I'd say that is a huge crowd for Terry. 1 dozen probably thought there going to meet a famous former hostage.
Lets see what kind of crowds Hillary draws in upcoming swing through Iowa.
I suggest that you Obama folks remember who you are dealing with. Remember the campaign that said they had a ho-hum fundraising haul in the 3rd Q.
Hillary Clinton scoped up a couple of the best Iowa operators in the biz to run her ground game. Something tells me she has a plan.
tell your girl to move to a FARM, or she won't win this.
Lowering expectation a day before a poll comes out showing her with a nice lead. You have to admit that Clintons now how to run a campaign.
Well, if that's the case having a word with Terry McAuliffe about his messaging would seem to be a part of it. There was a short piece in the NYT recently about two, admittedly partisan, attendees at one of Terry's pep talks that found his hard sell on the inevitability of Hillary's nomination a bit over-the-top:
Indeed, Mr. McAuliffe seriously alienated two Iowa Democrats during a drop-by at the Glenn Restaurant in Manchester, Iowa, on Wednesday. One of the Democrats, though, is a county precinct captain for Barack Obama, and another one is leaning pretty seriously toward Mr. Obama -- and neither like Mrs. Clinton. Their lack of neutrality aside, their description of some of Mr. McAuliffe's remarks was intriguing. According to the two women -- Pam Vislisel and Emma Edgington -- Mr. McAuliffe argued: Mrs. Clinton had the Democratic nomination almost sewn up; If the election were held now, Mrs. Clinton would win Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and enough other states to win more than 350 Electoral College votes; Mrs. Clinton was virtually moving to Iowa during the next three months to work her tail off to win the state's first-in-the-nation nominating caucuses in January; The Democratic nomination fight would be over after the Super-Duper Tuesday primaries on Feb. 5. Neither woman could produce a recording of Mr. McAuliffe, nor were his remarks apparently covered by the local media. The women said in interviews that they found Mr. McAuliffe to be arrogant and boastful. "I'm just getting a little tired of hearing -- and I hear it on the news, too -- that the election is in the bag, she's going to win, she's the only one, it's over," said Ms. Vislisel, the Obama precinct captain, who said she attended the McAuliffe event because she was curious about the Clinton campaign. "I don't think he should be coming into Iowa and talking about she's going to win all these states," added Ms. Edgington, who is torn between Mr. Obama and former Senator John Edwards. "It just seemed arrogant." Patrick Healy - NYT 5 Oct 07
Their lack of neutrality aside, their description of some of Mr. McAuliffe's remarks was intriguing. According to the two women -- Pam Vislisel and Emma Edgington -- Mr. McAuliffe argued:
Mrs. Clinton had the Democratic nomination almost sewn up;
If the election were held now, Mrs. Clinton would win Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and enough other states to win more than 350 Electoral College votes;
Mrs. Clinton was virtually moving to Iowa during the next three months to work her tail off to win the state's first-in-the-nation nominating caucuses in January;
The Democratic nomination fight would be over after the Super-Duper Tuesday primaries on Feb. 5.
Neither woman could produce a recording of Mr. McAuliffe, nor were his remarks apparently covered by the local media. The women said in interviews that they found Mr. McAuliffe to be arrogant and boastful.
"I'm just getting a little tired of hearing -- and I hear it on the news, too -- that the election is in the bag, she's going to win, she's the only one, it's over," said Ms. Vislisel, the Obama precinct captain, who said she attended the McAuliffe event because she was curious about the Clinton campaign.
"I don't think he should be coming into Iowa and talking about she's going to win all these states," added Ms. Edgington, who is torn between Mr. Obama and former Senator John Edwards. "It just seemed arrogant."
Patrick Healy - NYT 5 Oct 07
The diarist reports that Terry's most recent pitch is more concerned with getting the message out to an unenthusiastic group that they have to run as though they were losing by 20 points. Think somebody has had a word with him recently about the consequences of selling the inevitability meme too hard?
They are all mopey faced because they know that she and Bill are going to be spending a lot of time in Iowa. And they know what that means.
... Getting crushed in a lot of other parts of the map.
If I were Obama supporters I'd be down too ... although I'd like to think that I wouldn't be bitter.
The diary, and the post, was about Iowa. And my intention in posting the piece was to see if a shift in Clinton campaign messaging could be discerned for reasons stated elsewhere. I'm increasingly optimistic about Senator Obama's chances lately, actually, and I note a redoubled effort among his supporters perhaps influenced by concerns about his polling numbers, which are widely acknowledged. It ain't over yet by a long shot.
Yeah, great reporting by the NYTimes. The Obama campaign trots out two Obama supporters (incuding a county chair) to give the NYTIMES "quotes" from Terry McAuliffe that the NYTIMES reporter didn't even attend.
Nice hatchet job.
drink some sour milk today?
My intention wasn't to just post the unfavourable article, as tempting as that might be I could have done that a couple of days ago, but to illustrate an apparent shift in Terry's messaging. I have posted elsewhere that I am starting to think the inevitability meme is possibly working against Hillary for a couple of reasons and that the campaign is concerned about this.
The example of the 8% drop in her support in the recent SC poll in favour of 'no opinion' may be an early indicator of this. Inevitability is a powerful argument, to be sure, but not if it leads to complacency among loyal supporters and indifference among the rest.
" I am starting to think the inevitability meme is possibly working against Hillary "
- I am starting to think when I step out of my house i am going to be hit by a bus.
Could happen or I might just be paranoid.
" The example of the 8% drop in her support in the recent SC poll in favour of 'no opinion' may be an early indicator of this "
- That just doesn't make any sense , you have to come up with something better to prove what you think.
The same polling outfit shows her increasing her lead above 50% in NJ if I am not mistaken , so how do you explain that ?
A lot of us want to think something is the case because we want it to be , but it is not always the case.
You will have to come up with something better that show a causal link between a loss in support and the " inevitability meme ".
this means NOTHING until after Iowa. you should know better lori. she must win Iowa, or she is in trouble. period.
BS:
The pundits don't even expect Clinton to win Iowa up against Edwards who has enjoyed commanding support in the state and Obama who has the dominant organization.
A decent third place finish is all anyone expects from Clinton in Iowa. She doesn't even have college kids from Illinois going door-to-door.
In truth, she has Bill and the Vilsacks twisting arms, calling in every favor. She's got "the best" team and is spending money hand over fist.
No one expects Hillary to finish better than third in IA? How many people here have laughed at me for predicting she will finish third in Iowa?
That's not what the pundits say. They say that Obama has the biggest organization in Iowa. 31 field offices, they say.
Who am I to argue with what the pundits say? After all, I'm sure David Yepsen wouldn't stear me wrong just for a good story, right?
All kidding aside. What is going on is that Edwards and Obama have their campaign poo-bahs buttonholing every member of the media they can find to tout their Iowa organizations. They have to. Iowa's all they've got.
Clinton's people are laying low. There's no reason for them to talk about their Iowa efforts to the media.
The media writes what the campaigns tell them. See the NYTIMES reporting on a Clinton event based solely on alleged quotes provided by two Obama campaign workers.
wow, real sour milk.
Most important, she must win or come in a close second in Iowa; otherwise, her sense of inevitability will vanish. Beth Fouhy - AP 6 Oct 07
Beth Fouhy - AP 6 Oct 07
she must win Iowa, or she is in trouble. period.
- No!!!
If Edwards is first , she comes in a close second , Obama third .
I don't see trouble for her.
All she has to do is make sure obama doesn't finishes ahead of her , if she loses to Edwards it is still fine.
OR
If she comes in third but the results are bunched up together , like a pretty close result , that is not a preferrable outcome but She can still get on track in New Hampshire.
If Obama comes in first , she comes in third and loses by a whole lot then she is in trouble. Lets not even ignore the calendar , the caucus is probably on Jan 3 or Jan 5 , Clinton favors the 5th and New Hampshire is probably going to be on the 8th . If scenario 1 and 2 plays out if the caucus is on the 5th there is not enough time in the news cycle to gain momentum from that besides if it is scenario 2 the press would probably talk about how close the election was.
That is just "spin." If she was winning Iowa and let's say losing big in New Hampshire where Edwards and Obama were doing well- their supporters would be saying "Oh- this is the worst scenario for Hillary! If she wins Iowa and then loses New Hampshire, it will be a HUGE HIT to her campaign that she is not invincible and the others will profit from the press and she is likely to go down in flames over it."
It's all hogwash, as of now, if she loses Iowa, she will still win the nomination.
I tend to agree that she could ride out a close second-place finish in Iowa.
But if she ends up well behind despite bringing out Bill, the Vilsacks, having Teresa Vilmain run her campaign, etc., it will be a sign of immense weakness.
Not really. First Read reports that Obama has 200 paid staff in Iowa. Perhaps double the Clinton campaign.
No way Clinton can compete with a juggernaught operation like Obama's. Heck, he's so far out front that he didn't even need to bother showing up to the Democratic B-B-Q tonight. He's coasting to a big win.
Rats, so much for the inevitability meme... I knew I should have kept my mouth shut.
Well, it was the SC poll result and the apparent shift in McAuliffe's position, as I mentioned, which got me thinking. I am not trying to prove anything, as I indicated by qualifying my remarks very conditionally, but I think the poll results in IA, NH and SC are probably more significant at this time than national figures.
Look, I am not trying to convince you, far from it. I am starting to believe that the inevitability meme is working against her, and I think her campaign may harbour some doubts too, but by all means rock on with it yourself. I am starting to enjoy hearing about it more and more with each passing day. It is not a perception likely to inspire sympathetic caucus-goers to get bundled up and go out on a frigid January night.
What apparent shift in McAulife's position?
From the absolute certainty of Hillary's victory in the piece I posted to the mention in the diary text of his comment about running the campaign like they were 20 points down in Iowa. That seemed like a shift to me when I read the diary after reading the other article a few days ago.
You keep missing the point. He didn't say anything about absolute certainty. The NYTIMES reported alleged quotes that were fed to them by a rival campaign's oppo research team. Your supposed "shift" is based on fiction.
I've heard McAuliffe. He doesn't say anything even remotely like "absolute certainty".
Maybe your right, because the NYT piece did say the following:
Mr. Wolfson, who was not at the Iowa restaurant and did not hear Mr. McAuliffe's remarks, said he would be "very surprised" if Mr. McAuliffe said she had the Democratic nomination sewn up, because Mr. McAuliffe has been reported as saying that while the campaign was doing great, Mrs. Clinton was running like she was 20 points behind.
That tends to substantiate your position. I just wasn't sure if that was a genuine observation or the first indication of a shift in messaging from the communications staff. What do you think about the early 'skip Iowa' memo in light of the current position of Hillary in the race there?
Every Clinton campaign poobah I've ever heard talk about the race ALWAYS says they take nothing for granted, run like they are 20 points behind, and work hard for every vote.
That's why the two Obama campaign workers story doesn't make sense.
The NYTIMES shouldn't publish a story based on second-hand characterizations by campaign officials from a rival campaign. Look at the absurdity of it. The reporter (who wasn't there) asking questions about comments he didn't hear to a Clinton spokesman (who wasn't there). To put it generously, the story is pure vapor. To be less generous, the Times was just publishing rival campaign spin.
"Mr. Wolfson, we have two Obama campaign workers who claim that McAuliffe said he hasn't stopped beating his wife yet. Would you care to comment?"
--------
As for the infamous Iowa memo. It has always been my belief that the memo was an intentional leak from the Clinton campaign. An intentional leak to position themselves as the underdogs in Iowa.
Let's put it this way. If it wasn't an intentional leak, it was the only leak from the Clinton campaign in nine months. You do the math.
I take your point on the McAuliffe comments, it just struck me that the NYT piece described an incident on the 3rd and then Wolfson and McAuliffe used exactly the same phrase on the 5th. I have no idea if the 'run as if you are 20 points behind' is just part of the standard stump but it seemed more than coincidental. Probably not worth any more cyberspace discussing it and I am certainly willing to concede the point.
As for the memo, yeah, it was strange. I am very impressed with the discipline of her campaign so it is noteworthy. The response at the time led me to believe it wasn't intentional, it was one of the few times they seemed wrong-footed on such an issue. But I'm darned if I know for sure and I still can't figure out the significance of it, if any. It seems relevant at the moment somehow.
the inevitable meme, her campaign has been pushing from day one. only, guess what, these early states don't like to turn their tv's on and be told WHO WON. this is going to be a backlash. these states take their position seriously. and if clinton looses, the headlines will be "she is not electable", then that is going to be pumped to all these other states, in the background 'watching'.
Oh, so I guess you represent these people. You are so full of shit. If you believe that shit, then we have been wrong about you Ice. You should know better since you actually work for the Obama campaign. Did the Obama campaign ask you to spew that shit on Progressive sites? Pretty pathetic if that is the case.
Honestly, I try to avoid your bullshit. But this was too hard to pass by.
Point being that the NYTIMES is printing alleged quotes from an event that they didn't attend. Their source for the quotes? Two Obama campaign workers. How did the NYTIMES happen to link up with these two Obama campaign workers? Doh?
So the entire gist of this "reliable" reporting is Howard Wolfson saying that the alleged quotes don't sound like McAulliffe.
Here's some advice to the NYTIMES. If you want to quote campaign rallies, go to the campaign rallies. I wouldn't expect you to published alleged quotes from two Clinton campaign operatives as your sole source for information from an Obama rally.
Fair enough, I freely acknowledge the bias of the two women, but that was hardly my point either. The idea that Hillary's inevitability is counter-productive in early races seems a reasonable one and it certainly isn't inspirational to get out the vote among soft supporters. Frankly I would prefer to see you guys talking it up as hard as you like from now on. I think we can afford the impact it might have on Obama's fund-raising at this point.
