Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
The New York Times depicts Hillary Clinton as a detached manager and her staff as demoralized and divided.
  • A Rube Goldberg contraption that is fascinating to watch

    I'm fascinated how often the Clinton campaign themes start with something Bill Clinton mouths off in public, followed by a scramble by the rest of the campaign to get in line with the message. It's very reminiscent of the disorganization of the Clinton I administration, but not very much like the Bill's own sleek campaigns for president.

    THe difference is interesting because it probably shows the extent to which Bill Clinton himself deferred to his War Room. When Bill actually took over, chaos ensued and the message wandered (until he got some tough chiefs of staff). A lot of what we praise Bill Clinton for had little to do with him. He was a hollow vessel.

    But not quite. There are times when he settles on an instinct that gets the ball rolling. He's a gambler personality. Losing his bets in South Carolina, winning them in Texas.

    But, shouldn't this article be about Hillary? She also defers to the machine, but her machine has too many moving parts and consumes too many doughnuts. It's difficult to imagine how "her" campaign predicts that her own administration would function.

    Or dysfunction. Despite the weird SNL skit last Saturday, it seems more likely that Hillary would be the one making the 3AM phone call. But to whom?