The much vaunted Clinton campaign operation, billed as the biggest, baddest game in town, had no post-Super Tuesday strategy because its leaders apparently didn’t think one was needed. Whether that’s due to arrogance or ignorance, it’s the campaign equivalent of what President Bush did in invading Iraq without a post-Saddam plan. The primaries are in a very true sense a practice run for the White House, and if you emerge with high marks, as Obama has, it’s a pretty clear statement of the kind of government you would run. Obama has shown a steadiness in demeanor and message. Clinton has blown through $120 million dollars, and her persona is more confused than ever.
There was an article in The Onion from 2004 that I have been looking for, but am unable to find. The headline read: “Bush Reelection Campaign Better Planned Than Iraq War.”
You can’t extrapolate from a good campaign means that a candidate will govern well; but if you cannot run a good campaign – and you’ve never proved you can run anything – I think how the campaign is run becomes a major issue.
One reply on “A short history of “Whoops!””
LA Times said the same thing this morning. I do think the inability to lead an effective campaign says a lot about management and leadership abilities.