A friend who has toiled for one of the now defeated Democratic presidential candidates called me as I was walking out of Hillary Clinton’s spirited campaign event at Nashua North High School this afternoon. I gave him my thoughts on the event (which are below) and the race; we started to game out where this nomination fight may lead; and as then he said, “You know what? Mike Henry was right.”

If you’re a political junkie you may remember last May when a memo by Henry, HRC’s deputy campaign manager, that argued that she should skip Iowa and focus on the national primary on February 5th was leaked to the press. Quickly, the HRC campaign disavowed the memo and proceeded to double-down on Iowa. Then, I thought Mike was right, and with the benefit of hindsight, it appears that’s still the case.

Henry argued that Iowa would be less significant as a generator of momentum since there was a de facto national primary on Titanic Tuesday and with early voting in some key states that would mean that anywhere between one-third to one-half of votes in delegate-rich states like California, Texas, and Florida could be cast days before Iowa holds its caucuses.

From a budgetary perspective, it would make sense for HRC to forgo the intense campaigning of Iowa, and focus on New Hampshire where she had a base and then entering the 5th, she’d be well-positioned to put the nomination away. Henry wrote: “A failure to do so [investing in these states] will hurt her chances of winning and will increase our vulnerability to a movement candidate.”

And that has come to pass.

Henry didn’t get it all correct: Iowa was still important in this race. But he did get the other part of this right. HRC’s doubling down there helped to guarantee that Iowa would be important. If she didn’t play there – say, make the case that it was less a legitimate test because Obama was from a neighboring state and, as she argued the day after the caucuses, that it didn’t give a chance for all voters to easily participate – then the Obama’s victory would have meant less, and he’d be entering a Granite State that HRC wholly-owned.

When Henry wrote his memo, I don’t think it was clear how large a campaign war chest HRC would have. So, it is very possible that HRC also invested in the Titanic Tuesday states, started a robust mail-vote program, and invested in this firewall (of course, Obama could have made these investments as well, and there are indications that he has). For those that want to see HRC win the nomination, they better hope that she did.

The hyper-frontloading of the nominating process by successive DNC’s has given her very little time to stop Obamania.

Last night, she started the counter-attack, and it continued today at her rally in Nashua. The gym was packed. The energy was high (note: HRC’s crowds are whipped up by “Fun Bobby” – aka Bobby Moran – a member of her advance team who in the fall of 2001 was my student in a Georgetown seminar on, “The Clinton Presidency.” Apparently, the class made an impression….). The crowd was cheering her name, and went crazy when HRC entered the room. The thrust of the HRC argument is that she is a “doer” and Obama is a “talker.” He talks a good game; she plays a better one. Part of this strategy is to expose Obama for not being what he says and not doing what he claims he has done. Ben Smith transcribed her best riff, and it’s worth reposting here:

If you give a speech saying you'll vote againt the Patriot Act and you don't, that's not change. If you say you're going to prevent members of congress to have lunch with lobbyists sitting down, but they can still have lunch standing up, that's not change. If you say you passed the Patients Bill of Rights, but you don't mention it never got signed into law, that's not change. If you rail against the special intersts...but you voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill, that's not change. If you gave a speech -- and a very good speech -- against the war in Iraq in 2002 and then by 2004 you're saying you're not sure how you would have voted, and by 2005 six and seven you've voted for $300 billion for the war you said you're against, that's not change.

Right now, I have no idea if this message was being amplified through various paid media outlets – TV, radio, mail, phones, etc. But, however distasteful it may seem, if they want to stop Obama, they need to go all out. They need to make it very clear to all those states that Henry wanted to play in that Obama is not who he seems. It’s a very hard argument to make. It’s like trying to sell a minivan to a guy who comes in to a dealership looking to buy a Porsche – the sportscar may be sexy, but the minivan is responsible.

While I’m playing armchair campaign manager, I’d also add that HRC needs to come in to these high-energy events, deliver the red meat and message, and then get out. Mimicking the strategy of high-intensity questioning that Gore in 2000 and McCain this year used to revive their candidacies, the HRC camp is putting her out there to answer any and all questions. Her mastery of the material comes through – but voters already know that, and time is of the essence. She doesn’t have the months to rebound that Gore and McCain had.

I am in the Manchester Airport now, headed home to my very pregnant wife. I’ll have some more thoughts in the days ahead. But keep in mind one other thing that Henry wrote in that memo: the nomination is about winning delegates, not placing first in primaries and caucuses. As long as HRC has money (and she has lots) and is close, she will fight for delegates and hope that Obama loses his legs after 15 rounds. That you can count on.