May 24, 2007

Team Hillary Dumping Iowa?

Hillary Clinton's campaign tried to do damage control after an internal memo revealed that they have considered stiffing Iowa caucus voters in January. Thus far, Hillary has not captured the imagination of Iowans, and her third-place status behind John Edwards and Barack Obama had at least one of her advisors considering a retreat:

Aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) scrambled late yesterday to control the fallout from a leaked memo advocating that she pull her campaign out of Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses, where she is trailing in polls.

The memo, written by Clinton deputy campaign manager Mike Henry, exposed a rift among Clinton advisers over her approach to the first real test of the presidential campaign. Henry advocated focusing the senator's resources on the Jan. 22 New Hampshire primary and the wave of states that follow with contests on Feb. 5.

Skipping Iowa would be a stunning move for the presumed front-runner; it is usually lesser-known and poorly financed candidates who are forced to pick and choose their primary battles. Clinton campaign officials quickly dismissed any suggestion that she would pull out of the state, characterizing the memo as "one person's opinion."

This seems stunning, considering the stature of the Clintons in the party. It's no surprise to see a national frontrunner trailing in Iowa; voters there have a reputation for going against the grain. What shocks is the idea that a former First Lady of a popular President would consider her position so poor in Iowa that she would consider withdrawing eight months before the caucuses, or that her team would.

The leak also raises questions, as the Post notes. The press hasn't gotten many leaks from the locked-down Clinton machine, so a leak of this memo indicates that some people may want to torpedo others. Presumably, someone in the campaign wants to damage Henry and doesn't mind dinging Hillary just a little while they're at it. The Clinton campaign says none of the senior advisors had even seen Henry's memo before the press got it. Factions, apparently, have formed and begun jostling for power in the Clinton campaign.

Everyone denies that Hillary would ever pull out of Iowa, and that makes sense. She has the money to compete, and she has the organization to stay close to Edwards and Obama. She doesn't need to win Iowa to win the nomination, but she has to score well; she can't afford to drop past third, and she really should aim for at least second place. Exposing the doubts of campaign advisors won't help attract more Iowans to their organization, and that will be the biggest damage of this release.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Team Hillary Dumping Iowa?:

» Hillary’s Own “MemoGate” from The Gun Toting Liberal™
The headline SHOULD read: Hillary Clinton’s Campaign To Iowans: Screw You If You Don’t Like Hillary; We’ll Pull Out And Campaign In New Hampshire Instead Well, that’s what a “secret internal memo” said anyway, or s... [Read More]

Comments (10)

Posted by brooklyn | May 24, 2007 1:51 AM

Iowa just rose in my book...

Maybe they don't like the idea of Hillary 'taking things away from them for the common good...'

Perhaps a vast number of voters in Iowa, recognize the ugly folly of the Clintons.

Hillary was part of the Administration which failed to address the serious threat of Radical Muslim Militancy for 8 long years, even after it struck the WTC in 1993.

The Clintons actually made it their policy to lie about the Genocide in Rwanda...

It is even surprising to see the partisans in the MSM try to suggest Hillary is a powerful political force.

She couldn't even convince the US Senate to give her the power to exploit the Katrina Tragedy, with some grandstanding investigation.

Her attempt to bring the Olympics to NYC, turned out to be another failure.

Even Bob Dole held some influence in the Senate as a political power, when he ran for the President.

Hillary hasn't been able to do anything...

If she were really the darling powerhouse of the Democrat Faithful, she would have convinced the Majority of the Senate, to block the Bush Administration's efforts at every step for the past 6 years.

But instead, we see her offering one lie after another, trying to explain her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

And some ugly, stereotypical, fake accents.

It could not be more amusing and pathetic.

The Clinton embarrassment continues...

And Democrats embrace it.

Posted by Bill Faith | May 24, 2007 3:09 AM

Hmmm. Am I remembering wrong or didn't Mad Howie's campaign meet it's "Waterloo" in Iowa, in large part because he publicly dissed the Iowa caucus system? If Hillary wasn't already in trouble in Iowa you can figure she is now.

I added an excerpt and link to Today's !Fred (and assorted Dem dumbness) Roundup.

Posted by Carol Herman | May 24, 2007 4:40 AM

The way she polls, the Edsel will have sold more units, that she will have actual voters.

While I don't see Edwards or Hillary anywhere near the finishing line. Donks do that. They go through this thing where the candidates that appear "ready to run," aren't there after the guys get together and chomp on a few cigars back in those "smoke filled rooms."

Politics can be full of surprises.

And, Fred Thompson isn't the only one "holding his fire."

Heck, in Israel, Olmert makes a "studied art" of "holding his fire." And, it WORKS! It's the only way around the bozos in the press. Among other benefits.

Posted by onlineanalyst | May 24, 2007 5:14 AM

Hillary (Mrs. Bill) Clinton has been conspicuously absent from voicing opinions about the alien amnesty bill. In fact, she had failed to vote aye or nay on the cloture of it (like several other presidential wannabes).

Is Team Hillary still reading the entrails of the polls to determine her position since we all know that she is guided by firm convictions? Yes, as firm as the wind called Mariah.. Snark, snark.

Posted by Maverick Muse | May 24, 2007 7:27 AM

'Capture the imagination"--lol appropos.
In Cyborg Clintonia (DNC) resistance is futile as the ticket boils down to a Clinton/Obama broth, Edwards aside. The popular vote only counts so far in politics as the powers string a party along. The mass population believes what they want to hear and what they want to see, never choosing to subject themselves through the discomfort of analytical thought. The true imagination is a fading legacy pre-empted by rogue empericism, aka lazy brain. After all, you can not touch, smell or see the imagination so either it does not exist, or it no longer bears significance. Truly, the imagination is the very element that allows its own suicidal destruction parallel to current Western "culture" (or lack thereof).

Posted by Rovin | May 24, 2007 8:37 AM

This seems stunning, considering the stature of the Clintons in the party.

Perhaps all the money and the machine driving the Clintons amounts to an over-confident dealer trying to re-sell an Edsel.

Its been on the lot too long-----and no one's buying something they know didn't work right the first time around.

Is that the "stature" your talkin' about Ed?

Posted by Labamigo | May 24, 2007 9:28 AM

As I recall, McCain skipped the Iowa caucus in 2000. Although he lost the nomination to Dub Yuh, his absence in Iowa was not a cause.

With the front end loaded primaries this year, I would counsel any candidate to skip Iowa.

Posted by dougf | May 24, 2007 10:34 AM

As an interested observer of the US process, perhaps someone can explain to me why almost irrelevant States such as Iowa and New Hampshire MATTER at all.

Who frankly cares which candidate these States prefer ? The sooner that the BIG States move their primaries up to more or less cancel out the results from the 'boonies', the better the whole process will be.

At one point it might have made sense that these two States had some influence but as they have become ever more depopulated in comparison to other areas of the Nation----not so much.

11 electoral votes out of 538 and everyone is supposed to bow down and worship at their alters.

Sorry, but I just don't 'get' it.

Does anyone ?

Posted by Captain Ed | May 24, 2007 3:26 PM

The argument goes that the small populations force a more personal campaign style, which means that the candidates have to really talk policy and debate their stances much more. I'm not sure if I buy that, but that's the thrust of the explanation.

Posted by dougf | May 24, 2007 6:46 PM

The argument goes that the small populations force a more personal campaign style, which means that the candidates have to really talk policy and debate their stances much more. I'm not sure if I buy that, but that's the thrust of the explanation.--Capt Ed

Thanks for the explanation. I still think it is a ridiculous waste of time and money to spend time in New Hampshire and Iowa when you should be in Florida, NY, California,Texas. Or ANYWHERE ELSE for that matter.

if what is desired is 'intimate' contact (as if ANY politician is unable to lie and 'nuance' if the need is there), then why not just have everyone hang out in Rhode Island for 6 months or so. I think they might be able to 'communicate' with every moving object on the Island. :-)

Now that would REALLY be 'meeting the people'. Boring yourself senseless in an Iowa caucus while trying to impress the neighbours, makes me shudder even at this far remove.