home

How Bad Was Mark Penn?

This bad:

[I]in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there[,] [a]s aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. . . . Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?"

One good thing about this campaign is the utter demise of the idea that Mark Penn is a competent political operative.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< Declaring Victory: Remember, Florida And Michigan Will Count In November | There Will Be An Election In November >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Good Lord (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Nadai on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    He's taken stupid to a whole new level.

    Yeah, Penn was bad (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:27:57 AM EST
    Very bad.  I always quote Harold Ickes when he said in an article in the NYTimes back in Feb.

    Hillary is better than her campaign

    Penn's bad strategy, based in arrogance and thinking people in DC feared him, worked very badly for Hillary.  And she tried to give him chance time and time again (even against Bill's wishes), but after the 11 states loss debacle and the Colombia trade mess, she had to move him out.

    I wish she would fire him, but I think contractually she's stuck with him.

    And I agree with you.  If anything, this will destroy Mark Penn's reputation and that of his firm.  I don't see too many people hiring Penn's firm anymore.

    And yes, Axelrod, former newspaper reporter and Chicago Machine crony bamboozled the Dems (well, some of them, not me).  

    Hillary's bad judgment (none / 0) (#87)
    by diogenes on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:53:37 PM EST
    If Mark Penn is so bad, then what does that say about Hillary's ability to judge personnel and make effective personnel decisions?  Not what I'd want in my president.

    Parent
    Judgement (none / 0) (#88)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:37:13 AM EST
    You have nothing to say re judgement.

    We could start with Rezko and go on to the good Rev and continue with Ayers.

    But the really bad part is that Obama plays dumb regarding Rezko as an example.

    It's implausable that Obama could not have known of Rezko's acts just as it's implausable that after two decades Obama was unaware of the nature of the good Rev.

    If he truly didn't know of either then he's too thick to be President.  If he knew (how could he not) then he's a bald faced liar insulting everyone's intelligence.

    Parent

    He is like Dick Morris (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:25:13 AM EST
    who, of course, was a sleazy pollster that HRC supported in the past.

    This is an HRC problem, the buck stops at the top.  And, HRC has a record of being a micro-targeting trianguator, with "flexible" core principles (e.g. Mirian Wright Edelman being upset by the specifics of her well fare reform betrayal: there could have been a different, but still major reform version.)  HRC supporters are too close to look at the clear record, HRC wouldn't know what she stands for without these pollsters telling her what the right answer is.  The value of Penn isn't that he knows about delegates, he is critical because he tells HRC what she "stands for."  Most recently, without him, or his ilk, there would never have been the McCain/Clinton flimflam gas plan.  Without pollsters, there would be no HRC positions.  No double talk on driver's licenses, or nuke power, or obliterating, or hunting, or the "goal" of mandates, or mountain top mining, or SS cap, or church (don't ask about attendance records), or the ever changing sloganeering (solutioner, doer, resultser, fighter, changemaker), or beer and shot drinking for the room crammed with photogs (reminds me of Bush clearing brush), or gas pumper (don't ask about actual experience pumping gas) or anything in the HRC campaign.

    Just say no to phony sleazy (over paid) pollsters.

    Oh please. Axelrod is the most disgusting (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:28:08 AM EST
    of all the advisers, period.
    He is the one who planned the race-baiting campaign that took Obama over the top.
    No thanks.
    This is a crystallizing moment for many Clinton supporters, as they realize there is no chance at all they will vote for Obama in the fall----zilch.
    My vote is in a red state which will not be in play. If I were in a swing state, I probably would stay  home.
    Obama is that bad.


    Parent
    Yeah, (none / 0) (#27)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:35:32 AM EST
    I heard Axlerod forced Bill Clinton to make the Jesse Jackson commnent at gunpoint.

    Parent
    Yeah, Axelrod is a "typical (none / 0) (#31)
    by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:37:21 AM EST
    white woman"

    Parent
    At least Obama (none / 0) (#42)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:43:22 AM EST
    apologized for his choice of words.

    Parent
    Bill and Hillary (none / 0) (#52)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:47:30 AM EST
    apologized repeated for hurting anyone's feelings about the Jesse Jackson remark.

    Moreover, the exaggerated reaction was so over-played that it was shocking to most of us that it worked.  Except that it worked.

    Parent

    I live in SC (none / 0) (#63)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM EST
    and work with many AA's.  The reaction here was not overplayed in the media, it was actually under reported.  A lot of people felt the Clintons had turned on them.

    Parent
    The Clinton's never turned on AA's (none / 0) (#68)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM EST
    Obama has played the race card through the entire primaries and ruined Bill Clinton's reputation as the fairest president to African Americans in the history of this country.

    But lies always come back to haunt you.

    Parent

    The AA people I know (none / 0) (#72)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:19:20 AM EST
    who talk about feeling betrayed by the Clintons are genuinely sad about this.  It's not just some meme pushed by the evil Axelrod.  These are real people and real emotions.

    Parent
    But they are feeling badly about LIES (none / 0) (#76)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:27:29 AM EST
    that's the problem.
    Clinton did not say anything racist, just factual.  

    It was Obama's camp who made any critic of Obama racist and they used it in the black community to turn some against the very President who improved their lives.

    That's what your friends should be sad about... being used by whites again and getting a bi-racial man to turn them against their best interests.

    Parent

    Back at you from SC! (none / 0) (#75)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    Not a big deal here where JJ started out.

    Parent
    No. He was just the one (none / 0) (#33)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:38:12 AM EST
    that decided after that comment that they should write the media a 4 pg memo about how to capitalize on it. Worked too.  Bill pointing out a fact turned into they hate black people.

    Parent
    I am 100% (none / 0) (#48)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    certain that you know your comment is wrong.

    Some SC campaign person compiled news stories about the HRC campaign into a memo.  They were MSM news stories in  a memo.

    This is not a big conspiracy.  Even so, BO said that he didn't think it was a good idea that this compilation of MSM news stories was compiled in a memo.  

    This is such a non-story.  Straws being grasped.  Sad.

    Parent

    Revisionist history (none / 0) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:51:27 AM EST
    at its finest!

    Okey-dokey (as Obama would say).

    Parent

    No, actually, I'm 100% correct. (none / 0) (#57)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:51:59 AM EST
    I watched all 20+ debates. Every single one. Member the one where they pulled out the 4 pg memo about how Obama's campaign was looking to capitalize on the race issue?  

    Yeah, not a conspiracy theory. Right out in the open actually.

    Parent

    What now, do read minds? (none / 0) (#81)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:56:26 AM EST
    No, but I remember previouse commenters. n/t (none / 0) (#83)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:12:34 PM EST
    You mean the BAITED (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:41:07 AM EST
    statement that Jesse Jackson himself didn't have a problem with?

    Please don't try and change history.  The race baiting was a deliberate act by the Obama campaign.  They have a memo on the subject.

    Parent

    Rendell said is was bad. n/t (none / 0) (#49)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:45:19 AM EST
    A memo (none / 0) (#55)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:50:21 AM EST
    in response to what was begining to look like a coordinated line of attack from the Clintons.  

    This isn't changing history, it is just a different perception of what happened. People will probably always differ on this.  

    Parent

    NO. The memo was about how to CAPITALIZE (none / 0) (#58)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:52:45 AM EST
    on the fact that Obama had successfully painted the Clintons as racist and won SC.

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:52:57 AM EST
    When Bill Clinton said that Obama's Iraq story was a fairy tale, that was decried as racism.  IMHO, it WAS a manufactured tale.

    When Hillary Clinton said that MLK needed LBJ to pass his policies, that was also decried as racism.

    Yeah, coordinated effort, but by who?

    Parent

    Yet, when McPeak was brought on stage (none / 0) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:02:13 AM EST
    by Obama and promptly compared Bill Clinton to McCarthy, not a cry was heard for Obama to denounce and reject.

    Parent
    cannondaddy (none / 0) (#89)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:50:50 AM EST
    you're saying that Bill Clinton's political analysis of the South carolina was racist.

    Baloney.  The Big Dog was correct and Jesse Jackson, no less, agreed.

    Continued race baiting damages everyone and will get you and your candidate nowhere.

    If your candidate is the nominee he'll need the votes of Clinton supporters. When you pump out nonsense like that you damage that cause.

    The great majority of the people who read and comment on this site are far better informed than you and won't buy the inferior crap you're peddling.

    Parent

    great (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:27:28 AM EST
    I guess that means he will be a FOX NEWS regular brought on the bash the clintons.

    Parent
    Good campaigns do not translate into (none / 0) (#28)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:35:34 AM EST
    good presidents. They just don't.

    Parent
    Actually, you're wrong. (none / 0) (#36)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:39:01 AM EST
    All of the greatest presidents have been successful campaigners.  Think about it, you'll get it.

    Parent
    And some (none / 0) (#43)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:43:35 AM EST
    lousy ones too (e.g. BUSH).  Good campaigning does not correlate to good governing.

    Parent
    Think about GWB (none / 0) (#45)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:44:07 AM EST
    then YOU will get it.

    Parent
    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#54)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:48:36 AM EST
    ran an awesome campaign.

    Parent
    LOL* (none / 0) (#53)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:48:29 AM EST
    A person with an eye for the obvious.  :)

    Parent
    Great campaigner versus great campaign (none / 0) (#84)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:35:48 PM EST
    I agree being a great campaignER is a good skill to have, but even there -- George Bush was a great campaigner and had a great campaign, but he's been one of the worst Presidents.

    Parent
    Nevermind... I just got your joke... heh ; ) (none / 0) (#85)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:37:19 PM EST
    Hilarious ijpb (none / 0) (#90)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:04:03 AM EST
    of course they were successful campaigners.  They won.

    However, successful campaigner does not translate to good President. George W. Bush was a successful campaigner and Al Gore had Donna Brazile run his campaign.

    Lincoln lost his race against Douglas and only won the Presidency because the nation was seriously divided.  For that matter, in some areas Lincoln wasn't a very good judge of men. Look at how long it took him to find a general that understood how to win.

    All arguments about picking campaign managers or successful campaigners is so much hogwash.

    Parent

    *gulp* (none / 0) (#2)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:02:05 AM EST
    I certainly knew he was bad, but I had no idea.

    Objection, your honor. (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarissa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    Hearsay.

    it is but you can see it in their strategy (none / 0) (#6)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:07:08 AM EST
    she went for the "big states democrats have to win",  she basically ignored the caucuses (which was mistake #3 on that times list).

    you can see that they just assumed the caucuses wouldn't effect much and it was all about big states, why Penn wasn't fired THAT day is beyond me. the second my Chief strategist lets on he doesn't actually understand the rules we are working under.

    yeah he should have been gone.  

    Parent

    Did That Really Matter? (none / 0) (#9)
    by flashman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:13:13 AM EST
    Pouring resources into caucus states may not have been all that smart.  Her core supporters weren't really causus people.  Obama would have probably won anyway.  During a particularly bad sopt in the schedule, she retreated to Texas and Ohio to 'restart' her on the way to winning some contests.  It truned to be a brilliant move, IMO, and would have been decisive, if she could have kept up the momentum.  That Obama could snatch it back away from her with all the stuff that was going on with him at the time tells me she was dealing with forces unseen.

    Parent
    Yeah it matter because (none / 0) (#46)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    it have Obama the momentum and the press that would propell him to front runner status without any major effort.

    By making Obama the "underdog", it got him the sympathy vote.  And although those wins were in caucus states that will TOTALLY go Republican in November, it look very good on a PR level.

    Perception is everything.  Obama "looked" like the candidate of "change" (if I hear that one more time, I'm going to hurt someone).  And Mark Penn's arrogance refused to make the necessary changes when Super Tuesday didn't go as well as they thought.

    I believe Hillary would have changed strategy after Iowa, but Penn didn't want to spend money on campaigning, only on himself.  To think how much money he got to be a total failure makes me so pissed.

    I can only hope that Penn's firm and it's reputation is jacked up for his lousy campaign strategy for Hillary.

    Parent

    yes it mattered (none / 0) (#73)
    by g8grl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    because Obama got most of his pledged delegate lead during the period after Super Tuesday before Ohio and Texas.  

    Parent
    Remember Texas (none / 0) (#80)
    by flashman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:42:59 AM EST
    and the disparity between the caucus and election.  It proved to me that Hillary would not win causes no matter what.

    Parent
    Overruled (none / 0) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    Goes to the modus operandi.

    Parent
    Ugh (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:02:36 AM EST


    The basics. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    Penn was a GOP pollster most of the time right?

    He may also have thought that California would be a leading demographic indicator.  He didn't count on the post racial narrative that the media and Obama spun.

    books will be written (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    on the incompetence of this campaign

    Caucus Errors (none / 0) (#23)
    by Athena on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    The abdication of the caucuses was beyond stupid.  

    Parent
    yes, the HC camp didn't give it the due it (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:10:46 AM EST
    deserved, but Obama's aggressive tactics didn't help the appearance that he strong armed his successes in these caucuses. That, and the online commenters just made him look like he bought and paid for pundit gen Xers,and Yners with potty blogs.

    I hope this election will question the viability of this medium to communicate for the masses as some want it to be.

    Internet has made impacts, but, the kids have gotten out of hand.

    Parent

    Speaking of books about campaigns (none / 0) (#25)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:32:33 AM EST
    Vanity Fair has an exerpt from the new Robert Kennedy book out later this month.

    And yes. there will be as many books written about what they did wrong as about Obama did right.

    Parent

    Opinion only (none / 0) (#30)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:37:18 AM EST
    here, but I don't agree.  I do agree that Penn let Obama get the memes going and didn't counterpunch fast enough.  That's why we've been saddled with his Obamamath all season.

    But...she was not in trouble until the race card delivered him 80 percent of the vote.  The Potomac blow-out was not defensible given the stats.

    Even in that massacre, she won 6 out of 10 registered Dems.  That's right.

    It's the AA voter bloc that is unbeatable under the current system.

    And if anyone thinks the system will be changed now that has been determined, I've got some real estate in the desert that I'm sure you'll find water on.  :)

    Parent

    Exactly. Intelligent people can see that (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:38:40 AM EST
    Obama used the most underhanded, slimy attack possible to defeat Clinton.
    Observant people will remember this in  November.
    No votes for racist Democrats---sorry.

    Parent
    Lets amend this... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    "No votes for racist Democrats---sorry."

    to, no votes for racists regardless of political affiliation, period.

    Parent

    Smart campaigns always (none / 0) (#40)
    by brodie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:41:35 AM EST
    have a backup Plan B ready to implement should the initial strategy fall short.  HRC's team should have had things in place to at least keep Obama's margins down in the post-SupTues states in Feb, which would have kept her much closer on his heels going into early March.  

    But, alas, not many campaigns are successful when they allow the oppo to run the table for an entire month.

    Penn and his idiotic narrow-minded strategy reminds me of those brutish hard-slugging overconfident heavyweight boxers (Liston, Foreman) who only planned to go 2-3 rounds because they'd always won that way -- only to find they were in real trouble when they went against that one smart opponent skillful enough to avoid an early knockout.

    And, yes, let's note here that the "refs", in this case the MCM, certainly helped Obama stay alive to survive SupTues and beyond.

    Parent

    Eh... the gas tax attack was almost as bad (none / 0) (#8)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:11:54 AM EST
    I actually believe that Hillary was pressing in NC and blowing out Obama in Indiana, but Obama seemed to score alot of points with counterpunching that gas tax attack. It seemed like the perfect issue to showcase his message of ending "politics as usual."

    It just is a horrible, horrible campaign... including this type of back-biting and innercampaign fighting.

    I'm still not sure about that (none / 0) (#12)
    by dianem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:17:51 AM EST
    I don't think Obama won because of the gas tax. I think it was straight politics: money, message, methods. He had more money, he had the "Clinton is an evil racist politician" message, and he had enough people on the ground supporting him to GOTV. Don't underestimate the value of having Daily Kos bloggers daily exhortations to Obama supporters to Make Those Calls, or the value of having mayor's willing to bus in kids to the polls to vote for Obama.

    Parent
    It could have been a good issue or a neutral (none / 0) (#24)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:31:13 AM EST
    issue, but the Hillary ads were sooooo bad and the Obama ads were so good, that it made Hillary look ridiculous. The main thing is that it distracted voters from Wright. If Hillary would have just been happy with making it under 10 in NC, instead of going for the "kill," she would be in a much better position.

    Parent
    Obama's ads weren't that good (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:52:50 AM EST
    it's about hype.

    You can convince someone that bullcrap is good if you market it right.

    Personally, I'm tired of Obama now.  His faux preacher speech is getting tired and now people are questioning the lack of substance.  And it's a real question.

    Parent

    Not to me (none / 0) (#61)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    I thought her ads were sharp, and his were fuzzy and elitist.  But that was his audience, too.  The triangle....the triangle....

    I'm with BTD on NC.  All about demographics.

    Parent

    The gas attack wasn't an issue (none / 0) (#37)
    by Manuel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:39:14 AM EST
    Hillary won all the late deciders.

    Parent
    despite that, there are now some states (none / 0) (#74)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    considering gas tax holidays. It just didn't run  long enough to reach people but still, Hillary did good job of defending it.

    Sheesh it went to trust. And even Obama who voted for the tax while state senator, didn't bother to mention it, at least on MTP, because there was benefit, temporarily which was Hillary's contention. Holiday implies short term.

    Parent

    Come off it! (none / 0) (#78)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:33:28 AM EST
    Ads, schmads.  He won NC because he had 91%, was it, of the vote by one fairly large group locked up ahead of time. I think it took too long for everyone else to realize what was happening; women  admired the pony for a tad too long.

    Parent
    very, very bad (none / 0) (#10)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:17:11 AM EST
    and it reflected poorly on Clinton for choosing him.  The ONLY thing I give Obama is that he selected people who knew how to work the nominating system that is currently in place.  That reflects well on him. However, so far he sucks as a leader.  I guess that makes him a good manipulator.

    He did not choose them (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:26:36 AM EST
    the team chose him.  Obama is a product.  Packaged sealed and delivered.  Axelrod played the game to win the primary.  But I don't think he has it for the GE.  He did all the framing, the caucus game, racist bit to take the block of AA voters, the viral stuff on the net and used white liberal guilt to it's max.  Tell me how this will play in the National Election?  Of course they are lucky as heck that they are running against a cadavre.  

    The tragic part is Hillary was the first candidate who had the intellect, the street smarts, capacity and the right political position to actually be a great president.  

    The Dem primary process is a crafted dinosaur designed for fairness that causes the dems to lose every election.  

    Parent

    Fairness to whom? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Manuel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:38:16 AM EST
    Not the voters, not the candidates, not the large states.   Just who is this process fair to?  The party hacks?


    Parent
    "fairness" (none / 0) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:43:48 AM EST
    Yes, you are right, I was using it  as to how it was designed to give political minorities and smaller states a fair share.  But you are right it is not fair.

    Parent
    Hel* yeah.... (none / 0) (#47)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:44:31 AM EST
    I couldn't agree w/you more.

    Parent
    Thank you.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:54:52 AM EST
    you said exactly what I was going to say.

    Like Bush was chosen by the Republicans in power, so has Obama been chosen by those Dems who are going to use him as the "figurehead" to get back into power without giving any real solutions.

    Hillary is the first candidate who is highly qualified for the job and yet, as usual, is blown off for the slick newcomer.

    People like shiny new things.

    Parent

    Bush (none / 0) (#14)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:19:57 AM EST
    ran a good campaign too with Karl Rove....

    Parent
    why is the people who know how to govern (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:21:49 AM EST
    never know how to win.
    its depressing.

    Parent
    There is a certain stubborn pride (none / 0) (#26)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    with Hillary and Bill Clinton's campaign team that reminds me of Dubya and Bush 41's team. She wanted everything to be her show.

    Parent
    Just my pet theory (none / 0) (#64)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:55:33 AM EST
    but I think Penn is running on fumes, of a particular type.  ahem

    I believe he's faltered in the past few years, but nobody could pinpoint the problem until it was too late.

    He's run very successful campaigns for her, so it's OK that she hired him again in my book.

    I was very grateful, however, when Columbia came up and gave the campaign an excuse to move him aside.

    All in all, that was a gift.

    Parent

    Just my pet theory (none / 0) (#65)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:55:47 AM EST
    but I think Penn is running on fumes, of a particular type.  ahem

    I believe he's faltered in the past few years, but nobody could pinpoint the problem until it was too late.

    He's run very successful campaigns for her, so it's OK that she hired him again in my book.

    I was very grateful, however, when Columbia came up and gave the campaign an excuse to move him aside.

    All in all, that was a gift.

    Parent

    I blame the fact that (none / 0) (#11)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:17:45 AM EST
    Obama will win the no squarely on this idiot's shoulders. The caucus systems were gamed by Axelrod.

    You should always judge a candidate (none / 0) (#19)
    by sister of ye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:27:28 AM EST
    By their campaign operatives. It's wonderful that Obama can claim the moral high ground by having employed that upstanding character, David Axelrod.

    And George W. Bush has run some of the most effective campaigns in modern history. How has that worked out, anyway?

    Oh, yeah, /snark, in case it wasn't obvious.


    Agree about Penn (none / 0) (#22)
    by brodie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:28:18 AM EST
    and Hillary being too loyal to someone very ill-suited to be chief strategist.   Very unfortunate corporatist/DLC  profile Penn gave her campaign too.  

    A real shame that the extraordinarily competent and loyal Jimmy Carville wasn't available to run her campaign.  Or Begala.

    As for IN and NC, I thought her gas tax proposal helped shift the discussion away from Obama's negatives -- Wright, his inability to connect with avg lunch bucket voters, his inability to close the deal with primary voters -- and it became a negative story about Hillary and "pandering" in the final few days.

    That and her unfortunate use of the word "obliterate" with regard to that hypothetical on Iran.  

    Oh what might have been if she'd only not cast that stupid vote in 2002 on Iraq ...

    Obliterate (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sister of ye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    I realize this may be a sole opinion, but I commend Clinton using the word. It makes clear the ugly reality behind nuclear deterrence that American politicians love to coat over - as with Obama, who approves of the concept, but wants it prettied up. (And also thinks it's something we voters shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about in a campaign.)

    Only if we face the reality honestly is there any hope of getting a world where we start backing away from being armed to the teeth and learn other ways resolve differences. Fuzzy unity ponies won't do it. IMHO.


    Parent

    Clinton is the ONLY candidate who has (none / 0) (#38)
    by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:40:36 AM EST
    explicitly taken preemptive war off the table. Obama says he would bomb Iran, if necessary, to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons.
    Clinton makes explicit a policy of massive retaliation for nuclear attacks, which is fine with  me.

    Parent
    These people just don't go away.... (none / 0) (#29)
    by jerry on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:36:00 AM EST
    They've got so much FUD behind them, and so many of the entrenched, they just don't go away that easily.

    So what do I do? (none / 0) (#41)
    by smott on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:42:44 AM EST
    I Live in PA. My vote actually counts. I won't vote for McCain, but I could see myself writing in Hillary.

    I'm also leaving the Dems and becoming Independant.

    But what to do in Nov??  

    Same here (none / 0) (#66)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:00:27 AM EST
    I've already resigned from the party.  I did that when Dean was bullying SDs right before the PA primary.  That was absolutely the last straw for me.  No pretense left as to what was going on and how far the DNC insiders were willing to go to do the deal.

    So they lost this long-time Dem.

    The BEST solution I've come up with is that I'm going to evaluate each candidate on the merits, do more homework than I've done in the past, knock off the straight ticket voting, and see if we can't get some truly quality people a chance.

    I've seen some outstanding people in this primary.  I loved Nutter when he said, "I endorsed after I evaluated carefully, and I don't care if I'm the last man standing...the reasons I endorsed her will not have changed."

    Now, that's someone I think should be in national politics.  Ditto for the mayor the other night who spoke out against the Gary mayor.  He was polite.  He was firm.  And he was a no BS, no exaggerating kind of guy.

    I'm truly ready for change, and I'm convinced this has to be a non-partisan approach, for real.  Whether a good Republican or a good Democrat....who cares?  I care about getting some good people into our government.

    Parent

    See the comment (none / 0) (#71)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:18:58 AM EST
    just after yours.  Anninca (sorry about capitalization; I cant remember how)

    Parent
    I'm leaving the Democratic Party too (none / 0) (#79)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    after the primaries.  I've had enough.

    You can sit out in Nov. or write Hillary's name on the ballot (if that's allowed in your state).

    I can't vote for McCain, but people forget that many Dems liked McCain back in 2000 because Bush's operatives destroyed him.  Of course, McCain had to suck up to Bush because he was the person in power at the time.

    But the media will push the McCain "maverick" image again (because the media really REALLY like McCain).

    As for yourself, make your anger known to the DNC.  I plan on it after the primaries in June.

    Parent

    I will say this about HIllary Clinton (none / 0) (#51)
    by Faust on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    She was a more impressive candidate than I thought she would be and her campaign was worse than I expected.

    I think that despite her high negatives, there is a lot of respect out there for her that has increased in some quarters (though obviously not in others).

    And the comment from Penn is unbeleivable.

    Whoever decided Hillary (none / 0) (#70)
    by g8grl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:15:06 AM EST
    wouldn't have to campaign anymore after Super Tuesday lost her the election.  If she was competitive in some of those other February states, she'd be in the driver's seat now.

    I agree (none / 0) (#77)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:31:28 AM EST
    allowing Obama to win 11 in a row crippled her campaign and she knows it.  She got rid of people and added people to her campaign, but it was tough to dig out of the deep pit Penn put her in.

    She's done an amazing job at keeping Obama at bay.  I think she should stay until PR in June.  Finish on top.  And how Obama that she ain't impressed with him and she ain't drinking the Kool-Aid.

    And take it to the convention.  Her support of MI and FL will pay off in the end.

    Parent

    Isn't he (none / 0) (#82)
    by kcarab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    still part of the campaign?

    "...utter demise...of Mark Penn..." (none / 0) (#86)
    by clio on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:05:25 PM EST
    You willing to bet on that?  

    Penn has been barely competent for several years now, and it hasn't affected his employment or his compensation in any obvious way.

    Is it really certain that Penn isn't a Rove operative lightly disguised?  
    That would make some sense.  He's certainly been effective at enabling the Democratic penchant for self-destruction.

    Given that penchant I'm not sure that even a silver cross and wooden stake will work.