A Unique Clinton Memo

To: Interested Parties From: Patti Solis-Doyle and Mark Penn

Date: Saturday, January 19, 2008
RE: Huge Victory in Nevada!

Today we won a huge victory by overcoming institutional hurdles and one of the worst negative ads in recent memory. This was a victory for all those who work hard and caucused on behalf of Hillary to revive our struggling economy.

The day after our victory in New Hampshire, the Culinary workers endorsed Senator Obama. The Chicago Tribune noted at the time that the endorsement gave Senator Obama a “significant advantage” because it is the largest and best organized labor group in the state. With nine caucus sites essentially set up for members of the Culinary union, it’s no wonder why Jon Ralston, Nevada’s leading political analyst, noted that the Culinary Workers’ “impact is going to be significant.”

In fact, the endorsement was so coveted that the Obama campaign’s national field director, Temo Figueroa, said over the summer that "The Nevada election is going to come down to: Whoever gets the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union, more than likely, is going to win Nevada."

Our campaign also received numerous reports of strong arm tactics designed to discourage our voters from caucusing and found itself on the receiving end of one of the most scurrilous smear efforts in recent memory

Additionally, Senator Obama's allies spent tens of thousands of dollars on a radio ad to attack Senator Clinton’s commitment to the Latino community. "Hillary Clinton does not respect our people," the ad said in Spanish. "Hillary Clinton is shameless."

And yet the exit polls are showing that the supporters of Hillary Clinton rejected these tactics. Exit polls show she won the union vote, won across all income groups and won heavily among those around Las Vegas, sweeping Clark County. The Latino vote backed Hillary by over 3 to 1, and Democrats voted for her by a wide margin.

Even among the hotel caucuses that were set up and worked extensively by the Culinary workers, Hillary competed closely or won in all of them.

So as we said yesterday, this was a test of whether the voters would win out through a process that gave significant institutional advantages to Hillary’s opponent.
Today, Nevadans won and made their voices heard.

Comments

By "unique" you mean "full of crap" right?

It's hillarious to see the Clintons talk about "significant institutional advantages" when their allies control the Democratic party in that state.

The bottom line is that the polls have consistently shown Hillary winning this state, with margins of 20-30 points as little as a month ago. So the fact that Obama was able to rally to within 5-6 points is the real accomplishment.

Posted by Tom | January 19, 2008 5:22 PM

So let me get this straight. When Clinton loses a caucus, caucuses are "undemocratic", "unrepresentative" but when she wins them, it is HUGE ?
Chutzpah is the key word here.

Posted by Benjamin | January 19, 2008 5:24 PM

The clintons held on to a state that they should have won by 20. This is a great day for Obama.

http://www.politicalinaction.com/

Posted by Brian | January 19, 2008 5:26 PM

I think the whole point of the Clinton memo is that Hillary won DESPITE THE INHERANT FLAWS OF CAUCUS. That is what makes it "unique" and remarkable.

Posted by robert ethan | January 19, 2008 5:29 PM

Wow, I think I'm going to cry. Poor, poor Clinton campaign, all those "institutional hurdles" and negative ads to overcome! What humble troopers.

Yuck.

What if the Clintons had won their law suit? And it cost them the race? Damn, that would have been awesome.

Posted by Jimmy | January 19, 2008 5:31 PM

I wouldn't say it's a great day. That would have been if he somehow won. What happened here is that he met expectations, so it won't give Clinton much momentum going into South Carolina. What will be interesting is if Edwards stays in the race and what impact that might have on Obama.

Posted by Tom | January 19, 2008 5:31 PM

An Obama win in South Carolina is going to be asterisked as "the Black Vote" after this win by Hillary. That is what is so significant about Nevada. Along with the fact that it brings up Michigan as a part of a "3 in a row" run by Hillary.

Posted by robert ethan | January 19, 2008 5:38 PM

Obama surfaces in Rekzo's federal corruption case
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article

Obama´s word tintinnabulation: "We are one Nation. And our time for change has come. America, our moment is now."

Reality is now: In 13 years in politics, Obama has gotten at least $168,000 in campaign donations from Rezko, his family and business associates. The Sun-Times reported that figure last June. Obama’s “best estimate” seven months earlier had been that Rezko had raised no more than $60,000 for him.

“It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else,” Obama said, “to believe that he had done me a favor.”

It's time to wake up.

Posted by Hartmut | January 19, 2008 5:44 PM

What the hell is up with Edwards? Where will his voters go? Why is he still running.

Posted by Jimmy | January 19, 2008 5:46 PM

I am astonished that Obama supporters -the uniters afterall, the folks who want someone who can bring out the best in people- can't find it in themselves to admit that thier guy and their campaign is coming up short SO FAR. Instead they blame the clintons.
The reporters on MSNBC just now said Bill Clinton went up and down the halls of casinos asking people to go out and vote and that made the difference in some ways: so much for Bill being a drag on the ticket.
Obama's rookie mistake: announcing that the culinary union was tantamount to a win in Nevada: rookie rookie rookie.
The funniest bit of all is Obama being surprised that he was supposed to talk up his strengths when asked about his weaknesses. Every job interview and grad program interview I've ever been in and or discussed with friends has had this question: nobody says they are messy and unorganized: didn't he ever apply for a job before? Actually, maybe he never has.
Nobody wants a spacey jerry moonbeam brown candidate who needs to be babysat. Biased press like crazy Chris matthews (the paula abdul of pundits) may claim this was a measure of his honesty but anyone who's ever been interviewed for a job knows this was the worst possible answer: being disorganized is a non-starter.
Obama may still get on track and do well but he and his supporters look and sound lost now.
The ugliest truth right now is that Iowa may only have been a win for the same reason Tsongas beat Bill Clinton in NH in 92: being from the neighboring state gave him a uneven home court advantage.
I like obama and will happily vote for him if he wins but it doesn't look like a winning program right now and bloggers can whine and blame Bill and Hillary but they were a known entity at the starting gate and the rookie's third party insurgency isn't surging quite right is it?
I do deeply believe that Hillary will be very good for this nation and the world if she can eek out a win.

Posted by Michael C. | January 19, 2008 6:08 PM

Senator Obama runs a clean campaign and is in no way responsible for the so-called attack ad run by a third party. People in Nevada likely aren't aware of all the false attacks that the Clintons have used against Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire. Women in New Hampshire have come forward as reported in the Washington Post today, that the Clinton campaign asked them to sign an attack letter against Obama.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/trying_to_heal_a_rift_in_new_h_1.html
This report provides proven evidence against the Clintons. Everywhere they campaign, they bring divisiveness. It is the Clintons who are shameless!

Posted by Katy7540 | January 19, 2008 6:17 PM

Hilarious memo. Of course the reality disputed by no unbiased observer is that Clinton had more institutional support in Nevada. And I guess their campaign isn't going to be disputing the caucuses as undemocratic anymore.

Still, a win is a win. South Carolina is now probably a must-win for Obama if he wants to become the nominee.

Posted by Korha | January 19, 2008 6:19 PM

This is also a huge victory over the influence peddling by the NEW MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Websites like Politico.com and Drudge Report who have been blatantly partisan in their coverage.

The voters thumbed their collective noses at Matt DR(eck&sl)UDGE as well as the CORRUPT CHUB who covers the Dem candidates for Politico.

Posted by robert ethan | January 19, 2008 6:19 PM

I am independent. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton, which goes for most everyone I know.

Democrats are idiots if they think America will elect this harpy to the White House.

Posted by WJB | January 19, 2008 6:38 PM

Michael C wrote:

Nobody wants a spacey jerry moonbeam brown candidate who needs to be babysat.

Wow. Glad you're with the Clintons, I sure wouldn't want you on my team.

Posted by JenJen | January 19, 2008 6:42 PM

I read there are 200,000 workers in the casinos alone. I don't know if that's the day shift or all shifts, but I expect Marc Ambinder could find out.

What was the turnout for ALL of Clark County (which includes Las Vegas)? According to http://www.nvdems08.com/ it was 7366 in total (97.4% precincts reporting). Frankly, I'm not impressed.

Posted by Tom J | January 19, 2008 7:40 PM

JenJen:
how does anyone not hit the softball weakness question out of a ballpark? Everyone knows its a softball and its asked at every job interview.
Did he really say he's messy? that he loses things? I'm a teacher and I've applied for lots of jobs. This question is at every interview.
I've sat on a lot of interview panels and we always ask this question: you are supposed to turn the question around.
This is a big job interview and he blew the question in the ugliest possible way: He loses things?
Tonight he lost another state.

Posted by Michael C. | January 19, 2008 7:56 PM

JenJen:
Maybe you mis-understood: I was talking about Jerry Brown, former candidate for president, former governor of california. They called him governor moonbeam because he was too theorhetical, too cerebral, too spacey: his campaign was very similar to Obama's and he lost repeatedly.
I certainly did not refer to skin color:
Jerry brown was not a person of color.

Posted by Michael C | January 19, 2008 8:01 PM

Culinary..... hmmmm..... isn't that about slicing, dicing, etc..... yes, I get it.

Well, My read is that voters have had a close call with Obama but that the romance is over. He is a bit of his own worse enemy. The go negative campaign in Spanish was a bad move. Hispanics did not view Obama as one of their own enough to listen to such a pitch, for one thing.

Leaving the state before the actual caucus was a very bad decision.

The Clintons run good basic politics. They are often underestimated even while everyone knows they are good.

Hillary gave her speech in Nevada. Obviously, Obama knew he lost ahead of time and abandoned his workers. Further, he lacks graciousness.

Hillary know she has won the nomination. She likely cut a deal with Richardson for Sec'y of State and she is ready to give Obama the VP.

Obama would be well advised to accept.

The only real question is what to do with Edwards. If he cannot get better support in South Carolina, the answer will be: throw him out.

Edwards ought cut his deal know. Maybe Secretary of Labor? Hard guy to figure out where to put him.

Hillary is a done deal. Obama made his own mistakes. He looks Presidential on the podium but (lack of experience, alas) he is making petty mistakes. The Clinton do petty things but their brilliance is that they don't look small when they do them. Obama ought take lessons from Hillary on that one. There was a move in Nevada that would have worked. Obama over plays his hand. Clintons don't make that mistake.

Just get ready for Chelsea in 2030.

Posted by Jonas | January 19, 2008 8:22 PM

Corrections to above:

Hillary gave her victory speech in Nevada.

Hillary knows she has won.....

Posted by Jonas | January 19, 2008 8:28 PM

I thought Hillary's answer to the weakness question that she becomes impatient when she so wants to help people was as phony as it gets. At least Obama was honest enough to try and answer the question. Hillary is too perfect to have any weaknesses? In her own mind maybe.

I'm not a teacher but I've interviewed a lot of people for jobs, and good, high paying jobs at that, and I've always appreciated an honest answer much more than phony BS.

Posted by Pug | January 19, 2008 9:59 PM

I do not disagree that Hillary can be very slick. I just don't think people care as much as pundits on this. Also, her magic moment in NH really helped by showing that when human she is pretty cool after all.

Posted by Jonas | January 19, 2008 10:20 PM

Barack Hussein Obama (his correct name; see wikipedia) supporters should question the mistakes their candidate did but saying that Ronald Reagan was a change agent and Republicans were for 10-15 years "the party of ideas" questioning conventional wisdom. Reagan was against unions and African-American hated him. Rookie mistake! Obama went nuts.
This election I will probably support Hillary as the best choice for America at this moment. However I see a great future for Obama in 2016.
I hate to see John Kerry, the looser who favored Bush reelection, coming back to life. Kerry, stay home!

Posted by Independent | January 20, 2008 2:16 AM

Hillary was slated to win by 20+ points a few months ago. An *edging* of Obama yesterday is not only a Clinton loss, but a near collapse. The turning tide in favor of Obama is a testament to the groundswell building up against the Washington Establishment. Add this onto the already sizeable stack of negatives that Hillary Clinton has, and you get disaster for the Democrats if Clinton goes on to get the nomination.

Posted by Joanne | January 20, 2008 8:12 PM

What's that nayslaying with Obama, Hillary? The Americans diserve to hear genuine politics rather than your politricks. Stop resolving to fallacy against Obama and provide substance to proof your competence and the much elaborate experience you've bragged about. I guiss the closer we get to the election, you will prove to be a green snake in a grass hiding behind Bill's murky shadow. Good luck!

Posted by Independent | January 22, 2008 7:11 PM