Hillary Clinton using Harris Miller braintrust

By: Scripple
Published On: 4/9/2008 4:09:58 PM

To those who worked on Jim Webb's Senate race, the Obama/Clinton fight has a lot of comparisons to the Webb/Miller primary.

One was a party insider who ran a top-down campaign, the other was a newcomer to politics who ran a people-oriented campaign.

One ran a negative campaign based on tearing the other one down, the other one is running an issue-oriented campaign about changing politics.

It's not surprising that Harris Miller has maxed out to Hillary Clinton, either:

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/by...

But there's one thing that I thought was curious in the latest news about Mark Penn being semi-kicked out of the Clinton campaign:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...

Who is his replacement?  Geoff Garin, who counted among other people as his clients... Harris Miller.

http://www.democracyinaction.c...

See any other familiar names in the CNN story?  Clinton's spokesman is Mo Eleithee, who served as General Consultant for Harris Miller.

Coincidence, anyone?
Now, a lot of us were very happy with the way that Harris Miller was very strong in his support of Jim Webb after the primary, and proud of the work that Harris Miller and his volunteers did after the primary to help Jim Webb get elected.

Let's hope that Hillary Clinton is just as gracious and helps President Obama join Senator Webb in Washington!


Comments



Another brilliant decision (Rebecca - 4/9/2008 9:58:01 PM)
Just another in a long and seemingly unending series of bad management decisions.


I was pleased with Miller's supporters (DanG - 4/10/2008 2:40:14 AM)
He himself kind of disappeared after his defeat.

But Miller's supporters got right on board, and it was appreciated.  Let's hope Hillary Clinton's supporters will do the same!



Glad to see another night owl (Hugo Estrada - 4/10/2008 2:46:07 AM)
I thought I was the only person posting at this time of the night :)


a couple of events (Scripple - 4/10/2008 10:48:09 AM)
I was lucky enough to go to a few events after the primary, including a big fundraiser, where Harris Miller spoke on behalf of Jim Webb, and he was both generous and forceful in his support of Jim Webb.


That's an Unfair Comparison (AnonymousIsAWoman - 4/10/2008 9:57:37 AM)
As an early and loyal Jim Webb supporter, who now supports Hillary Clinton, I believe turning this into a Miller/Clinton vs. Webb/Obama split is both unfair and inaccurate. It's also frankly insulting.

There are several strong Webb supporters who now are supporting Clinton.  And they are among the most progressive activists in Virginia.  And there are some Obama supporters who were for Miller last time.

Attempting to continue the Miller-Webb split by trying to link Hillary Clinton to Miller, etc., is simply guilt by association.

Finally, Jim Webb, himself a super delegate, has not yet committed to either candidate.  So trying to paint the legitimate differences among progressive activists as somehow a continuation of the Webb-Miller split is not a reflection of the reality.



you're overreacting (Scripple - 4/10/2008 10:43:48 AM)
Drawing parallels is not the same as saying "all Webb people are for Obama" and "all Miller people are for Clinton." Clearly there are some bloggers who were for Webb who are now for Clinton (NLS comes to mind as a good example). And just given the overwhelming margin by which Obama won Virginia, obviously some Miller supporters are Obama supporters too.

You didn't address the main point of the post: Two of Miller's senior staffers are now Clinton's senior staffers! That's pretty significant, don't you think?

In addition to the other parallels I drew, here are a couple more:

-Clinton did better in the rural areas, just like Miller. Both Obama and Webb did better in Northern Virginia and suburban areas.
-The blogosphere has some notable (and also vocal) Clinton supporters, but it's clear that Obama has a wider range of online and grassroots support.

Can I think of a dozen ways in which the Clinton/Obama race is not like Miller/Webb. But if you don't think there's some clear parallels, you're kidding yourself.



insulting? (Scripple - 4/10/2008 10:46:34 AM)
Please. People interested in political science always try to identify patterns and draw comparisons between races so that one can better understand the electorate.

And your remark that I am "attempting to continue the Miller-Webb split" is just flat-out wrong -- I pointed out in my original post how well Miller and Webb supporters came together in the end.



Yes, Insulting and Inaccurate (AnonymousIsAWoman - 4/10/2008 3:21:41 PM)
It's still a false analogy that signifies nothing.  Geoff Garin is a political pollster, who was president of Peter Hart Associates, a research firm.  As a professional pollster, he's probably worked for many, many Democratic candidates.  The fact that he worked, as a pollster for Miller and now works for Hillary signifies very little in terms of patterns or where the candidates stand.  It just signifies that he is a Democratic pollster.

Mo Eleithee is a press spokesman.  Again, as a paid professional, he has probably worked for many Democratic candidates.  

Both of these men are paid for specific skills and for the insight, analysis and advice they can give on nuts and bolts campaign management.

I still find the attempt to link Clinton supporters to Miller insulting.  It's disengenuous to imply that you aren't looking for a pattern there of corrupt insider vs. idealistic outsider/challenger.  

It doesn't hold up.  Obama has advisers who are free trade, pro-free market insiders too.

However, I do share your hope that whoever wins will get behind the ticket 100 percent and with graciousness.



accurate and fair (Scripple - 4/11/2008 11:05:56 AM)
You don't think these advisors choose which campaigns to be on? Both Miller and Webb had people on board his campaign who disagreed with some of their stances, and I imagine Clinton and Obama dotoo.

Which statement of mine do you take issue with?

*That Clinton has run a top-down campaign?
*That she has run a negative campaign against Obama? (remember the "kitchen sink" attacks, anyone?)
*That Obama has more netroots support?
*That Clinton had more rural support whereas Obama has more suburban/urban support in Virginia?

Argue any of these points with me, but don't feign being insulted because you're an exception to a political generalization. Do women or Hispanics who support Obama get insulted when news networks say that they're her base of support?

I never said that these were rigid factions lining up the same way they did in 2006 -- I said there are some striking similiarities. And the point remains, no matter how "insulted" you get by it, that there ARE some striking similarities.



Still Disengenuous (AnonymousIsAWoman - 4/12/2008 2:13:44 PM)
First of all, the netroots is split on Clinton vs Obama in a way it wasn't on Miller vs. Webb.  There are several very progressive bloggers, at both the national and local level, who are pro-Hillary.  The netroots does not begin and end with Daily Kos and RK, as much as I respect those blogs.

In addition, Obama gives back as much negative attack as he gets - or he has surrogates do it for him.  Hillary has by no means thrown a kitchen sink at him.  It's the Republicans who do that.

This may come as a shock to many of you, but it's perfectly legitimate to criticize one's opponent and to make the case for why one is better suited to be the nominee.  Both sides do this and should.  Otherwise it wouldn't be a contest and the public would be cheated out of a real choice.

As for top down vs. bottom up, that's ridiculous.  Obama has been winning caucuses because he has a disciplined and organized staff.  It only feels bottom up because that's what so many of his young supporters wish to believe.  But there are people in charge who manage the message and organize the GOTV ground game for Obama and do it very well.  They succeed because they are organized, experienced, and work from a hierarchical structure too.

As for the rural vs. urban split, I'm not sure why rural Democrats are choosing Clinton but I doubt it's because she reminds them of Miller or is running on the same issues he did.

The similarities you are touting are actually superficial and coincidental and are meant to appeal to the ego of Obama supporters and to deepen an old split that is not reflected in the reality of where activists are lining up in this race.

I also am insulted by the comparison because I do not see Obama as a natural heir to Webb's supporters. For starters, Webb's slogan was "Born Fighting."  Obama's whole pitch is that he is post partisan and wants to be conciliatory.  You couldn't find two more disparate messages.

In truth, only John Edwards comes close to sharing a similarity with Webb. And he's no longer in the race.

The only similarity that Webb and Obama share is that both were very early opponents of the war in Iraq.  But if you believe that the war was Webb's only issue, you believe his opponents that he was a one-note candidate and you severely misunderstand his campaign platform and all he still stands for in the Senate.  He is as much an economic populist, passionate about true social justice for the working and middle class, as he is a critic of the Iraq war.  He is still deeply concerned about the growing wage gap and the economic disparity between the top one percent and the lower 90 percent of the country.

Frankly, I have not heard either Obama or Clinton speak as movingly about these real problems as Webb and Edwards has.  In fact, I suspect, though there is no evidence for this, that the reason Webb remains an uncommitted super delegate is because in his heart he was hoping to support an Edwards candidacy.

That's why I find your comparison of Clinton/Obama vs Miller/Webb superficial, off base, and just plain wrong.  



Miller and Penn Both Are Pro-Trade, Anti-Worker Supporters (Matt H - 4/10/2008 1:54:00 PM)
And this is why I voted for Webb, and why I didn't vote for Hillary in the primary.

It's really shameful.



Penn certainly didn't help (DanG - 4/10/2008 3:12:20 PM)
I lean to the center on many things.  But one of the things I frequently find myself agreeing with even the most progressive online bloggers is trade.


Good for you! (AnonymousIsAWoman - 4/10/2008 8:40:38 PM)
For me, fair trade, economic equality, and social justice are core Democratic values.  Without those values, I'd have to ask myself what else I was doing here?


Just Curious (Matt H - 4/11/2008 12:31:22 PM)
What's left for you to be centrist on?  The DLC would be fine with me, but for their trade policy and love for all things business at the expense of the workers.


Umm... social issues? (DanG - 4/11/2008 1:43:47 PM)
Here's a list of things where I agree with conservatives

Guns...
Immigration...
The Smoking ban...
Increased Military Spending...
Affirmative Action...
Drug laws...

Of course, more often than not, I find these issues to be "hot button", and less bread and butter.  Hence, I am a Democrat, even though there are plenty of issues I agree with Republicans on.



There is a lot of Common Ground (Matt H - 4/11/2008 2:35:04 PM)


It's their trade policy and love for all things business at the expense of workers... (AnonymousIsAWoman - 4/12/2008 2:20:10 PM)
that is the deal breaker for me.  Why do we need a Democratic Party if not for those things?  There are green Republicans, pro choice Republicans, Republicans who respect gay rights.

We could all just join Arnold, Giuliani, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe - heck even Tom and Jeannemarie Devolities Davis - if not for the economic issues. It's over support for unions and economic justice for the middle class that we truly are different from the Republicans on a national level.



Hillary also loves WalMart... (Lowell - 4/10/2008 8:42:53 PM)
...and vice versa.  And no, "low low wages" WalMart is not my favorite company, to put it mildly.



WalMart was a big Arkansas employer & had a "made in the USA" policy when this was filmed (Andrea Chamblee - 4/11/2008 12:13:46 AM)
WalMart's first store was in AK, and the state where Bill was governor needed the manufacturing jobs it brought as well as the sales jobs.  It was only recently (last 7-10 years I think) that WalMart abandoned it's "Made in the USA" program that started when Bill was governor. I think WalMart also ended up mislabeling some products made in China so they appeared to be from the Made in the USA program. Bill talks about it in his book.


Wal-Mart Has Always Been Anti-Union (Matt H - 4/11/2008 12:29:06 PM)
Old Sam Walton believed in keeping his workers deaf, dumb and blind.

At least Sears, K-Mart, Target and others have organized stores.



Yes WalMart is more than anti-union (Andrea Chamblee - 4/11/2008 8:19:05 PM)
They are anti-employee. The hostile work environment cases with Wal-Mart are hard to read, and some of the behavior by Wal-Mart management is not only reprehensible, it is shockingly childish.  Wal-Mart was also among Fortune 500's "Most-Admired Companies" two years in a row. However, being a Democratic governor in a poor red state is hard work. Arkansas was one of the last states to stop collecting blood in prisons despite AIDS and hepatitis, because it brought in money and taxpayers wouldn't pay to address deplorable prison conditions. Schools are in the bottom 12 in the country or lower.  If Clinton raises taxes, he throws the Republicans back in power.

I know a lot of lawyers who work for companies, and while I can't be sure about Hillary, or Harris Miller for that matter, since I am not in there with them, let me assure you that sometimes behind Boardroom doors we are speaking up for justice and compliance, even as we get berated, belittled, and bothered because we must not "really understand" business. Most of us went through school because we believe in giving the little guy a voice in those Boardrooms, even if it's only one voice of many in there.



What to make of this?!? (Lowell - 4/11/2008 9:16:27 AM)


what bold arrogance (Scripple - 4/11/2008 10:57:07 AM)
Truth be told, these anti-union, anti-fair trade interests are funding Hillary Clinton's campaign.  They give Bill tons of money to speak, he gives that money to her campaign to the tune of $5 million. And then when a reporter has the temerity to ask about it, she laughs it off. Unbelieveable.


Is RK really quoting Scarborough on Hillary as a reliable source? (Andrea Chamblee - 4/11/2008 8:40:28 PM)
Is Fox next?  Now I've seen everything.

One thing this does is prove Hillary's catching hell for smething any Republican and any man can get away with.  Her laugh?  "W" laughs like the idiot son of a rich daddy.  I don't remember ever hearing Cheney laugh, and he probably only does when someone is getting shot in the face. McCain?  He probably giggled when he ditched his long-suffering wife for a beer heiress in a new Congressional district.  And maybe again with Vicki Iseman for pulling a fast one on his 2d wife and his supporters with the lobbyist. I'm sure nations around the word would rather hear her laughter in the White House that Ws.

I say this not particularly as a Hillary supporter. I want whoever can beat McCain (or whoever survives him).  I don't care who it is.



This has been reported everywhere (Lowell - 4/11/2008 8:48:36 PM)
On CBS News tonight, Bob Schieffer was like, "this is really bad" and that every Democrat he's talked to thinks it's a debacle.  Also on CBS, they showed Nancy Pelosi rolling her eyes and saying that Bill Clinton was having a late night adult moment or something like that.  Anyway, this isn't about which of many news outlets are reporting this, it's about the actual event.


Here's the CBS report (Lowell - 4/11/2008 8:50:40 PM)

I'm going to replace the MSNBC one, just so we don't get sidetracked here on a complete tangent.



Oh well, can't replace the comment (Lowell - 4/11/2008 8:51:30 PM)
without deleting the ones responding to it.  


Ok, sidetracked is derailed (Andrea Chamblee - 4/12/2008 3:00:37 PM)
I won't beat the dead horse.  I'm just beyond disheartened that no one seems to be saying exactly where is the difference in POLICY between Hillary and Obama, on trade, jobs, banking crisis, health care, etc.  Instead we have to talk about whether she responds to some moronic question with a laugh in a proper register.

Actually, the only thing that brings hits on my little blog is the comparison table link, so some people must be hungry for that information.  It's a shame the information is so hard to get.



Mo Eleithee . . . (JPTERP - 4/13/2008 2:56:04 PM)
Didn't he also work for Webb?  

My recollection is that he was brought in during the Fall to help the Webb campaign gets its ship in order -- he strikes me as a good choice.

The ones that have hurt Clinton's candidacy have been Penn and Solis-Doyle.  Clinton has done her campaign no favors either by putting those kind of folks in positions of responsibility.

Garin sounds like a different story than Eleithee.  It's not too surprising though that the consumate Washington insiders have gravitated so strongly both to the lobbyist's campaign in 2006 and Clinton (the lobbyists second best friend -- after McCain) -- in 2008.



Not Everyone... (Joby - 4/14/2008 7:57:42 PM)
...who supported Harris Miller is backing the Clintonistas.

Former Lt. Governor Don Beyer (who also served as the National Treasurer for Howard Dean's campaign four years ago) has been a chief fund raiser for Senator Obama.  



Excellent point. (Lowell - 4/14/2008 8:05:51 PM)
Don Beyer has been a forceful and effective advocate for Barack Obama, and I am very grateful for that.  Also, Don Beyer strongly supported Jim Webb after he won the nomination in June 2006.  The bottom line is that Don Beyer is a great guy.