Penn Is Out Of Clinton Campaign!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Hallelujah! CNN reports Mark Penn is out of the Clinton campaign. Hooray!!

< Will Obama Act To Unify The Party? | Question the Media: Lichtblau Live Blog >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    OMG!!! (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:44:57 PM EST
    I wish it would not have taken so long!!

    Great news!!

    All that bad press on lobbying for trade (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:46:39 PM EST
    agreement w/Columbia.  

    Colombia (none / 0) (#49)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:03:31 PM EST
    Colombia and everything else, yes (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andrys on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:10:45 PM EST
    Thank GOD, that Penn had to resign.

    It did and does bother me that she hired him and paid him so much and followed his advice which hurt her very badly for so many months. Maybe we can stop now with the 3am ads and all the vast overcompensating on 'toughness' with respect to war and commandership. She's strong enough without that, but much weaker with all of it.  And then so strangely exaggerating besides.  I am a Hillary supporter, but she has to start listening to the rest of her staff, who are absolutely right that she did best during the campaign when just being herself.

      Something Penn did not want her to do.  He wanted the tough guy approach.  What a disaster.

      Just imagine how high the morale suddenly is within the campaign.  That has to help.  And it tremendously helps that he's not there and draining the campaign money too.


    She's going to have to do some of the tough... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:20:23 PM EST
    given the (albeit misguided) assumptions that exist re: women and weakness.

    Toughness (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by delandjim on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:39:09 PM EST
    Who on earth doesn't think she is tough enough. I hear people talk about how much tougher she is than Obama a lot.

    At a dinner party... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:21:49 PM EST
    I was quite literally told that leaders in the ME would not speak to a female president.

    Because Madeleine Albright and Condi Rice (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:36:24 PM EST
    were shunned there?

    I think when you're on the other end of the Red phone at 3AM, they'll pay attention/ ;-)


    I mentioned that... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:20:26 PM EST
    Drunk? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:39:36 PM EST
    And obviously talking out of their butts. Merkel has talked to ME leaders.

    Not drunk... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:18:41 PM EST
    just an idiot.

    Drunk On Hate (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:27:46 PM EST
    Or whatever, I was using the term loosely.  

    Some of us don't think the 3am ad was offensive (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:32:28 PM EST
    or an exercise in fearmongering. National security is a real issue. Why should Democrats ignore it?

    3am ad was simplistic (none / 0) (#161)
    by andrys on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:05:37 AM EST
    First, at that time of night, she answered the phone in her suit.  The first impression of the ad, for me? Artificial.

      While I'm a Clinton supporter I would have no problem with either Clinton or Obama answering the call (though I have less confidence after seeing his response to Chris Matthews this week! and less confidence in Clinton after her really strange 'exaggeration' of Bosnia (which was good enough on its own) despite having described it accurately in her book and knowing some hundred others were there and have memories.  

      I haven't seen why I'd feel better about her response to an emergency military situation than I would even Obama's.
      And I do not like Obama and almost surely will not vote for him in November if he insists on not divvying up Fla and Michigan in a fair way since he insisted on removing his name from one state but asked people to vote Uncommitted (he can have those then or even Gravel's, Dodd's, and Kucinich if negotiated) and he had ads playing
    6-8 times a day for almost 2 weeks in Florida during the final primary days, due to cleverly buying nat'l ad packages for that time period).  No one else did that.

      His disdain for voters who might threaten the range of his lead with votes cast back in January and Certified is pure cowardice and lack of principle to me.

      Dean's RULES were artificial and quite stupid.  And the voters' rights are paramount - not to mention Dean playing into Republican hands and not caring they controlled the primary dates and he's still willing to not allow voters their votes in a situation such as we're facing.  How stupid and destructive can he be?

      My interest in seeing Clinton as president (other than Obama's behavior during the campaign which I won't go into here but it's included in my blog-reference set) is her love of details that make up tough issues but are boring to most who run for that job.  She is truly interested in the changes and HOW they can be made (and has learned, she says, her lessons from the first go 'round).

     I remember Obama in Nevada primary week at the health care event saying his staff was still preparing his health care program and it would be on his website soon.  

      Her live responses (not prepared speeches) to the crazyman Jim Cramer on the economy (April 2 and viewable in whole at nbc.com) and how we weigh the possible solutions is something neither of the other candidates could do.  She is just plain smart and super energetic.  

      Her forte is not the 3am call, at least not beyond others who have not served in that position, and implying someone like Obama is less able to size up a situation and act with some prudence when consulting with his 'war-room' folks (quickly) is just not, to me, justified.  Definitely all three of them (McCain included) would be universes apart from the inanity of Bush during the 911 morning.


    Excellent news (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Korha on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:39:47 PM EST
    It's never too late to turn things around.

    Read the article again (none / 0) (#46)
    by Korha on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:42:10 PM EST
    Penn's still going to be consulting for her. So this is just an internal power shift within the campaign. Welcome nonetheless... but what will it take for the Clinton campaign to just axe the guy?  

    I see it (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:49:10 PM EST
    as equivalent to when a broadcaster relieves a media personality of his airtime but holds him to his contract so he can't be picked up by anyone else. He'll still be polling and consulting, but nobody will be listening, including people outside the campaign who might be able to get some insider insight from him if he was no longer "consulting".

    Hopefully you are right (none / 0) (#52)
    by Korha on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:16:30 PM EST
    Saving face measure, I hope (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by andrys on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:11:59 PM EST
    That he stays 'on' as an 'adviser' is probably a necessary save-face measure (and one that deters him from morphing into Dick Morris in a few hours).

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by delandjim on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:41:41 PM EST
    Good point about Morris. It's just bizarre how much he hates both of them.

    You are right about Morris, but- (none / 0) (#88)
    by kenosharick on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:02:53 PM EST
    what explains the sudden vicious hatred of the Clintons that has taken over much of the left? too bad Penn's departure comes too late to do much good. And yes the media will use it to bash Hillary, as usual.

    Answer: (none / 0) (#154)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:37:44 PM EST
    A) It is not hatred.

    B) It is not sudden.

    C) It is not vicious.

      The Clintons made their bed in the 1990s.  Their supporters in the primary (and why do we constantly refer to the Clintons? It is Senator Clinton we are really talking about) want us to simply forget the problems associated with the former First Family, the fact that she authorized the Iraq war, etc.  This is not "sudden."  

     While I like Senator Clinton, she is not my first (or second) choice for president in the primaries.  Ironically, I think the fact that she is liberal and left-leaning, and female, clouds her judgment.  She constantly looks to polls (a habit undoubtedly linked to her experience as First Lady) and believes she needs to appear "tough" to win over the American people.  Tough is one thing.  There were a sufficient number of "tough" senators who voted against this damnable war.  

     I think that Senator Clinton's supporters would do well to remember that "the left" is vital for both fundraising and votes in 2008, just as Senator Obama's supporters are reminded time and time again that we need to "unify" the party.  

     And finally, although I believe Senator Clinton is her own candidate, to the extent that the Clintons are a package deal, when talking about party unity and strengthening the Democrats, I think it is best to avoid bringing Bill into the picture.  


    are you joking? (none / 0) (#159)
    by kenosharick on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:19:36 PM EST
    you should read americablog or kos, ect. and try to tell me this is not vicious. It IS sudden, as it was not present(at least in writing) until recently. And yes calling her an "F*&ing W%#re" as randi rhodes did 5 times in a recent speech IS HATRED and vicious. This is one example among the countless.

    I'm not defending Rhodes... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:15:20 PM EST
    ...or anyone else.  But some Clinton supporters seem to believe that the only reason she lost support was because of a negative campaign run by Obama (a false meme).  In fact, there was not a lot of enthusiasm for the Clintons among many members of the left wing community.  She is only able to use the populist meme because Edwards is no longer in the race; the Clintons are many things, but economic populists they are not.

     It seemed sudden, I am sure, because the primary intensified over a short period of time.  But trust me, it was building.


    Why did it take them so long? (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by sar75 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:13:26 AM EST
    It's amazing that someone who claims so much experience and competence and readiness for day one would take so long to get rid of him.  

    I wonder if this has to do with her ongoing slide in Pennsylvania.  A new ARG poll, while admittedly not the most reliable outfit, has her tied with Obama 45-45.  That reflects the trends in other polls, even if I suspect she still has a slight (less than 5 lead).  If she wins by less than 10 points, does anyone really think 72% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates are going to go her way?

    Another sign of the sinking ship that is the Clinton campaign.


    Mark Penn's Effect on the Campaign Narrative (none / 0) (#104)
    by marcellus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:44:49 PM EST
    Glad to see Mark Penn is no longer the Chief Strategist!!!  I also hope they won't rely on his microtargeting polls anymore.  

    A Washington Post story claimed many have been hostile to Penn for a while.

    I trust Bill Clinton's instincts, include everyone:

    "Bill Clinton just aggressively disagreed," said a top campaign official involved in the discussion. "He was like, 'No, I'm going to South Carolina and it's stupid to cede it.' I think it was personal for him. He was not about to lose the African American vote he had spent so long" courting. So he went to South Carolina and stayed.

    I don't trust Mark Penn's instincts, target a small group only.  

    The Clinton camp ended up spending nearly $7 million in South Carolina, but Obama won in a landslide. On Jan. 26, the day of the election, Penn sent an e-mail to the senior campaign staff comparing Obama's victory there to Jesse L. Jackson's two wins in the 1980s. Bill Clinton made the same comparison to reporters that day, generating even more anger among African Americans who perceived it as a way of marginalizing Obama by portraying him as a black candidate who appeals only to black voters.

    If only it had happened earlier (none / 0) (#106)
    by litigatormom on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:48:46 PM EST
    Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Mark.

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:46:06 PM EST
    I just heard that on the news and my first thought was that BTD will be rejoicing!

    I'm no fan of Penn, but I fear the media will use this as anti-Hillary spin (her campaign is in disarray, blahblahblah).

    I agree with stillife (none / 0) (#31)
    by PennProgressive on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:10:12 PM EST
    It is too late for the campaign to benefit from it. Rather on the media it willl be viewed as the time  for re-arranginng the deck chairs on the titanic. I hope I am wrong on that!

    This, Like Most of What They're Doing Now (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:11:19 PM EST
    Is aimed at the Super Delegates.  And given Ickes enmity for Penn, it sorta makes sense.

    He gift-wrapped their excuse (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by herb the verb on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:15:28 PM EST
    Which shows how "good" a political operative he was.

    I have not been impressed with Clinton's choices in campaign leadership. She is paying the price.


    But right now (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:17:24 PM EST
    I'm sure liking Maggie Williams.

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by herb the verb on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:19:00 PM EST
    I also should have said "we ALL are paying the price".

    You bet the media will! (none / 0) (#59)
    by 1jane on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:30:17 PM EST
    Never thought we'd see this day!! (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by jeniferea on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:46:36 PM EST
    As a Hillary supporter, this is incredibly welcome news.  Now on to Ickes...

    No need to qualify (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by dmk47 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:51:34 PM EST
    For an Obama supporter like me, this is awesome news.

    I agree. (none / 0) (#153)
    by jsj20002 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:31:28 PM EST
    The trip to the woodshed was long overdue.  Keeping Penn on this long was a major weakness in Hillary's campaign.  He is the epitome of the politics of personal destruction.  

    Very welcome -- (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nemo52 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:38:30 PM EST
    hope it's not too late!

    After the Colombia snafu, (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:48:55 PM EST
    I think this was the only choice the campaign had - and why anyone thought he could continue his lobbying work for Burson-Marstellar while working for the Clinton campaign is a mystery to me.

    I wonder what effect, if any, this will have on the McCain campaign - in terms of the media questioning the prevalence of heavy-hitter lobbyists in his campaign.

    A Little Late (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:57:05 PM EST
    If you ask me.

    Afraid so. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    Media on Penn's exit (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:17:01 PM EST
    very disappointed in Geraldo tonight. He had on a Republican strategist and a professor, Michael Dyson. The professor, he failed to disclose, is an Obama supporter. Naturally, he dissed the Clinton campaign.

    Not only was it not fair or balanced, it was dishonest.

    Dyson... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:37:14 PM EST
    is an unabashed Obama supporter but nothing inherently wrong with that. His wife is a Hillary supporter and also a minister and obviously not a fan of Black Liberation Theology and I'm quite sure that they don't talk politics at home.

    uh huh. (none / 0) (#67)
    by PastorAgnostic on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:48:29 PM EST
    must be some written journalism rule that requires your candidate to be represented by a strong voice in any and every segment.

    That's not news. that's comparing cheerleaders, hardly the reporting of news.

    frankly, NEWS consists of facts, historical content, stirred with analysis, some of which may not be pleasant. It is NOT an opportunity to have another spin control display.


    Did you not read the comment? (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Davidson on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:01:34 PM EST
    We all know what the function of the news is but you have this most naive assumption that they only present the facts and provide serious "analysis" when obviously that is not the case.  Dyson is a staunch Obama supporter and his brilliant analysis includes concluding that the NH loss was due to white racist Clinton supporters, in spite of the fact that the facts showed otherwise (in terms of the Bradley effect).  Dyson also said, on that very same day, that any criticism of Obama was "racial in subtext."  To ask such an Obama supporter to comment on Clinton is absurd, at best.

    You're confusing "spin" and "objectivity."



    you may be right. (none / 0) (#144)
    by PastorAgnostic on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:57:24 AM EST
    objectivity in our modern media has been MIA for a decade, perhaps longer. In fact, I seem to recall what it used to look like, but its been so long, I may be mistaken.

    Just guessing... (none / 0) (#93)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:14:01 PM EST
    but after watching Jeralyn appearing on Geraldo's shows 14 years ago (OJ Trial), that she probably considers him to be a friend.

    I personally think that it is more damaging to watch something like MSNBC which some believe to be liberal with KO or CM, or listening to Air America with Stephanie Miller or Randi Rhodes because these people who you thought were your friends turned out to be nasty partisan hacks.

    At least with Fox, you are on guard and view what they say with greater inspection.

    That said, I'm not much of a fan of Geraldo's.


    I don't know that you are to the left (none / 0) (#125)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:30:55 PM EST
    of most posting here but I certainly concur that you are to the left of Obama...I think John McCain is figuratively to the left of Obama. (I'm conveniently ignoring the various left/right vote ratings in the Senate).

    Neither Hillary nor Obama have a progressive or left leaning agenda. Beyond the notion of what represents universal health care, this has not been a primary of ideas or policies but has been simply a contest of personality. Thus someone who considers themselves more than a little bit liberal really hasn't had a candidate since Kucinich and Edwards exited the race.

    Curiously this contest of personality has not leaked from candidates into media offerings where Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes and others have joined the fray to demonstrate it's not the Democratic party that they care about, rather it's only their own personal judgment.

    I find it amusing because I don't see much difference with Geraldo - he didn't lose credibility by going to Fox unless you felt he had credibility before he went there. I come not to bury Geraldo but I'm not likely to praise him either (and thereby incur the wrath of Jeralyn) and to be honest, Geraldo has always meant nothing to me and I never watched him at all except for:

    • OJ Trial (self-confessed junkie)
    • Opening of Al Capone's 'tomb' (final proof positive for me that watching Geraldo is a waste of time).

    Here's my bottom line...I didn't start out as a Hillary supporter and refuse to buy into right wing meme's about her divisiveness. She's clearly got the skills, positions, experience that I feel comfortable with of the 2 Democratic challengers. Obama is too much of an unknown for me to view as anything but preferable to McCain.

    I feel that the left is better represented by Hillary, health care, women's reproductive rights, LGBT, taxes, entitlements...(trying to remove the personality issues from the discussion)


    ignoring of course... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:37:57 AM EST
    that he really didn't grow up black in America, refuses to meet with LGBT leaders, that both candidates economic advisors are solidly in the column of free traders and the whole subject of NAFTA has been posturing for Ohio/Pennsylvania voters, I suppose what you say makes sense.

    Don't ask don't tell was a giant leap for the military at the time...perhaps you're just too young to get it in your head that sometimes progress comes in stages and DADT was a stage.

    The issue of Wright and Black Liberation Theology doesn't much drive me one way or another.

    As for McCain not torturing people, he had the opportunity to vote for the anti-Torture bill last month and voted against it so I wonder just how carefully you actually track what candidates say to what they have actually done.


    LGBT issues (none / 0) (#155)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    Senator Clinton has been on the Armed Forces committee for a while now.  If she is so much better than Senator Obama on gays in the military, I sure as hell haven't seen her sponsoring legislation in the senate to eliminate DADT.  Moreover, DADT was not just a "stage" of progress, it was a statute and a reflection of a broken campaign promise.

     Now, what does it mean that it was a statute? It means that the next president will need cooperation with the senate and house to reverse DADT.  It will not go away on its own.  Senator Boxer offered to organize a filibuster, btw, to prevent this outcome, a filibuster President Clinton turned down.  

     Second, there is very little a president can do on gay rights apart from the bully pulpit.  Senator Obama has promised to do this.  He has met with gay leaders, btw, and his campaign site contains a page for LGBT issues and voters (notably missing on Senator Clinton's site).

     Third, I often see a meme pop up that Senator Obama's church is homophobic.  It is not.  They have openly gay members, support gay marriages (and conduct ceremonies), etc.  

     Fourth, David Geffen, probably the most prominent and wealthy gay Democrat, has supported Senator Obama.  He had a falling out with the Clintons not over gay issues, but over his failure to pardon Leonard Peltier.  Again, an issue important to liberals and left-wingers, gay and straight.  


    umm... (none / 0) (#151)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:33:19 AM EST
    I think John McCain is figuratively to the left of Obama.

    yes I do (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:04:41 AM EST
    consider him a friend. And I wouldn't have minded Dyson if he at least was introduced as an Obama supporter as well as a prof and author. It's the non-disclosure I minded, since the other guest was introduced both as a Republican strategist and a former Romney campaign worker. By not mentioning Dyson's support for Obama, viewers would think he was just an author or professor and therefore neutral.

    Now the (perhaps) greatest (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by 1jpb on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:19:20 PM EST
    point of agreement between HRC and BO supporters is gone (sort of.)

    It was probably not a good sign that the agreement was based on dislike of someone.  Hopefully, some people will devote effort to thinking about positive reasons for agreement.  Time will tell.

    Yes, if Obama would dump Axelrod (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:44:08 PM EST
    for starters, your candidate would start to look better to me.

    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:02:00 PM EST
    Cuz Axelrod has presided over one of the most successful, and unexpectedly successful, campaigns in recent history.  Whether you talk about fundraising or the larger strategy?  He's doing exactly what he's supposed to do.

    Why fire him?


    He's practicing Philadelphia politics (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:09:54 PM EST
    A subject he knows a little bit about.

    Successful campaigns (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:27:48 PM EST
    do not necessarily result in a good candidate.  See: Deval Patrick.  Campaigning is one skill, governing is another.

    i think... (none / 0) (#157)
    by jor on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:30:24 PM EST
    ...george bush is a better example. Complete disaster. Don't know much about patrick, but I know obama is significantly smarter and better prepared than bush.

    Oh, yes, really. He's too Rovian by far (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:52:38 PM EST
    and also must share, or should say something to correct it, in a deep misunderstanding of many Dem voters and what matters to us.

    The two... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Alec82 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:02:23 PM EST
    ...aren't remotely comparable.  One, for example, is a committed Democrat.  The other works to make the Democratic Party Republican Light, in both perception and policy.

    Right: Axelrod has no business in the (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:15:18 PM EST
    Democratic Party.
    Having Obama talk up Reagan and Bush I is not what I want in my candidate, nor is having a candidate who leaps to the defense of McCain when Ed Schulz insults him, but has not a word about Randi Rhodes' abhorrent insult.
    Let's not forget the execreble "slavemaster" essay which has been on Obama's website since February.
    Obama owns the copyrights to that one, btw.. hehe.. wonder if he'll reprint it?

    So you're characterizing Mark Penn (none / 0) (#110)
    by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:57:01 PM EST
    as a tried and true Democrat? That's laughable. You should really look into whose beds he crawls into over at that PR firm.

    Axelrod: Astro turf campaigns (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:12:49 PM EST
    What is astro turf,  basically fake grass roots campaigns for corporations.  

    Note that Goolsbee is still with Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:29:20 PM EST

    Goolsbee is a feature, not a bug (none / 0) (#87)
    by dmk47 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:02:06 PM EST
    Given that the Democratic party is in favor of having markets, it might just be an asset to have somebody who understands them really, really well and is committed to a more equitable distribution of wealth.

    NO... (none / 0) (#158)
    by jor on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:31:06 PM EST
    ... we much lynch people those who don't toe the party line.  

    to clarify: there is nothing wrong with (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:48:31 PM EST
    one candidate saying that another is not good enough! In fact, that's what I WANT to see.
    I have NO problem with Hillary's CIC question for Obama---it is spot on.
    There is also every reason to question whether he has sufficient experience to be President.
    What I don't like is Obama campaigning like Bush in 2000, more or less, saying that we will have someone  trustworthy at the helm. Also, taking a line from the Onion, Obama seems to be campaigning against the "long national nightmare" of the 90's, instead of against Bush.

    Hillary's campaign will (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MKS on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:50:36 PM EST
    probably do better now....

    She should have canned him and Solis Doyle a long time ago.....

    Wolfson and Mandy Grunwald seem more on the ball....

    OT but cool (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:10:39 PM EST
    Google map of Hillary world visits. Click on the tags to see the visit.  

    I really have no opinion (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by facta non verba on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:50:20 PM EST
    on Mark Penn vis-a-vis the Clinton campaign. As a Colombian, I was a little less than thrilled to hear his statement about it being an error to have met with the Colombian Ambassador to the United States as a representative of Burton-Marstellar. That comment led to Burton-Marstellar being relived of its duties.

    This whole sorry episode puts me in quite quandary. Having spent an hour or so perusing various blogs, I am horrified at the comments made at my country of birth. Those on the Huffington Post  and Crooks and Liars were the worst. As a Colombian, I have long been aware of the mischaracterization of Colombian realities in the US media but I am truly offended at what many Americans believe about Colombia and the Colombian government. This extends to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Mr. Obama's comments the other day in Pennsylvania were outright lies. He made it seem that 200 trade unionists had been killed in the past year. The actual number is 26. Obama decided to cite statistics some four years old.

    So much so that the Colombia government feels compelled to send a note of protest to the US State Department protesting  characterizations of Colombia as some sort of right wing dictatorship. If you Spanish, a link to comments by President Alvaro Uribe.

    Can you post the quote from the article? (4.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:32:23 PM EST
    I remember reading that Axelrod was behind the "personal destruction" campaign.. I'm not going to wade through that article to find the quote though.

    Now here's a question (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:43:34 PM EST
    will Hillary bring in Neil Oxman? For PA, there's no one better IMO.

    Hahaha (none / 0) (#2)
    by ajain on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:43:35 PM EST
    I think all no news is more welcome to all democrats - whoever they support.

    Seems they're only stripping his title (none / 0) (#5)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:46:33 PM EST
    After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as Chief Strategist of the Clinton Campaign; Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign. Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson will coordinate the campaign's strategic message team going forward.


    He's out (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:48:14 PM EST
    An announcement like this is real.

    That's a statement from Maggie Williams (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:49:25 PM EST
    Did not say it was not (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:50:50 PM EST
    Penn is out.

    The Nation's desire that it not be so notwithstanding.


    The statement: (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:51:59 PM EST

    Statement from Maggie Williams

    After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as Chief Strategist of the Clinton Campaign; Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign.
    Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson will coordinate the campaign's strategic message team going forward.

    Buying his silence... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by herb the verb on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:55:25 PM EST
    is a good idea.

    Ding ding ding (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:56:07 PM EST
    BTW, Letting him say he asked out is fine with me too.

    Probably wants to spend more time (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:57:51 PM EST
    w/his family.

    Hahahaha!! n/t (none / 0) (#40)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:19:04 PM EST
    Soyles... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:00:10 PM EST
    they used the same language.  

    Garin and Wolfson have to do a better (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:59:16 PM EST
    job than Penn speaking on behalf of the Clinton candidacy.

    The campaign manager clearly states: (none / 0) (#15)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:53:27 PM EST
    Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign.

    The Nation has nothing to do with it.


    It has everything to do with it (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:55:37 PM EST
    Penn's firm is not the problem. Penn is.

    Sorry, but The nation's spin is meaningless here. PENN is out. That Penn's people do some polling means nothing.

    Garin is calling the polling shots now.

    If you cannot recognize face saving, that is on you. I can.


    It isn't Nation spin (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:58:46 PM EST
    it is the direct quote from the campaign. Note the wording, citing two entities:

    [Mark], and [Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates], Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign.

    I clicked your link (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:01:01 PM EST
    I did not say YOUR QUOTE was spin, I said the Nation, as reflected in your SUBJECT TITLE, was spin.

    You knew that of course. Instead of being happy to see the demise of one of the most destructive and incompetent political operatives ever - you seem intent on denying what has happened.

    I am not sure why - though I have my suspicions.


    You said that Penn himself is gone (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:04:09 PM EST
    but his firm was still involved.

    PENN is out. That Penn's people do some polling means nothing.

    That is incorrect, according to Maggie Williams.


    He is gone, get over it. (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by herb the verb on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:09:58 PM EST
    This is the way the game is played getting rid of a liability that was a powerful insider and able to damage you if not handled respectfully.

    But you knew that already and are just picking the scab.


    That is CORRECT (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:05:37 PM EST
    according to everyone, including Maggie Williams. I have no idea how you read it the way you do and have a pretty good idea why you seem intent to read it that way.

    Sorry, you're wrong (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:09:06 PM EST
    unless Ms. Williams changes this statement:

    [Mark], and [Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc.] will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign.

    It means:

    1. Mark will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign.


    2. Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign.


    We heard you the first 3 times (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by herb the verb on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:11:26 PM EST
    According to the statement... (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by sar75 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:19:56 AM EST
    ...Penn is still involved in the campaign.  That may not be the reality, but that is what the statement says.

    Stop beating up on bumblebuns for quoting the Clinton campaign's statement, which seems pretty clear to me.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:11:59 PM EST
    You want to believe what you want to believe. As if you do not know what it means.

    but have it kiddo.


    shrug (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:13:31 PM EST
    I don't care whether he stays or goes. It says what it says.

    Ha ha, so if Penn is really gone.... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:34:47 PM EST
    ....will you call them liars?

    It's okay (none / 0) (#112)
    by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:59:02 PM EST
    Most other sites, including MyDD, have agreed with your interpretation, not BTD's. Though ambiguity remains.

    Bet there's an 'if asked' involved there (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:23:10 PM EST
    They gave him and the firm a 'save face' statement. Sounds like the are covered on what Penn was providing. If they decide to call and ask his advice, methinks it won't be broadcast.

    The microtargeting polls (none / 0) (#107)
    by marcellus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:51:01 PM EST
    that the Clinton strategy was based on is the problem.  If he was fired and bought off then those polls also will not be used anymore then it'll be fine.

    Really he is out and his career (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:53:16 PM EST
    in just a few short days has suffered a train wreck of epic proportion.

    Will Clinton take his calls now?  Maybe if she isn't too busy cleaning up his mess.

    I promise this guy is toast and it is no surprise because he has proven himself to be miserably incompetent.  The Colombia deal was the straw that broke the camel's back.  He broke a cardinal rule within the PR industry by attempting to represent two clients with competing interests.

    He is now at the point where he is menatlly packing up his office at Burson because it is only a matter of time before they announce a "realignment" there.

    PR is a weird industry because its art is applied internally as if people on staff can't read between the lines they write everyday.  Everything is done politely and passive-aggressively.  I knew some guys who had offices and assistants for months, but just weren't given any clients or allowed to keep those they brought in.

    All of a sudden no one calls, no one consults with them and it is all a waitng game on the part of management to either run their contract out or make them so crazy bored with making paper airplanes all day that they leave on their own.  That's Penn's fate based on what I've seen and I am pretty sure Senator Clinton won't be calling on him much if at all anymore.

    Penn is now definitely toast all around this town.   Clinton will not be an exception.


    That's intentionally soft language (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by dmk47 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:54:45 PM EST
    but the bottom line is that he's out, and thank Jehovah for it.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:47:34 PM EST
    n 2001, Mr. Garin's strategic research helped Mark Warner win the governorship in Virginia, despite the state's strong Republican leanings. Mr. Garin has directed the polling and created winning campaign strategies for many of the leading Democrats serving in the U.S. Senate, including Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Russ Feingold, Robert C. Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, Patrick Leahy, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, and Byron Dorgan.  In the 2004 presidential election, Mr. Garin was the polling advisor to General Wesley Clark and was the pollster for the Democratic National Committee's independent expenditure campaign in the general election.

    May have just in time (none / 0) (#91)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:12:31 PM EST
    based on this PA poll

    I think they aren't the most accurate (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:34:10 PM EST
    I've been following Gallup and SUSA.

    ARG Polls... (none / 0) (#143)
    by sar75 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:23:04 AM EST
    ...are not as accurate.  However, this one is in line with the general trend, which is a clear narrowing in Pennsylvania.  If Clinton can't win by more than 10, she really can't win this nomination (I don't think she can one way or another, but 10+ in Pennsylvania lets her continue).  Of course, if she's between 5-10 she'll make the case that she should.  But under 5 in PA - I don't see how she does.  Supers will jump the next week and North Carolina will be a 20+ point Obama blowout.  

    I rally think it is Maggie Williams who (none / 0) (#95)
    by hairspray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:16:17 PM EST
    is one of the bright stars there.  After Patti was demoted and Maggie came on to cover Ohio, there were reports in the media that the campaign was like a "new day."  I also read that Hillary put the man who helped so much in California in charge of TX and thats when things changed.  He, whoever he is, has now been dispatched to work miracles in NC.  We will see.

    His name is Ace Smith (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:17:20 PM EST
    son of the former SF District Attorney

    He is very good


    Arlos' son? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:16:39 PM EST
    yes (none / 0) (#150)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:18:32 AM EST
    Read the article (none / 0) (#137)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:08:27 AM EST
    I am not suggesting that.  Axelrod says:  that Obama has to push the story of his life to beat Hillary's experience.  
    Axelrod says that the way to cut through all the noise is to see campaigns as an author might, to understand that you need not just ideas but also a credible and authentic character, a distinct politics rooted in personality.

    For Obama, because of Senator Hillary Clinton's far-greater experience and establishment backing, this is a particularly essential project. "If we run a conventional campaign and look like a conventional candidacy, we lose," Axelrod says.

    The Obama campaign by it's nature is not about issues, it's about Obama.  Only problem is that the nation was ready for issues.  

    this thread is about Mark Penn (none / 0) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:08:41 AM EST
    it's been cleaned of way off topic comments. Please discuss other topics on an open thread.

    Dude, you so got your wish (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:02:28 AM EST
    If you were going to play the lottery....ummm...what numbers would you pick today ?

    On CNN I have to say that she's (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:03:53 AM EST
    getting some fair and balanced press coverage on it too.  I wonder if it will hold?

    The Pen Moves On (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jaman on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:04:16 AM EST
    We have been told over and again how experience is the most important factor favoring Hillary Clinton.  But the most telling contrast we have of these two candidates is how they have run their campaigns.  Clinton's is top down, old school, power connections and Bill.  The other is bottom up, cooperation and involvement with the grass roots, and team play.  Clinton is losing battles everyday--like Penn, like the phony stories; Obama is winning new Super Delegates every day or so and is showing an ability to handle events in a cool, calm way thats says, "I can handle the pressure"--3am or high noon.

    Big Tent has now said she thinks Obama will win.  If that is really true, what is your strategy to win in November?  Continuing to wage a war that cannot be won sounds kind of familiar and crazy to me.

    Or is he? (none / 0) (#156)
    by faux facsimile on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    Penn certainly doesn't seem to be acting the part.