January 7, 2008

"She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats."

The Clinton brand!

Drudge reports:
Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!

"She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider to the DRUDGE REPORT. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats."...
It's only Drudge... but what do you imagine they are saying inside the campaign?

ADDED: As Madison Man notes in the comments "one top campaign insider" might not necessarily be one top Clinton campaign insider.

36 comments:

PatCA said...

What would be the point of dropping out now? Lots of candidates lose big and come back 4, 8 years later.

Is an Ed Muskie moment coming?

Tim said...

"... but what do you imagine they are saying inside the campaign?"

Those not closest to Bill and Hillary! probably fear it as true and are polishing up their resumes; those closest to Bill and Hillary! might fear it too.

P. Rich said...

Sounds like campaign preparations for a Clinton loss in NH are already underway. Sweet.

EnigmatiCore said...

I would be there is no unanimity of thoughts within the campaign. Some are probably confident, thinking that the inevitable triumphs to come will be that much sweeter and make her even more formidable come November. Others will be thinking they are in trouble, but it is time to buck up. Still others may be thinking they are screwed.

But if there is one overall feeling that I bet most of them are sharing, it is the thought that it wasn't supposed to happen like this.

But I doubt they are thinking of getting out now. However, if Obama trounced her in NH, SC, and Nevada, then I think it becomes a moot point.

MadisonMan said...

laments one top campaign insider to the DRUDGE REPORT

Drudge doesn't say which campaign.

Simon said...

Even after Iowa, I simply refuse to believe that enough people are taken in by Obama's shtick for Clinton to lose New Hampshire. She'll win New Hampshire and go on to win the nomination. Sanity will prevail.

tightspotkilo said...

Hillary may be migrating to a strategy like Rudy's, which is instead of micky-mousing around with the paltry likes of Iowa and New Hampshire, sit back and let the voters of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah blow it all wide open in one day 29 days from now on super duper Tuesday

Bruce Hayden said...

Oh, here is the rumor that I mentioned in the next blog thread. It comes from starting at the top and working my way down through Ann's blog entries. Sorry.

I don't see it happening. This is totally out of character. Of all the politicians at the top today, the one I would consider a fighter is Hillary!, much more so than most of the men she is competing with. When things got bad for her husband, she is the one who would inevitably kick him in the rear, and then come out swinging.

former law student said...

The Clinton brand? Are they grooming Chelsea for a run at the Presidency? Or are they preserving their options for 2015, when Hillary will be 68 years old? If elected then, she would be the second oldest President at inauguration, sandwiched between William Henry Harrison and Reagan. I don't think her appeal is that enduring; I'm thinking it's now or never for her.

AJ Lynch said...

How many times have I said Hillary did not have the legs to be a front-runner for a long race- she will not quit because there is still a chance someone will find info about Obama that mortally wounds his campaign.

And Simon- you sure have a blind spot when it comes to Obama's appeal and Hillary's negatives.

Roger said...

My guess is Drudge is generating traffic--it makes absolutely no sense for HRC to drop out even if she loses the non-representative states of Iowa and NH. South Carolina could be a state that makes a big difference: my take is that the Clinton campaign will be watching the Black demographic closelyto see if it stays with the Clintons or goes to Obama. Iowa suggests Obama is splitting the female vote, so her two main constituencies MAY be deserting her.

Even then, the primaries don't really go "national" until Feb 5.
Its silly Drudge rumor mongering, IMO.

Mortimer Brezny said...

Even after Iowa, I simply refuse to believe that enough people are taken in by Obama's shtick for Clinton to lose New Hampshire. She'll win New Hampshire and go on to win the nomination. Sanity will prevail.

Are you fucknuts crazypants?

hdhouse said...

I think you got it right with the observation "it's only Drudge".

yes it is. Drudge.

Trooper York said...

I just hope the Giant's change the Cowboys brand this weekend. I am counting on the Jessica Simpson effect. (She by the way is the bizzaro Hillary).

e.c. dan said...

The army of acolytes loyal to Hillary who have been most vocal in crafting an interpretation of their time in power and who wouldn't mind another go at it-- the Albright types-- might be the very ones most likely to panic, preferring that she get out early as opposed to having a final judgment come down on her, them, and the Clinton years by Democrats. The public is always angry. Vindictive. Easily stirred. The Clintonites have used this fact to their great advantage. They must surely understand how much anger can be turned against them from within their own party, and how this is likely to occur especially if Obama allows the activists a safe, secure place from which to throw punches and recriminations. If the internal polling has double digit defeats all lined up and she takes a whooping in New Hampshire I can she her giving up before South Carolina. If she gets out early she she can keep the cash, she's still a Senator, Hillary and Bill will be given a pass: "what if" is a much better position to be in than "has been" and "loser". If Obama wins she opened up the road to his victory by avoiding a long, contentious battle. If he loses--2012.

Fritz said...

Simon,
You were joking, right? Obama is going to trounce her tomorrow.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Simon,
You were joking, right? Obama is going to trounce her tomorrow.


I think you're right. His supporters will undoubtably have multiple Obasms.

Randy (Internet Ronin) said...

As the most recent polls in Nevada showed Clinton with a 20-point lead, it would definitely be a devastating blow if there was a 30-point turnaround and she lost it by double digits. Obama was doing far better in polling (for a longer period of time) in both Iowa and NH than he has thus far in Nevada.

PatCA said...

Oh, dear, it's happening quicker than I thought.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/01/07/emotional-moment-for-clinton-in-nh/?mod=blog

Mortimer Brezny said...

Yeah, but if she loses NH and the Culinary Union endorses the winner of NH, once she loses SC, NV will look different.

Middle Class Guy said...

She does not want the Clinton brand damaged becuse it would dry up the gravy train. She could not stand living like she did in Arkansas on a middle class income.

Simon said...

AJ Lynch said...
"Simon- you sure have a blind spot when it comes to Obama's appeal and Hillary's negatives."

Oh, I understand her negatives. I have no intention of voting for her in the fall. But as to Obama's appeal, no, it is honestly beyond my comprehension what his appeal is. I don't get it. Whatever it is that he's been putting in the water, I'm apparently immune to it. I don't think he's outstandingly eloquent; I don't even think he's particularly articulate. As to the argument that he's smart because he's been to law school - big deal. So did Joe Biden (who did beat out Obama as the most loathsome individual in the race - I felt like sending Bob Bork an order of champagne when Biden was whipped in Iowa), the gold standard for constitutional cluelessness. Obama just really, really grates on me, I think because of that acute disconnect between how he presents himself and what he is, and it grates on me even more that people are falling for it.

Mortimer Brezny said...

I have no intention of voting for her in the fall.

Oh, but you will: once you see those tears! You cannot resist!

Palladian said...

"I think because of that acute disconnect between how he presents himself and what he is"

Obama is anything you want him to be, Simon! He's hope.

Maybe you evil right wingers don't understand the concept of hope.

Repeat after me:

Hope! Change! Hope! Change! Hope! Change! Hope! Change! Hope! Change! Hope! Change! Hope! Change! Hope! Change! Hope! Change! Hope! Change!

And pretty soon you'll be saying:

Hillary who?

Simon said...

Palladian said...
"Obama is anything you want him to be, Simon! He's hope."

That's kind of what I was getting at in my comment at Amba's yesterday - "[h]ope of what? Change of what, to what, and how? Obama's rhetoric is a rorschach: the scam is that he talks vaguely about hope and change, and you as a listener are supposed to think of what you hope with change and project those feelings onto him. That way, he doesn't alienate anyone who might support him with any kind of nagging specificity (what's to disagree with? He's for hope! Who could disagree with that?), and he doesn't have to make any promises he might later be accused of breaking (insofar as change is going to happen even of Obama sleeps through his term; in this world, as Peter Gabriel put it, the only constant that I'm aware of is this accelerating rate of change.)"

hdhouse said...

One can identify the GOP voters on sight. They are the ones holding their noses. The democrats are the ones who are smiling and laughing laughing and laughing.

Palladian said...

"what's to disagree with? He's for hope! Who could disagree with that?"

An unfortunately common rhetorical trick in politics. Bush does it with "freedom".

"The democrats are the ones who are smiling and laughing laughing and laughing."

Which they usually do right before they fall off a cliff.

reader_iam said...

I'm amazed, but I'm encouraged, because tonight what we have seen is a new day in American politics. A new day is needed in American politics just like a new day is need in American government.
...
Well, tonight, we proved that American politics still is in the hands of ordinary folks like you and across this country who believe that it wasn't about who raised the most money but who raised the greatest hopes, dreams, and aspirations for our children and their future.

And, tonight, I hope we will forever change the way Americans look at their political system and how we elect presidents and elected officials.

Tonight, the people of Iowa made a choice, and their choice was clear. Their choice was for a change. But that choice for a change doesn't end just saying "let's change things." Change can be for the better, it can be for the worse.

Americans are looking for a change. But what they want is a change that starts with a challenge to those of us who are given this sacred trust of office so that we recognize that what our challenge is is to bring this country back together, to make Americans, once again, more proud to be Americans than just to be Democrats or Republicans, to be more concerned about being going up instead of just going to the left or to the right.
...


Yeah, like Obama's the only one short on substance and ringing the change bell in the choir for unity and new bi-partisanship and etc. Uh-huh. Yup.

reader_iam said...

Gov. Huckabee isn't even particularly conservative in some key ways, once you move out of the so-con area. But no matter, it seems.

reader_iam said...

And, Simon, while Biden has his negatives, Simon, I'd take his grasp of of international relations and foreign policy over Huckabee's any day of the week.

reader_iam said...

As Simon knows, I am open to voting for McCain or Guiliani (though I'm not so hot on some of Guiliani's more authoritarian instincts). It seems to me that if he's concerned about how some blocs of people might break, he ought to spend more time whacking those in his own party who are boosting Huckabee, rather than whacking at the Dems. Obviously, we disagree on the topic.

reader_iam said...

I'd consider Thompson, too, but it appears more likely than not that this is irrelevant.

mcg said...

I think Dick Morris was this "campaign insider". He wrote a whole book about Hilary's "brand".

former law student said...

acute disconnect between how [Obama] presents himself and what he is

What is Obama, oh clear-eyed one?

Blake said...

Nice catch, MadMan.

I notice this happens a lot "top campaign official", and it's someone from a competing campaign.

mcg said...

Right. I thought of Morris as soon as I read "brand" but it was after seeing MM's comment did I think it worth offering.