Strategic Leaks Versus Unplanned Leaks
Since everyone is talking about how leak-prone the Obama operation has suddenly become, it seems worth making the distinction between two types of leaks.
There are strategic leaks, which are approved and designed for a particular purpose by Obama's central command. Then there are the unplanned leaks, which often come from more marginal players -- or even from people being considered for an Obama post -- and are designed to push a particular individual's agenda.
When news leaked late last night that Obama is "on track" to formally offer the Secretary of State gig, that had all the hallmarks of a planned leak. It was a shrewd and carefully crafted message. The "on track" language, which appeared in several news accounts, was deliberate: It doesn't make the offer official, but it does throw the ball back into the Clintons' court at a time when Hillary's people are leaking the notion that she hasn't made up her mind to take the gig.
The leaks that greeted the choice of Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff, meanwhile, were unplanned and made a big sloppy mess. This sort of stuff tends to come from opponents of the appointment -- others being considered for the gig, or people internally who oppose it. Or, alternatively, it comes from folks in the potential appointee's universe who've been briefed on his or her deliberations.
Since so many of these people are coming out of Congress, the primary leak spigot is the Hill. If the Obama operation now seems more leaky and its message tougher to control, blame the culture of the Hill for it more than the Obama operation itself.
I think that you made a typo gregg. You kept typing hill, when you meant hillary on the leaks. There weren't any leaks until the clinton/obama meeting in chicago and then there have been a flood from the clintons. You could avoid the mistake in the future if you refer to her by her last name clinton, like you refer to obama. Just trying to help out.
November 21, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
very interesting argument -- so no one leaked the names of Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and Robert Gibbs before their appointments was official?
November 21, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course there have been leaks both planned and unplanned in earlier appointments, but you have to admit they have been nothing compared to the leaks surrounding Hillary Clinton's appointment. The Hillary leaks seem to be of a strategic sort. I don't think we need a drama queen as Secretary of State. We need somebody who is both capable (as Clinton clearly is) and primarily loyal to Obama (as Clinton's strategic leaks seem to indicate she is not.) I think all the Clinton leaks disqualify her.
November 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
When those leaks occurred Greg, the individuals had pretty much accepted the appointments, Rahm was playing stall ball for his family, not because he was trying to gain leverage.
In contrast, the leaks for SOS have been nothing but gamemanship, right down to her 'not knowing whether she wants it' before she is offered it and to WJC trying to say 'I'm not baggage'
Which makes sense for the Obama folks to play stall ball by saying it is 'on track' which can have a host of interpretation right up to & including that 'all data is not in but the process is moving along'.
Which means, he hasn't made any offers still contingent on the process clearance.
November 21, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
*were official?
And you don't think the leaks late last night that were sourced to "Obama transition officials" came from the Obama camp?
also very interesting!
November 21, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I agree that there have been strategic leaks of late, because people do not want a clinton restoration in the whitehouse. Due to all the noise about the clintons, from their leaks, and the clintonite appointments, the obama camp leaked some non-clintonite appointments.
You got me on emmanuel. Me thinks that he talks too much. I don't think the other two were leaks per se, but announcements and they were not a shock. The clinton thing is a shock.
As you are well aware, the vast majority of the leaks have been from the clintons and their minions. If the clintons don't get to be secretaries of state, then I would wager that the leaks will die down and things will get back to normal in obamaland. If they get the gig, we will have years of leaks like a waterfall and you will have alot to "break the news" on from clinton leaks.
November 21, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that Gibbs and Axelrod don't really count, because they were with the campaign and were expected to transition over...
November 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Obama is trying to test who can keep a secret and who can't by releasing bits of information here and there. All Obama's inner circle would have to do is tell one person that they and a few others are the only ones with this information and then the Obama staff would not tell anyone else apart from that one person. If it hits the media well then, you've found your rat. Maybe some of this speculation is just phony leaks.
I am the big conspirator so just skim over my posts if need be. :)
November 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting theory.
November 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying Daschle will be denied his appointment? He certainly couldn't keep a secret.
November 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed Greg. Since this is entirely a black box exercise anyway and there's nothing else to talk about - it is equally if not more likely that this is a joint leak from Hillary and O. Defuse all the predictable reaction to the eventual announcement before hand.
O!'s a wiley fella ..not to mention the Clintons!
I am just bored with it all ..can't we get this over with
November 21, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think people are making too big a deal about all theses "leaks".
i don't see how leaking who's going to be SOS or DHS or AG or anything else really hurts obama. So we get the info a few days before its official. big woop.
i really dont understand it. And all the talking heads, rachel maddow especially, keeps talkign about these leaks as if they're a sign obama is just another politician who really won't bring about change. and that makes no sense to me. i don't see how leaking who you're chief of staff is going to be suddenly undermines your vision of change...
November 21, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maddow last night was driving me nuts. Her complaining how Obama wasn't bringing change to the White House was a bit odd considering it is the GOP talking point to diminish Obama enthusiasm.
November 21, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that if you want people experienced in the "experience" of the White House, who are also younger than 80, you're going to have to tap people from the Clinton era.
November 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was funny and accurate.
November 21, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maddow is a eternal concern troll. I think it's good to have a more congenial liberal vioce on the mainstream airwaves but as you said she can be annoying- especially her "Talk me Down" episodes are pretty shallow and dumb.
November 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was the other thing Maddow was saying. Oh yeah..
Is Obama's appointing experienced people to positions an admittance of his lack of knowledge???
WTF is that even supposed to mean? Is he supposed to appoint a bunch of high school grads so he can be the most experienced one?
Maddow was definitely off her game. Someone needs to shake these people up to not provide the other side fodder.
November 21, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote a post on this just a few minutes ago, how funny. Rachel is good, but that segment was pretty weak:
http://strategy08.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/i-love-rachel-maddow-but/
November 21, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am net-stalking you. I know your every post!
November 21, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think you nailed it. she is a concern troll, the thought just hadn't entered my mind till you said it.
November 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
...
The fact that they can already leak one big appointee per day is testimony to an awful lot of expert staff work.
...
Most of all, they are picking Washington insiders. Or to be more precise, they are picking the best of the Washington insiders.
Obama seems to have dispensed with the romantic and failed notion that you need inexperienced “fresh faces” to change things. After all, it was L.B.J. who passed the Civil Rights Act.
...
David Brooks-
November 21, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know for sure which leaks are strategic and which are unplanned? Unless there is someone within the administration-elect who is keeping track, who are we to know?
The reason I ask is that it seems as if strategic leaks are the ones we preceive as planned and unplanned ones are those that we perceive as sloppy.
Does perceive ultimately = guesswork?
November 21, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ones that are repeated a la soap opera drama, adorned with heart-wrenching behind-the-scenes decision making on the MSM for days on end are the unplanned leaks.
November 21, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would also blame the sheer number of people that are involved or on the periphery of the vetting process. You just need the right person standing in the right hallway next to right person talking into a cell phone somewhere in the beltway and you get a new source for leaks. I would point out that there doesn't seem to be one non-vetting related leaks from the Obama camp.
November 21, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call me skeptical, I'm taking a wait-and-see view of all this.
"On track" does not equate with "mission accomplished". Making and "offer" doesn't always result in an acceptance (isn't the Senate working on making an "offer" to Hillary for a far more substantive role if she remains in the Senate?).
November 21, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Indy...that is how I read 'on track' as well...it is check and checkmate. If Hill doesn't know if she wants it, then we are not necessarily ready to make the offer, unless she indicates she is 'on track' to accept it, until then we are 'on track' to offer it.
Nothing but gamesmanship. Obama vs. clinton round II....I would think the Clintons would have learned that Obama is not some 'naive & inexperience politician' after he whipped their asses from coast to coast, while 'brushing his shoulder off' when they threw the kitchen sink at him.
But they are old dogs whose habits die hard.
November 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Greg, got to call bullshit here. Yeah, you can point to last night's leaks and say that they were managed, but that doesn't begin to touch everything that went down over the past week. Conversely, Rahm's original leak to me had all the earmarks of a planned leak which quickly escalated due to how aggressively the press pursued it after the election (with camera crews following him around and the retelling of favorite Emanuel stories).
Basically, I'm saying I don't know why you even bothered posting this, and I'm starting to suspect that anything you post involving Clinton is a spin-job. Time to move on.
November 21, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're just starting to suspect? He's been spinning like a top for the clintons for two years now.
November 21, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Greg gets accused, regularly, of spinning for Clinton any time he posts something that isn't overtly negative.
I recall during the primaries he was routinely accused of spinning for Obama as well. It gets a little silly at times.
November 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Ct Voter,
I respectfully disagree. He has never "spun" for obama. In fact, before the primaries, I had a go around with him on doing a post about obama smoking a doobie, which he ultimately changed.
He has always spun for the clintons. He obviously has the right to spin for them and we can post about it.
November 21, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying he spun for Obama. I'm saying he was routinely (and enthusiastically) accused of it.
I hear both of you (Michael and Hello_World). I just don't reach the same conclusion. Coming up with an alternative explanation doesn't equate with spinning. It could, conceivably, and I think that's where we disagree.
November 21, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Greg took a lot of undue heat during the primaries. But he also chose to stir that up by his choice of framing of certain issues. It caused a lot of people to make angry posts, which probably wasn't a bad thing for interest and traffic. He also clearly has contacts within the Clinton universe.
I think he's spinning here because there's no doubt in my mind that the Obama/Clinton negotiation became leakier than anything I've seen from him in the 2+ years that he was mulling and executing a run for President. Greg blew all that off, and blamed Capitol Hill off the evidence that last night's news was clearly managed.
For the record, I'm no Hillary hater, and I think she's an interesting choice for SoS that I support (or at least I did before it turned into a daily circus). I just don't like what I perceived as a media-driven power play by people surrounding Clinton, and from experience, I'm pretty sure that Greg wouldn't have a problem smoothing another story from some Clinton flack, for old times sake.
November 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign (and expect this post to be taken care of by the "management").
November 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I co-co-sign.
November 21, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shit I was supposed to Co-Sign CT Voter. I know many among us are in a state of denial. But it's ridiculous to blame Greg as being anti-Obama or pro-Clinton.
November 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is up with that, anyway?
We can post derogatory comments but only if they have some unknown degree of civility?
You can't use the term "wench" in reference to a woman. What terms can't we use in reference to men?
It is a chilling effect.
November 21, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
riiight, we've never ever posted anything positive about Obama here!
November 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what I said.
November 21, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
how is it spinning for the Clintons to argue that Obama's operation shouldn't be blamed for leaks and that the Hill should be? How is that pro Clinton?
November 21, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Simple. It's trying to make it sound that the waterfall of leaks about the clintons didn't come from the clintons. Hello.
November 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, that's just idiotic. The context of this post was very clearly all the press chatter we're hearing about the Obama operation's new leakiness. If anything, my post pushes back on that. This post isn't about whether the Clintons leak or not.
November 21, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the compliment. Too funny.
November 21, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's bull. Every time a Clinton is involved, your journalism goes to crap. Whatever Clinton "source" got their hooks into you seems able to play you like a fiddle. IMO You are too enamored of the subject to cover Clinton objectively.
You become an extension of her political machine. It sucks when Novak does it for his GOPper allies, it sucks when you do it for Hillary. The fact that there is usually a professional reward for the behavior is the most disgusting part of the equation. Those who play ball get the access.
Hey Greg, nice glove!
November 21, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's any consolation, I don't see it as Pro-Clinton. I think yo u make a good point about the Hill. But I think Obama camp doesn't seemed to be worried about the leaks as much as the rest of us.
So at this point it doesn't really matter and I don't think you can make a absolute distinction between a planned leak and a unplanned weak.
November 21, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean leak not weak.
November 21, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was no slip, this is a "weak" leak discussion.
Some seem so intent on ascribing bad motives to the Clintons, they risk pulling a muscle.
November 21, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call it trust, but verify.
I don't think their motives are bad. But at this point, I do question the people surrounding them, and to what degree they truly know exactly what they want to achieve.
November 21, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clintonian World Domination, of course!
November 21, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not viewing this as a stand alone post. This article seems to exist as an extension of the criticism Greg got over his Camp Clinton stenography yesterday. I think that criticism was warranted. He should source from both camps before he publishes or at least be honest about the political aims of the accomplices who's words he hides in his own mouth.
So my concern is less with Clinton and more with the nature of Greg's relationship with her camp ... and how it affects quality and honesty around here.
November 21, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will be a surprise if Obama appoints someone other than Daschle for Health and Human Services, someone other than Nopalitano for Homeland Security and someone other than James Jones as National Security Advisor. All are "leaks." It will be equally surprising if Obama appoints someone else other than Hillary for SoS.
It's risky to name these key appointments as a surprise, before measuring possible reception. Especially Hillary. Especially SoS.
No doubt Hillary talk for SoS has mostly been positive. I think the recent Gallup shows 80 perfect of the democrats and 60 percent of the Independents approve Hillary appointment.
Obama camp has made zero-nada- effort to push back the Hillary story. I think leaks pertaining to the semantics and the process of selection may be debated but no doubt Obama seems very interested in her candidacy for SoS.
November 21, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
How serious is this stuff about Daschle being on some Mayo board and working for some lobbyist firm?
November 21, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to yesterday's NY Times (or maybe Wednesday's), it could mean that he might have to recuse himself in some manner when issues that Mayo is involved in come up. Mayo apparently is involved in quite a bit, so potentially it could be a lot.
The whole article by the Times struck me as a giant exercise in the ridiculous concern trolling that arises whenever Democrats are discussed.
Of the same sort as "Democrats face real challenges if they expand their majorities...."
November 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic party certainly can be a neurotic bunch. At least we've moved on from the mindset that no matter what Democrats do, they're stepping into some elaborate trap planted by Karl Rove.
November 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this has already been said, and maybe it is a bit obvious. But leaks are going to be more probable in the transition due to the fact that more people are involved. It's the nature of the game. It doesn't mean that the core group of people are becoming less disciplined or that there is any failure of leadership, etc. They're trying to fill thousands of positions and talking to lots of people--most necessarily beyond the circle of committed campaign personnel. There's really not much you can do about leaks at this stage. Although taking advantage of the situation and floating a few intentional ones is definitely a good practice.
November 21, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
i dont think the leaks is bothersome. Whats bothersome is the leaking surrounding Hillary. This has been going on for days now and its non stop. I really dont understand why BO would want Clinton drama in his administration.
November 21, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
can someone tell me what harm comes from these leaks?
cus, i don't see how any of the things that have been "leaked" so far, undermine, harm, or damage Obama's transition in any way, other than maybe something gets announced a few days before they wanted it to.
November 21, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink