Earlier this week, I penned a diary under the title, The Emperor has no clothes.
I started that diary with this:
Let's be honest. Very few people believed, at the beginning of this campaign season, that Bernie Sanders would be a serious challenger to Hillary Clinton, close enough to be scaring the bejesus out of her campaign with just weeks to go before the first caucus and the first primary.
If anything, some probably believed that Martin O’Malley would have given her a nominal challenge. But Sanders?
I think this speaks to Clinton’s weakness as a candidate. Despite her enormous institutional advantages and name recognition, she is in a dogfight with an avowed Democratic Socialist in the first two states — a guy who has never been high profile or a gifted orator and politician like Obama.
I was told over and over by Clinton partisans here that my claim was untrue. That Clinton and her campaign expected a serious challenge from Sanders. That they were not shaken by the Sanders surge. In fact, Hillary went on the morning shows and said precisely that.
It was such obvious spinning in the face of her rapidly declining poll numbers that all I could do was laugh. Well, today comes confirmation that, indeed, no one in Camp Clinton foresaw a serious Sanders challenge. In fact, the Clinton brain trust (led by Bill) is now busy replaying a “woulda’/coulda’/shoulda’” game, eerily reminiscent of her failed `08 campaign:
Clinton Campaign Underestimated Sanders Strengths, Allies Say
Advisers to Hillary Clinton, including the former president Bill Clinton, believe that her campaign made serious miscalculations by forgoing early attacks on Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and failing to undercut his archliberal message before it grew into a political movement that has now put him within striking distance of beating Mrs. Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire.
According to Democrats close to the Clintons and involved with her campaign, Mrs. Clinton and the former president are also unnerved by the possibility that Mr. Sanders will foment a large wave of first-time voters and liberals that will derail her in Iowa, not unlike Barack Obama’s success in 2008, which consigned Mrs. Clinton to a third-place finish.
Remember when we were told, over and over, that women would overwhelmingly support Clinton and carry her to an easy victory? Well, not so much, it turns out (as many of us warned, given her upside-down favorables):
But Mrs. Clinton’s problems are broader than just her message: Opinion polls show that some Democrats and other voters continue to question her trustworthiness and whether she cares about their problems. Recent polls show that her once-formidable lead over Mr. Sanders in Iowa has all but vanished, while he is holding on to a slight lead over her in New Hampshire.
Mrs. Clinton and her team say they always anticipated the race would tighten, yet they were not prepared for Mr. Sanders to become so popular with young people and independents, especially women, whom Mrs. Clinton views as a key part of her base.
Oh, and about making sure Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the DNC limited debates, and, thus, limited exposure for Hillary’s opponents? (And, yes, the Clinton team pressed DWS and the DNC to limit debates.) That plan has backfired, too:
Several Clinton advisers are also regretting that they did not push for more debates, where Mrs. Clinton excels, to more skillfully marginalize Mr. Sanders over his Senate votes in support of the gun industry and the enormous costs and likely tax increases tied to his big-government agenda.
Instead Mrs. Clinton, who entered the race as the prohibitive favorite, played it safe, opting for as few debates as possible...
Clinton still has the inside track to the nomination, given her overwhelming institutional advantages. But her weaknesses as a candidate have been exposed, and her fallback argument, “electability,” appears to be crumbling in the face of her tumbling poll numbers and low Democratic voter enthusiasm (in which Dem voters assumed Clinton was the certain nominee).
Yet some Democratic Party officials who remain uncommitted said that after nine months of running, Mrs. Clinton still had not found her voice when it came to inspiring people and making herself broadly likable. While Mrs. Clinton is known for connecting well with people in small settings, she has not shown the same winning touch as consistently at rallies or in television interviews, they said.
…
“Her voter base does not seem as gung-ho energetic as Sanders’s base,” Mr. McDonald said. “It may be that they feel like they are waiting for the real race to begin. But an enthusiastic base can make a big difference in the early stages of a presidential nomination campaign, and if Hillary can’t pull away from Sanders fairly early in the season, I suspect he will gain strength rapidly.”
As I noted in my diary earlier this week:
All of the endorsements and the super PACs and the “listening tours” and control of the levers of power within the party, and she’s still in a dogfight with a little-known Democratic Socialist who has been giving the same speech for 30+ years (albeit, a timely speech, given the ever-rising income chasm).
No one is more surprised, apparently, than Hillary and Bill Clinton and her campaign team.
UPDATEAdding to the 2008 déjà vu effect, word comes this evening that the Clinton camp will be sending out noted slimebag, David Brock, to demand Sanders’ medical records, seeking to make Sanders’ age an issue.
Clinton defender David Brock -- founder of the Correct the Record PAC, which coordinates directly with Clinton’s campaign -- is expected to hit the airwaves this weekend from Charleston, the scene of the third Democratic debate on Sunday night, and challenge Sanders to cough up a clean bill of health and doctor’s note in the next 16 days, according to a Democrat familiar with his thinking who was not authorized to preview any strategy.
Even better, the Clinton campaign is basing this latest idiocy on research from none other than noted Republican messaging asshole, Frank Luntz. No, I’m not kidding:
This new attack strategy, focused on Sanders’ fitness for office, dovetails with focus group findings from Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who has seen voters raise age as a potential problem for Sanders. Clinton, 68, has also faced questions from the right about her age.
That marks four Clinton attacks on Sanders in the last few days that sound more like Republican attacks than attacks from a fellow Dem:
Bashing Sanders’ advocacy of universal health Attacking Sanders as, essentially, a “tax-and-spend liberal” (See: Clinton’s GHW Bush-like “No new taxes" pledge) A red-baiting tweet from the Clinton Press Secretary Brian Fallon Using Frank Luntz’s research to question Sanders’ fitness for office based on his ageYou can be sure that the Clinton team will justify these actions (and any other attacks her campaign unleashes) the same way they justified their “otherness” attacks on Obama in 2008: “The Republicans will say these things about him, so he needs to answer them.”
See? They’re doing Sanders a favor, just like they did in 2008 for Obama!
(Cue “Twilight Zone” music and read the next paragraph.)
The sense in Clinton quarters that Sanders is not receiving the same level of scrutiny as the former Secretary of State feels all to familiar, reminding campaign veterans of eight years ago, when Clinton and her supporters said Barack Obama had not been appropriately vetted and was getting a free pass from the press.
As noted, above, this Clinton campaign is becoming eerily reminiscent of her 2008 effort. When the wheels start coming off, the Clintons get ugly very quickly.
Wow. You think they would have learned…
UPDATE 2Sanders should go for the jugular in Iowa now. Iowa has an older electorate, and Clinton has always held the 65+ vote. He should say, straight up, that she is questioning his fitness for office based on his age — all why he campaigns vigorously.
His question to his audiences should be, “Are you, or do you know, fit 70-somethings? So do I! I’m one of them!”