A hoarse, happy, Barack Obama blew the lid off the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s 100 Club fundraiser last night. Two nights in a row, two entirely different speeches, two rapturous responses. Hillary Clinton spoke there too, and while her speech was well received, one of her advisers acknowledged to me that the campaign was not happy with the response of the activists who attended, at least a third of whom are probably firmly committed Clinton supporters. It is rare when a Clinton is booed at an event.
On tense conference calls yesterday, major Clinton donors and prominent Clinton allies took turns questioning top campaign aides and even President Clinton, about the road forward and what some termed their failure to be appropriately prepared by the campaign for a third place finish.
One Clinton donor and two prominent surrogates said they had been led to believe the campaign that by that if Clinton were to lose Iowa, she would have placed a close second to John Edwards, a candidate viewed as eminently beatable by the Clinton operation.
But such is the lot of major Clinton donors. And in truth, despite a healthy measure of kremlinology,the truth is that the campaign does not have a strategy to turn away the challenge Obama has posed.
In Iowa, one Clinton adviser, speaking before the caucuses, said that were Obama able to turn out independents and Democrats in the number projected by the Des Moines Register poll, "he deserves to be the nominee."
That does not that Clinton's advisers have given up home.
The critical period, Clinton advisers believe is, the contest-free 10 days on the calendar between the South Carolina primary on the 26th and the Feb. 5 states. During that period, it is hoped -- and I use the passive tense advisedly -- that the press will subject Mr. Obama to the scrutiny befitting beef imported from England.
Aides to Clinton point out that, in contrast to Iowa and New Hampshire, voters on Feb. 5 will rely heavily on media coverage, rather than on direct contact with candidates. The campaign believes that voters in these states will be desensitized to the more inspirational aspects of Obama's candidacy by then and will, if the scrutiny is there, question his basic fitness to be president.
| 
What is interesting about that strategy is that it seems to concede NH and SC. Do they really think the media is going to treat her as anything less but toast if she loses all three states ?
One more point. I keep hearing about Obama now getting examined more thoroughly.
As a supporter of Obama, I am perfectly willing to admit the tone of the coverage has certainly been nicer to him than to her. But is there really *Something* we don't know about him ? I think we do know all there is to know. The thing that was different is that his foibles were treated with a shrug when every detail of HER life was examined harshly. But is there really anything "new" under the sun ? Are they expecting old stories to be revisited and to certainly become major ? Color me skeptical. The media is now in love with the historical narrative of an Obama win (although I am surprised how much of the coverage is dedicated to how "she will try to fight back" rather than swoon over his victory) and I doubt they suddenly will turn bitter.
Wishful thinking maybe.
Posted by Benjamin | January 5, 2008 10:25 AM