Staffing Changes Before Another Big Primary

Well, giving the pink slip to Patti Solis Doyle in favor of Maggie Smith seemed to work. Why not show Mark Penn the door too? In spite of the media claims that this is in some way sudden or shocking, there have actually been a list of gripes about Penn since the beginning. Mark my words -- before the end of the week they will be asking, "Was replacing Penn too little too late?" It wasn't when the Doyle-Williams transition happened, and it probably won't be this time, either. Clinton is already the presumed winner in Pennsylvania. With Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, it was a lot closer.

I think this is really about Maggie Williams, who knows if she had been at the reigns from the start, would be sitting at the head of a very different campaign, one that was winning by a long shot. But more than that, I believe it is a subtle message from the campaign overall that they are aware, willing and able to make big changes if those changes have merit. I think Penn crossed the line with Clinton, and she finally gave in to months of pressure to cut Penn loose. Obviously, his pro-free trade meetings with Columbian officials makes it look like Clinton is doing exactly what Obama did with the Canadian scandal. And, not giving Obama a chance to trash her over it, she shoved Penn off the bus and put the pedal to the metal. There are fairly substantiated rumors that after March 4th, Maggie Williams was pushing for nearly the entire campaign staff to resign or reapply, asserting a very strong message that loyalty to her was required for success inside the campaign machine. Clinton seems to have put the kibosh on mass firings, calling it unnecessary, but I'm certain the message was loud and clear: forget Patti, this is Maggie talking, and you better listen. No doubt Mark Penn was fairly immune to this, so if there is any victory in the Penn departure, it is for Williams.

But it could be for everyone. Penn's mainstay in campaign messaging was policy and electability over passion. First of all, I really don't think Clinton needs much bolstering on policy. Even her strongest detractors know she is a walking encyclopedia of policy. Her published policy promises are also by far more flushed out than Obama's (which does not make his less real, just less detailed). She can quote statistics and economic trends with the same ease as most people can recite the alphabet. And, electability? Honestly, I think that argument is stupid. Yes, I think Clinton is more electable than Obama, but I don't see any convincing evidence that either of them stands a better chance than the other against McCain. And the electability argument is not going to win any primaries. It may win the Convention, but it has so little to do with the popular vote and getting it, that it may well be time for Penn to have a sponge shoved in his mouth.

Now, passion on the other hand, is an entirely different ballgame, and it is one that I see Clinton finally wading into. Her campaign events are getting more emotionally charged. Her speeches are getting more Obama-like. (Ironically, his are getting more Clintonesque, as they are slowly adopting each other's platforms.) We are seeing news reports of "thousands" coming to Clinton events. Women are starting to wake up from their daze and realize they are about to count out the first viable woman for president. This "any woman but Hillary" thing is ridiculous -- what other woman? The only female politicians I could imagine having a chance for the Oval Office other than Clinton are Senator Olympia Snowe who is a Republican, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is a Republican, or Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who may be popular now because people think she opposes Clinton, but trust me, that would get thrown in her face like napalm by feminists if she tried it. It would take about 5 minutes for the media to pick up on that one: "Pelosi trashes Clinton then tries to pick up her bid."

Clinton has plenty of passion, and it has been a largely untapped resource in her campaign strategy. She had allowed Penn to author nearly her entire visible campaign, and has left her to try to insert her own passions and her own causes mostly without help. I believe everyone knows that Hillary Clinton cares about children. She also cares about poverty. She has given some very passionate speeches about health care and the state of the world, but they have been brushed under the carpet. I think everyone would love to see a rhetoric-heavy, sermon style speech from Hillary, and she could give one. So what if her voice breaks and she sounds shrill. Bill is one of the best orators in the world, and if she let him write a speech for her, I think we would see a very different reaction to her.

Clinton's only outlet up to this point has been self-effacing humor. I think the crowning moment so far has been when she told Jay Leno that she was afraid she was going to be late for her interview with him because she was "pinned down under sniper fire." It's not the first time she has embraced criticisms of herself, and it gives light to her claims that she is already vetted, and that there is really nothing they can say about her that will give her pause. Chelsea Clinton also threw down the gauntlet by responding to questions about the Lewinsky scandal with, "It's none of your business." She followed up by saying, "...I'm sure there are things you consider private to your family, too. This is private to my family." This is ironic of course because every single detail of the Lewinsky situation is known by the world, right down to the pornographic play-by-play. What I think was accomplished by this was a very clear message from the campaign: "We are not going to let you drag Hillary through the mud for what Bill did more than 10 years ago. Find some new material."

While there is a perception that there is unlimited material for Clinton haters, I don't see much coming up. Detractors are trying as hard as they can to find something truly dishonest or shady in the Clinton tax information, and they can't. They are trying to come up with convincing evidence that Obama is going to win Pennsylvania, and they can't. They are trying to downplay the importance of Pennsylvania, and they can't. They are trying to make it look like Clinton is the cause of the problems in Michigan and Florida, and they can't. They are trying to make it look like Clinton is losing her middle class support, but they can't. Clinton shook off the Ferraro problem. She shook off the Bosnia problem. She made a preemptive strike on what could have been a Columbia problem. And now, the polls are normalizing again, and her leads in Pennsylvania and Indiana are growing again.

Clinton is not replacing Penn. Maggie Williams has stated that Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson will step into the one man role together. They make an interesting pair, being very involved in free trade on one side, and very opposed on the other. I doubt their stances on free trade have much to do with their selection overall. I think Garin getting a bigger campaign presence is the big word. He is a big name inside the AFL-CIO, who represent a major Clinton stronghold: the working class and unions. Wolfson was one of the major players in the Clinton campaign already, but in another area all together. He was already Communications Director for the campaign, and has been a very strong voice for Clinton's experience, and Obama's lack of it. Wolfson also got his campaign notoriety by launching attacks on the Obama campaign for alleged misconduct in Texas. Put these two in a blender, with an ability to book double the hours of one person, and you get a very different message than the one Penn was offering.

I believe we are going to see a newly energized Clinton message, with a new slant toward the emotional issues of the campaign, and a freer speaking Hillary who doesn't retreat to policy and statistics so quickly. Clinton has shown that she is agile on her feet and capable of responding to unanticipated questions, but has never had the opportunity to really free form. The idea is that she would tank herself if she did, but I doubt it. Every time a glimpse of the unscripted, real, visceral Hillary has peeked through, people have loved it. The tears in New Hampshire were the extreme end of that spectrum, but I believe one of Clinton's main disadvantages up to this point has been her lack of connection with people, sharply contrasted to Obama's already legendary ability to connect. A realer Hillary is on the rise. Watch for it.