No matter which candidate one prefers, it’s probably fair to say Hillary Clinton’s campaign is not where it wants or needs to be. The question, of course, is what the one-time frontrunner is going to do about it.
“I’ve been there trying to turn around losing campaigns,” a true-blue Clinton loyalist painfully acknowledged Tuesday. “When nothing you do is working, you get desperate. This is starting to feel desperate.”
Clinton surrogates have tossed eggs everywhere, hoping something would stick. They’ve called Obama a wimp for refusing to debate in Wisconsin – a classic loser’s ploy.
They’ve accused him of breaking pledges and being an empty-suited orator.
The attacks bombed – especially the lighter-than-air charges that Obama plagiarizes key portions of his campaign spiel.
That, of course, is but a small sampling of the attacks from the last few weeks. Let’s see, once Obama’s fortunes rose and Clinton’s started to sink, we’ve heard attacks about inexperience, healthcare policy, Rezko, teenaged drug use, Exelon, “illegal” robo-calls, “present” votes, and tax increases, among other things.
If results from the last 10 contests are any indication, this kitchen-sink strategy isn’t exactly moving the needle in Clinton’s direction.
Obviously, most of Clinton’s key early advantages, most notably “inevitability,” have largely faded away. But what can her campaign do now to get things back on track?
There seem to be a limited number of options:
Go positive: If going negative hasn’t worked, maybe Clinton could go the kindler, gentler route? Perhaps, but it’s hard to imagine this fundamentally changing the landscape in the coming weeks.
Go very negative: The Clinton campaign has thrown everything they can at Obama, to no effect. But all of the criticisms have been over relatively small issues, none of which persuaded anyone. Maybe Clinton should consider a scorched-earth approach? Her negatives would soar, but it would probably bring Obama down a notch.
Stick to the (relatively new) plan: Who knows? Maybe Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania really will help change the landscape.
Wait for Obama to screw up: This is basically the way I play chess — I’m not quite good enough to beat a good player, but I’m just competent enough to capitalize when the other guy screws up. Obama has become fairly well disciplined, but Clinton may have little choice but to wait for him to make a costly error.
Superdelegates: Clinton can, I suppose, hold out hope that superdelegates will come to her rescue, though it seems like a tough sell.
Am I missing anything? What else might Clinton consider at this point?