the reality is that there is no money. Again, look at how her campaign has not campaigned this weekend. Then look at how she is sparingly on the ground for the Potomac Primaries. That will give you the answers.
Hillary Clinton came to a draw on Super Tuesday and has lost 5 in a row through the weekend. Eventually, you cannot continue to lose and say, "Wait until March 4th?" Why? Take Louisiana. No Clinton presence, at all. Obama ran television ads and went to visit the state. What happens? He won Louisiana large, but look at the exit polling. On MSNBC, the question came up, "what made you vote for this person?" The second answer was television ads.
Shocked? I was, but then said, "ahhhh." These are uninformed voters who just go to the primaries/general and vote a "D". Since no presence from Hillary and they saw Barack repeatedly on television, they voted for him and not her.
Can Hillary keep losing and have the media narrative/perception of a loser until March 4th? We saw what Rudy Giuliani did for Florida and the "wait for January 29th", and that failed. Will it happen to Clinton? I don't know. Her name is a brand, but to be perceived to not winning any more contests in February up until March 4th is a risk.
Can Hillary win this? Sure she can. But she is not sneaking around to see John Edwards for nothing. This is a delegate race, not a race with the checkmark by your name.
Yes, that checkmark. That is why the Clinton Campaign did not invest in a solid ground organization, due to the understanding that the public will buy into the checkmark and it will transcend to the other states. Well, it has worked to a point. Meaning? When you have an organization like Barack Obama's, committed volunteers in the hundreds of thousands, the checkmark just make folks fired up and work extra harder for the next contest.
This is a perception that Clinton never expected to happen. It is called a movement.