Michael Crowley's examination of the Clinton campaign's press strategy is one of those must-read type pieces. The short version is the Clinton campaign has been beating the shit out of the media and tightly controlling the flow of information, and it seems to be working. Pieces like this always unnerve me, though. As plausible as it is, you can imagine the very same article being written, with different adjectives, in the aftermath of a Hillary Clinton loss. "Her campaign's fearsome press operation slowly enraged reporters, subtly coloring their coverage of the tight-lipped candidate..."
My hunch, of course, is that the Clinton campaign is using the press correctly. It's worth remarking that coverage of her run has actually been surprisingly substantive, with lots of column inches dedicated to her opinions on foreign policy, her health care plan, her claims of executive office experience, etc. Her campaign has done a tremendous job -- at least until the past few weeks -- of tamping down on personality stories. So it seems to be working. But if the press decides they hate her, it'll all flip. And then we'll blame her press strategy for that. Which is why I never quite know how to evaluate any of these approaches. They're awesome until they're monumental failures, and they're monumental failures until they're inspired masterstrokes.
