How do you package, repackage and otherwise attempt to sell a presidential candidate with little in the way of accomplishments but much in the way of shady dealings and scandal?
Let\’s start with the first three paragraphs of Annie Karni\’s latest blog at politico.com.
In early March, weeks before Hillary Clinton even announced her campaign, spokesman Brian Fallon and research director Tony Carrk began holding regular war room meetings with a team of eight volunteers on a serious mission: Fighting back against a forthcoming book, “Clinton Cash,” that threatened to seriously disrupt the campaign in its infancy.
This was an updated version of the famed war room that fought the first round of Clinton scandals in 1992, propelling Bill Clinton to the presidency; now, two months later, aides point to the handling of the “Clinton Cash” threat – a still-unfolding stream of allegations involving the Clinton Foundation and its donors, but one that seems not to have seriously altered perceptions of Hillary – as proof of the campaign\’s ability to manage messaging and counter the inevitable blowback of an 18-month campaign.
The campaign systematically raised questions about the objectivity of author Peter Schweizer and, according to sources with knowledge of the deals, strategically leaked details of the book to news outlets to undercut the exclusivity of excerpts given to reporters at The New York Times and Washington Post, who had obtained special deals with Schweizer.
That\’s how you do it. You use the single greatest resource the Clintons have always had: a fawning, docile, partisan media. You put out your message, secure in the knowledge that most in those media will obediently do your bidding…and hope that they will also be able to overcome the fact that, unlike her husband, Hillary Clinton is a lousy campaigner about as little talent for handling tough questions about her background as she had for advancing the United States as Secretary of State.
Ms. Karni tells us that the Clinton Foundation is “a still-unfolding stream of allegations…but one that seems not to have seriously altered perceptions of Hillary”.
She is incorrect.
The polls indicate it has not seriously altered her lead in hypothetical polls against hypothetical Republican candidates (can we agree that it is a lot easier to win polls when there is no actual opponent?). But, in those same polls, Ms. Clinton\’s personal credibility has taken a significant hit which – again, depending on who Republicans ultimately settle on – has the potential to damage her among voters.
Illustratively, here is an excerpt from Mark Murray\’s May 4th article for NBC News:
After weeks of scrutiny and tough questions – over her emails and the Clinton Foundation – here\’s the bad news for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: Her image has taken a hit, according to the latest national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Clinton\’s unfavorable rating has ticked up six points since March, and the percentage giving her high marks for being honest and straightforward has declined 13 points from a year ago.
And what if this “still-unfolding stream of allegations” shows voters that the Clinton Foundation was, and has always been, a trading post where big bucks buys the influence of Bill and Hill? What do you suppose that will do for her unfavorable and honest/straightforward ratings?
That better be some helluva war room.
