Clinton Campaign's Big State Strategy a big blunder

[Adelante]

This is part of a very long, but interesting piece on WaPo today, mostly about staff squabbling. I think Harold Ickes is kind of scary as an individual, but he's definitely one of the smartest politicos around, as this bit about smaller states shows.

Even in Victory, Clinton Team Is Battling Itself

-snip

Ickes and political director Guy Cecil argued that such states were important because even if she lost, she would pick up delegates with a strong showing. That would soon become clear. Clinton racked up big wins in California, New Jersey and even Kennedy's Massachusetts. But she lost the caucus states, and because of the party's proportional rules, it cost her.

"That was one of the biggest blunders we had," a senior official said.

Obama invested in Idaho, for example, while Clinton did not, and as a result he won 15 delegates to her three. In New Jersey, on the other hand, Clinton won 59 delegates to 48 for Obama. So the net 12 delegates Obama picked up in Idaho offset the 11 net delegates she earned in the much bigger state of New Jersey.

"You end up canceling out everything we had done in New Jersey," said Hassan Nemazee, the campaign's finance co-chairman. "All that work in New Jersey was essentially nullified."

'Oligarchy at the Top'

Ickes was characteristically blunt on the conference call after Super Tuesday. It was quite likely that Clinton would lose the next 11 contests, colleagues recall him saying. Cecil had submitted plans for post-Feb. 5 states, but they had been rejected. The campaign had not initially thought the nomination battle would go beyond Super Tuesday and it was out of cash. "We were running on fumes," one aide said.

Read entire article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503621.html?sid=ST2008030600084