Why not Hillary?

I am just back from several days in New York where Hillary is still very strong. The friend I stayed with was in the process of writing a big check; another friend spent a pleasant half hour or so at a reception apologizing to me for his vote. Like both of them, I've admired and supported Hillary for a long time--I gave to her Senate campaign--why have I changed this time?

The answer lies in exactly the characteristics I admire most in her. I worked directly with Hillary (we all called her "Mrs. Clinton" then) on a program to increase the use of mammograms among Medicare women--I even traveled on the plane with her a few times to meetings with older women where the topic was discussed. Up close, particularly on flights where there were only staff present, I found her very warm and lively and funny. She clearly cared a lot about the people who worked for her and they, in turn, responded with a fierce loyalty. She retained staff over many years (a direct contrast to Bill) and was almost never subject to press leaks or gossip because one of the characteristics of their loyalty was a refusal to talk out of turn. The press doesn't like the phenomenon much, referring to it as "Hillaryland" but I thought it a remarkable phenomenon and a mark of real leadership.

Many years ago I had a dear friend and mentor (now, alas, dead) who espoused what he called a "rose-thorn theory of life". His point was that human strengths and weaknesses are not polar opposites, they are usually two aspects of the same thing, like opposite faces of a coin. Hillary's weakness, which has showed itself very clearly during the campaign, is that she has come to depend too much on the loyalty she can engender.

Theo and I argue about the failed health plan from the first Clinton term (I was a late arriving and peripheral member of that vast, shadowy task force). Theo says Hillary has learned what her mistakes were and I agree that, after time in the Senate, she wouldn't dream of again writing a bill without major input from Congress. But one of the chief mistakes she made was choosing a loyal supporter, Ira Magaziner, to head the effort. He's smart and imaginative and has accomplished a lot in Clinton's global efforts--but in Washington it would have been far wiser to choose someone who was less a total loyalist and more a knowledgeable player in the health policy game with wider contacts in Washington. There were people like that available including some who had worked hard on health policy during the campaign. I see no evidence at all that she wouldn't make the same mistake in choosing a cabinet and building an administration--valuing loyalty more than any other characteristic and limiting the input from those with competing ideas.

Hillary's campaign for president bears me out. She has surrounded herself from the beginning with members of Hillaryland--and when things went wrong she brought in other Hillaryland players rather than fresh views. I think every mistake the campaign made is a mistake of loyalty--they believed she would win and so ran an imperial campaign, based on inevitability, paying too little attention to either of her strong competitors for far too long. They were so convinced that she'd win on Super Tuesday that they had no plan--and no money--beyond that day. They are all "top down" policy makers and so vastly underestimated the impact of Barack's meticulous organizing ability and how that would play out in smaller states and caucus states. He didn't win all those caucuses because a few young enthusiasts made it happen--he won through patient, long term organizing with paid staff on the ground as long as a year in advance. I think that shows organizing skills, as well as a commitment to the "little guy", that I'm thrilled to have in a president.

Look at Texas. Hillary describes that mixed primary/caucus system as one that "makes grown men weep". That's not a smart thing to say; Texas politicians have developed the precinct system over the years and I would guess that many are offended to see it attacked. If you look at their rules, and scroll down to part B, you'll see that the caucuses are based on a vigorous precinct organizational system, in place for a long time and used for many different purposes. They even use Roberts Rules of Order! Barack has been a bit slower to invest in Texas than in earlier states; my cousin Joe Wells (see the picture), who is a precinct captain, says they are scrambling because only recently did Texas become a pivotal state. But the Obama campaign, headed by an experienced Texas politician, is busy training the outside staff and working the system, not giving interviews deriding it. I would wager Barack will take the state--and will build his delegate lead by an even greater margin in Texas because 1/3 of all delegates are allocated in caucuses. Notice also that there are two smaller states up a week from Tuesday--Vermont and Rhode Island. Barack is paying attention; I've had recruiting emails asking me to work in Rhode Island. I don't think Hillary is doing much of anything there. There is no polling at all but I'll wager he'll take both of them, making the momentum story even bigger and damping her very possible win in Ohio.

I'm not alone in thinking that the closed, insider nature of her campaign is a great weakness. I found this squib in a recent Washington Post article in which the author interviewed a number of different Democratic strategists.

A veteran of the Clinton-Gore administration offered these thoughts: "First, for the political community, she needs to open up her campaign. I love Maggie [Williams], Doug [Sosnik] and Steve [Richetti], but all the changes have said, 'We're in trouble and we're drawing the circle TIGHTER.' HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] needs someone high and visible who is not on the Clinton Library Steering Committee."

This strategist continued: "Second, in terms of presentation, they should never let her stand behind a podium and give a speech ever again. It's just not her thing, and she's getting KILLED in the comparison to Obama. Put her back around a table, listening and chatting. She's likable, smart, and engaging in a small setting."

I think this country has a very rough road ahead. Getting out of Iraq with dignity is going to be a LOT harder than getting in was; we will need help from leaders like Colin Powell. Getting out of the unregulated credit mess will be even harder; we need real input from people like Mayor Bloomberg of New York (Barack, are you listening?). I am willing to wager that an Obama cabinet will be diverse in the political sense and that a new Clinton cabinet will have a look very like the old. I am also willing to wager that Obama will meet with and use his cabinet in a way that Bill Clinton never did.One last Obama story. When he announced his campaign, he wanted the minister of his church to say a blessing. His advisers were against it, telling him the decision would be bad both for him and for his minister--the church, which has caused minor press fuss over the months--is militantly black, including publishing an article in the parish newspaper in support of the ideas of Louis Farrakhan. He listened to his advisers, avoiding early attention to this issue--but has remained firmly supportive of the church and minister every time he's asked about it. (There's a more admiring bio of Farrakhan here if you'd like to read it.)

Put simply, I believe Barack will run a better government than Hillary will--and we have a lot of government rebuilding to do.

PS: Joe Wells is much better looking than the picture; he was talking while Barack was smiling. Still, it's a treasure for the family.