Analysis: Three F's For Clinton

As I said to someone today, I will not give up on Clinton until she herself calls it quits. I believe she still has a fighting chance, as long as her campaign ramps up, hard, in the right ways. As I numbly watched hours and hours of commentary last night after the Austin debate, a few things became clear to me.

It is obvious to me that Senator Clinton is now in her end game. She is either going to deliver a knock-out punch on March 4th, or concede the race in favor of pressures to keep the Democratic agenda intact. If, and only if, she can pull off solid wins in Texas and Ohio will she still be competitive. Obama is ahead in delegates by approximately 97. To pass him in the delegate count, she would have to score incredible victories, like Obama's Hawaii win at 75% or better. I doubt this can happen, but even if she closes the distance she will be able to add fire to her bid for superdelegates. I believe are "Three F's" for Clinton: Fundraising, Front Loading and Face Time.

This brings me to the first F: Fundraising. Back in 2006, some political commentator (don't remember who) said that the 2008 presidential campaign would be decided by money-- whoever spends the most money is going to win. According to CNN, Clinton has raised more money than Obama by around $13 million. However, since Super Tuesday, Obama has outstripped her in the money battle almost 4-to-1. The Clinton campaign blew its major funds by December and the campaign was embroiled in financing emergencies. They banked too much on Feb 5th being the blow-out that would propel Clinton to the nomination, which did not happen. This baffles me. Even if they really believed Feb 5th was going to do the trick, they should have been throwing money hand over fist at advertising and image brokering to ensure a huge momentum. One thing that has been clear since Iowa is that Obama is much more charismatic than Clinton, and he capitalized on that in a huge way, using his "underdog" image greatly to his advantage. There should have been a huge push after Feb 5th to keep Clinton in the perceived role of front runner. Underdog syndrome is doing nothing for Clinton now, not underneath eleven consecutive losses and a damaged image. Even if Clinton has to start funding her own campaign to keep up with Obama, she should. The risk of seeming like you are losing because you have to give money to your own cause should be moot at this point. She is losing and it is in part due to being out-spent. In every state Clinton has won, she has outspent Obama except in 4 states, which were some of her strongest-performing, so they banked on the win and focussed money elsewhere. They didn't do enough of it though. Since Feb 5th, Clinton has outspent Obama in 4 states, and still lost, although those states were Obama's strongest wins, so the Clinton camp must have known their only chance was to out-spend. Overall, this was likely a mistake as well; they should have focussed on Clinton's strong states since Super Tuesday and gone after them with both barrels. It really looked like Clinton was on the way to a comeback in Wisconsin, right up to the moment, but Obama outspend her by over 300%. She probably could have won Wisconsin, Maine, and Maryland if the campaign had spent more money. Even though three wins would still not compare to Obama's eleven, Clinton would have shown that she still has an edge. More importantly, the ever growing delegate lead at Camp Obama would have been narrowed, and his momentum would have at least been diluted.

If Clinton can simply win these primaries, she will still be competitive. Both candidates need superdelegate votes to achieve the 2025 mark required to win. The real problem for Clinton now is that with Obama crushing her in the polls, taking win after win, and being ahead, superdelegates are going to migrate his way. Her influence and connections inside the Democratic party will not be enough unless she can show some more wins. Obama could secure a shut-out of Clinton without superdelegates, but only if he really did pull off a 70-30 margin between now and June 7th, which is so unlikely, I don't think even the most strident Obama supporter would portend such a thing. As long as Clinton can stay competitive she will be able to lobby for superdelegate support with a clean conscience. Without at least a 50/50 split in the upcoming primaries, she doesn't have a chance. I think she will pull off narrow wins in Texas and Rhode Island, but may redeem herself in Ohio, as long as she pulls ahead of Obama in fundraising.

Front loading is something Clinton is currently doing right. In short, Front Loading in a political campaign is capitalizing on early votes. Early voting is allowed in Texas, Ohio and Vermont, but not Rhode Island. Clinton should be and is focusing on early voting in all three states, but are they doing enough? Front loading is credited for a good deal of her California win, and she has appointed her California campaign manager, Ace Smith to head her Texas effort. Smith faces a much harder task in Texas than California, with the far more complex rules in the Texas primary. I believe regardless that if anyone can do it, it's Smith. He is widely considered one of the most formidable campaign strategists in the business, and is credited as being a take-no-prisoners opposition researcher, and has near super human strengths in the get-out-and-vote tactic. Ace delivered a 9% victory for Clinton in California. If he can do the same or better in Texas, Clinton is dealt back in. No doubt we will see Smith in Pennsylvania, too (assuming the Clinton campaign makes it that far) although the Independence State does not allow early voting. The Ohio campaign is currently more focused on appealing to the middle class, but no doubt the vote-early focus will follow. It is arguably much more important to win Texas, as the Lone Star State both holds more delegates, and comprises a huge Clinton support faction: Latinos, who are also waffling. Obama is closing the gap in Texas much faster than Ohio, so Texas gets the big push. Logically, it makes sense, but Clinton should keep her eye on the prize, too: wins in Texas and Ohio. Obama is currently ahead in fund raising in Ohio, which should not be allowed. Fund raising and front loading can easily dovetail in the form of well designed ads.

Advertising brings me to the final F: Face Time. Even though Clinton got booed and came off as a bit "silly" (thank you, Obama) she still got a standing ovation at the end of the Austin debate. She nailed it. Just like the tears in January. Just like her indignation over attacks on her daughter. I've said it before, I'll say it here: people crave Hillary Clinton. Even if they don't like her, they love it when she shows her personality. They don't like the statistician, the political number cruncher, the policy encyclopedia. Barack Obama got ahead on his charisma. His ability to draw people in and see him as a real person gave him the opportunity to get light shed on his positions and his policies. Clinton needs to take a lesson from Obama in this area, now, and she needs to be the fast learner we know she is, but she has not shown it. More face time can only help. The major spending at Camp Obama since Super Tuesday has been in advertising, and it is no coincidence that he outperformed even his own campaign's projections. Everywhere you turn, there's Barack Obama smiling at you on a poster, on television, in ads, on the Internet. The Clinton machine should be able to churn out advertising like the daily paper. If they do, and if they get Clinton's face way out there, she can keep her lead. In relation to this, as well, they need to lay off Obama. The negative ads have done their work; it is now possible to question him. If more negative ads are going to be run, they should be negative against the media and the PR machines that have attacked Clinton. They should be working on drumming up some sympathy for her. Pull out every slur, every attack, every media insult and go heavy on the, "Look at all these unfair attacks, but I've stood up to them. I know how it feels...." slant. Advertising should go all the way. Frost on the sympathy, the patriotism, the montages of hard work and dedication. They can make Clinton look like the Statue of Liberty come to life, the poster girl for the underdog. Why not? Nothing else seems to have worked.

As I have said already, even if Clinton has to fund her own campaign, she should. They need to start spending money, big. They also have to retool her image and her message, big, but smoothly enough that it doesn't look contrived. There is certainly a higher octave to her "ready on day one" slant. There could easily be opportunities to hijack Obama's "change" message that is so popular. There aren't any more primaries for Obama to win until then, unlike the sideswipe win he pulled with Democrats Abroad. There is time for something to happen, instead of time to simply react. Ten days is a lot of time in politics. The stretch between now and then, if managed correctly, could provide a lot of time for Clinton to ramp her image way up, get her face out there and rework her message. It also provides time for Obama's momentum to be tamped down simply by lack of contests. The only major campaign event between now and then is another debate, which Clinton could easily author on her own by controlling the media topics up to then. She should come on strong, lay out the topics, and start talking about them. It would not hurt to start talking about McCain, either. Obama is definitely looking beyond Clinton, to McCain. If Clinton did this too, she would be able to look more like the victor, and she would have an opportunity to frame the campaign and the democratic strategy for November, regardless of who ends up getting the DNC nod. It also couldn't hurt to run a national ad or two right before the upcoming debate. Image is a problem for Clinton. If she maximizes her face time through a televised debate, and does a good enough job at the debate to be seen as the winner, it can only help. The Clinton campaign has about a week and a half to do all of this. It's an ambitious endeavor. They have to do it all at once, do it well, and do it big. Can they?