Friday, December 14, 2007

The Clinton Campaign Blunder

Funny thing is, Shaheen is probably right. Obama will be questioned on his drug use, by the Republicans, should he become the Dem's nominee, unlike George W Bush, who should have been questioned, but wasn't. Obama, unlike Bush, shows no apparent brain damage from his teenage experimentation. Bush's affair with alcohol went on until he was forty. He was an admitted binge drinker. Binge drinking is probably the worst kind of alcoholic drinking when it comes to recovery.

There is every reason to believe that Bush may have hit the bottle again, in recent years. Alcohol was one of Bush's coping mechanisms for many years. The ordinary stress of the presidency is bad enough. Being the president when the country is attacked, as it was on 9/11, multiplies that stress by at least 10, I would guess. It would be normal for Bush to return to his old coping mechanism, especially when all his policies started unraveling and his lies revealed.

Teenage drug experimentation sets up no such danger.

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
updated 2 hours, 38 minutes ago

DES MOINES, Iowa - “It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.”

So said the French politician Talleyrand after Napoleon had ordered the murder of one of his political rivals.

Much of the rhetoric in the spin room Thursday afternoon after the Democratic presidential debate in Iowa was about an apparent blunder committed by Bill Shaheen, the master New Hampshire political operative and until Thursday the co-chairman of the Clinton campaign.

Shaheen had been forced to resign after remarking to a Washington Post reporter that Sen. Barack Obama’s youthful drug use would be fodder for Republican attacks if he were the Democratic nominee.

Obama’s admitted teen drug taking would “open the door,” Shaheen predicted, to questions such as “Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?” This would be “hard to overcome,” in Shaheen’s view.

Was Shaheen’s commentary truly a blunder? Had the incident helped Obama or created an opening for John Edwards?

Or might it turn out to hurt Obama and thus help Clinton?

Why take Shaheen seriously?

There was also another question that went unasked Thursday: since no one could mistake Shaheen for an objective commentator, why would anyone take his remarks all that seriously to begin with?

As of Thursday night it was too soon to tell, but as sometimes happens in presidential politics, a peripheral figure suddenly became for 24 hours the most crucial person in the campaign.

Shaheen, the husband of former New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen, has a sterling record of success: he piloted the New Hampshire campaign of Jimmy Carter in 1980, when he beat back the challenge of Ted Kennedy, that of Al Gore in 2000, when he crushed Bill Bradley, and the John Kerry effort in 2004, when he finished off Howard Dean.

My vivid memory of Shaheen is of his utter self-confidence. At the lowest point of the Kerry campaign in New Hampshire in September of 2003, when Dean’s popularity was at its peak, Shaheen told me that Dean would come unstuck — and sure enough, he did.

On Thursday Shaheen said in a written statement, “I made a mistake and in light of what happened, I have made the personal decision that I will step down as the Co-Chair of the Hillary for President campaign.”

But it is difficult to imagine a strategist as canny as Shaheen is making a thoughtless “mistake.” A deliberate “mistake” — maybe.

He said in his statement that his comments “were in no way authorized by Senator Clinton or the Clinton campaign.” They need not have been to be effective.

How Trippi saw the 'blunder'

Edwards strategist Joe Trippi said the Clinton campaign was dogged by the reality that she has long been a Washington insider and can’t credibly campaign as a candidate who’ll radically break with the politics of the past, as Edwards and Obama each claim they will do.

“This (Shaheen episode) just makes them (the Clinton team) look even more political,” said Trippi. “They’re just digging themselves a deeper hole” into “the problem they’re trying to get out of.”

He added such attacks “are such a blunder” that they might help Obama.

But Trippi argued, using horse race imagery, “there’s a reason Obama has not run away from her and there’s a reason she hasn’t run away from him.” In other words, both horses are neck and neck on the backstretch.

“There’s a reason Obama hasn’t run away into the sunset and the reason is there’s a deep concern about his readiness to be president,” Tripp said.

Citing polling data on Obama, Trippi said, “A quarter of his own supporters think he’s not qualified to be president.”

Both Obama and Clinton are flawed candidates, he said, but “there’s another guy, John Edwards, who people here really like. They feel like they know him and they know he stands up for working people and they don’t have those kinds of doubts about him.”

Meanwhile, a few feet away from Trippi, Obama’s campaign manager David Axelrod was, in a restrained way, utterly enjoying the chance to spin reporters on the story line that the Shaheen episode cast a shadow on Clinton’s campaign.

CONTINUED: What did Clinton know?

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

No comments: