If there is not considerable regret and second guessing floating around the Clinton campaign right now regarding their decision to manipulate the nomination process through limiting the number of candidate debates, there should be. Two of the latest national polls released show Hillary’s lead over Bernie Sanders shrinking to single digits from some pre-Christmas highs of over 30 points. Others show huge momentum for Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I know as well as anyone that strategy decisions in a campaign always bear an element of risk that you’ve miscalculated. But (and of course hindsight is always 20/20–and there is still much more “hind” to be sighted on this point), this strategic call in my mind seems to have all the markings of the deeper flaw that this campaign and her 2008 campaign have been burdened with. In a word, that defect is over-managing the campaign which is generally the result of over-thinking particular components of it.  

I certainly don’t, from a political strategist’s point of view (wholly apart from what I believe is right for a democratic society), begrudge the Clinton campaign for trying to pave the best and least resistant path to the nomination. That is the job campaign strategists are supposed to do. But there’s such a thing as being…well, too strategic, if you will.

Sometimes you’ve just got to go with your candidate’s strengths and let the the chips fall where they may, trusting that those strengths will have them falling in the right places, to your candidate’s benefit. You don’t always have to micro-strategize every little element and nuance of the campaign. When you do, a candidate compliant with this approach can end up looking managed and inauthentic. Sometimes, what’s best for democracy is also what’s best for your candidate.

As it turns out, the simpler choice here would probably have proved the wiser and more beneficial. Hillary is a good and experienced debater. There were, after all (hard to believe, but true) 26 democratic primary debates in 2008. Moreover, Bernie is a gruff sounding (albeit lovable) character with a more narrowly focused agenda who doesn’t have the same type of charismatic appeal Obama had.

One can discern the rationale on the part of Hillary’s strategy team. Campaigns are usually about contrasts. The goal is to show that the ways in which my candidate is different from the others is the reason to vote for us. Hillary’s campaign wanted greater control over managing the contrasts and at the same time wanted to take advantage of the ways in which she shared Bernie’s values. The goal seems to have been to position her as generally sharing the same policy goals, but more practical and capable of achieving or at least making progress than the wild-eyed radical from Vermont who’s not even a Democrat for gosh sakes. Bernie’s the outlandish dreamer, Hillary’s the practical workhorse who gets the job done.

Also, they had the better debater in 2008 and it didn’t work out all that well for them then. So they wanted to de-emphasize the contrast on policy and, obviously, wanted to minimize the exposure Bernie would get from more debates and be seen as an equal to the heir apparent.

Here’s the problem though. After each of the first two debates Hillary increased her lead over Bernie. (The third one was too close to Christmas to get any reliable reading on whether there was a bump for her or not. One poll suggests not.) People saw the contrast, heard the post-debate buzzes and leaned farther in Hillary’s direction.

And here we are: less than three weeks out from Iowa, two polls now showing Bernie in the lead there, two polls showing him with 13 and 14 point leads in New Hampshire, and two national polls showing him down only four points and seven points to Hillary. (To be fair, there are also two recent polls showing Sanders down 15 and 39 points. Such is the variability in the polling world these days.)

Still Iowa and New Hampshire have got to be a huge concern for Clinton and it will be interesting to see if they now agree to more debates or stick with their original plan.  It will also be interesting to see if Clinton’s campaign strategy takes on more of a Romneyesque approach, that is, bludgeoning the opponents to death on TV as he did with each successive poll leader who made a run at him in 2012.