Hillary: "Running scared"

In this piece, the Guardian's Richard Adams holds that Hillary's campaign announcement was a move made by a campaign in trouble- already - imperiled by the campaign of Barack Obama.

Running scared

Hillary Clinton's abrupt announcement on Saturday that she is running for the presidency is a sign that her campaign is already in trouble.

Why did Hillary Clinton announce the start of her presidential campaign without fanfare or build-up? Why did she make the announcement on a Saturday morning, the least news-worthy time of the week? Why did she do it at such short notice that she would not appear on the Sunday morning politics chatshows such as Meet The Press that abound on US television? And why would she do it three days before the president's annual State of the Union address, which will inevitably hog the news pages and bulletins between now and the middle of next week?

The most obvious answer is: panic. Since Barack Obama made his announcement last week, the Clinton camp must have felt a slippage in support, in terms of money and talent, that led it to announce the formation of her exploratory committee so abruptly. The Washington Post's front page article put a positive gloss on the timing by saying: "Her announcement was deliberately timed to come shortly before President Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday night, campaign advisers said, so she can draw a contrast with the administration's record and help focus attention on the office of the presidency."

The New York Times was less impressed. Inside, in an analysis piece, it wrote: "One reason Mrs. Clinton chose to make her announcement on a Saturday morning, when the political world is usually in slumber, was to dominate the news cycle, her advisers said, and contrast herself vividly as a leader with President Bush before his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night. They waved off the appearance that she was announcing to catch up with Mr Obama, who declared his plans to run on Tuesday. They said they had determined in mid-December that, if Mrs. Clinton decided to run, they would announce the decision on the Saturday before the State of the Union address."

So it was all part of a masterplan? The NYT has a more compelling reason on its front page: the earlier start by Obama was revealing his strength in fundraising. The NYT referred to a recent decision by George Soros - who in the past has backed both Clinton and Obama - to immediately send financial support to Obama in the wake of his announcement. "Soros believes that Senator Obama brings a new energy to the political system and has the potential to be a transformational leader," the NYT quoted Michael Vachon, a spokesman for Soros, as saying. Another weakness of the official line was that Clinton surely needed to get her story straight on Iraq and back further away from her previous position of supporting the US invasion before making this announcement. Instead she has lost the initiative, and Saturday's declaration was an attempt to regain it.

Obama's arrival as a serious rival candidate will make matters far more difficult for Clinton. In the past Hollywood has been a rich vein of funding for both her and her husband's campaigns - but now Obama's star factor is crowding her out on the west coast. Hillary Clinton herself was born in Illinois, and so could have expected that to be a natural fundraising base. But of course Illinois is the state represented in the senate by Obama, closing another group of potential chequebooks.

In any case, the stage is now set. The Democratic nomination will be won by one of the three leading candidates: Clinton, Obama or John Edwards. All three are strong candidates and effective campaigners. But the fact that there are three spells disaster for Hillary Clinton. Her biggest rival is Obama, and if Saturday's announcement was the product of a reaction to his recent success, then her chances may be fading by the day.