The Washington Post has a lengthy piece allowing people inside Hillary Clinton’s campaign to vent about strategist Mark Penn and spouse Bill.  While the whole thing is amusing, the inverted pyramid dictates some of the interesting, but less gossipy material is near the top:

Many of her advisers are waging a two-front war, one against Sen. Barack Obama and the second against one another, but their most pressing challenge is figuring out why Clinton won in Ohio and Texas and trying to duplicate it. While Penn sees his strategy as a reason for the victories that have kept her candidacy alive, other advisers attribute the wins to her perseverance, favorable demographics and a new campaign manager. Clinton won “despite us, not because of us,” one said.

Sifting through the data yesterday, her divided circle offered other theories. Some credit field operatives who set up organizations in record time. Others cite strong Hispanic outreach in South Texas that held off a late Obama push. And even some Penn opponents grudgingly cite his television commercial that asked which Democrat is more prepared for a 3 a.m. crisis call at the White House.

In the days leading up to the Ohio and Texas contests, Clinton presented herself as the victim of media bias and displayed a sense of humor on “Saturday Night Live” at the same time her staff was holding daily conference calls attacking Obama on his trade record and for his ties to an indicted real estate developer. The yin-yang approach — going positive and negative at the same time — may not have been deliberate, but it seemed to work.

“There has been a long-term disagreement on strategy over whether to focus on character . . . or raising questions about Senator Obama,” said one top Clinton aide who was at the core of the fight. “What’s happened over the last two weeks is we’ve done both.”

Mind you, I suggested back on February 21 that Camp Clinton might be getting its act together precisely because it seemed to be going positive and negative at the same time, noting that it is more difficult to go negative unless you have (or are presenting) an alternative. 

It is also a timely reminder that success often comes when a campaign manages to have a synergy of polling with organization and message.  By this point in the campaign, the Clintonites should know which demographics are strong for them or most accessible to them — Hispanics, women, older voters, blue-collar voters, etc.  They should already know which messages and candidate qualities appeal to those groups (primarily national and economic security) and how to tie her perceived resume and record to them, while tagging Obama with his perceived inexperience.  She should have been making the case to change-oriented voters that what they want is a change from the national and economic insecurity caused by the evil BushCo – a steadier hand on the rudder of the ship of state.

Instead, it appears Camp Clinton’s synergy in Tuesday’s big contests was an accident.  And the haphazard campaign they have run undermines the message they should be selling.  But at least they are trying to learn from it.