home

Yes, Mark Penn Stinks But . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Josh Marshall's reader has got to be kidding me:

Penn was never going to catch on to this whole 'change' thing because to Penn 'change' is too wrapped up in the Democratic populism that he has been trying to exterminate in the Democratic Party since the 90s. It is the great irony of this campaign that Penn, champion of the DLC and sworn enemy of populists like Greenberg, Borosage, and Shrum, is now being forced to churn out populist messaging in the dying days of the campaign.

Gammon. David Axelrod the great populist strategist? Obama the great populist candidate? What did Axelrod do right? He realized his CANDIDATE, an incredibly talented one, was the message. Obama is the change. Not any issue Obama is trumpeting. As for the populist MESSAGE? Edwards withdrew from the race before Super Tuesday.

< The Media Against Hillary Clinton? | Corrections >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Shrum? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:59:32 PM EST
    As in Bob Shrum? Mentioned positively? That's not right.

    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:03:11 PM EST
    Apparently now it is.

    BTW, I have had kind words for Shrum, who did not have Obama as his candidate.

    Parent

    This is the caricature of Penn (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:03:45 PM EST
    That exists on liberal blogs.

    I just realized, I can't even call them liberal anymore.

    Opportunist blogs.


    i like the way you put it (none / 0) (#52)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:49:35 PM EST
    they really are opportunists.

    Parent
    Both Penn and Axelrod (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:09:54 PM EST
    are your basic weasel types - let's get past them because both of their campaigns are better off when they don't speak to the media.

    Personally, I fear the take down of hope that the main stream media is going to orchestrate once it is down to McCain vs. Obama

    Axelrod didn't get in his candidate's way. (4.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:05:31 PM EST
    The essence of American populism has changed since the 1890's.  Unfortunately, no one told John Edwards.

    And, yes, a core element of populism is the embrace of a bottom-up belief in activism and social change.  

    Oprah: populist (3.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:06:50 PM EST
    donor count... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jor on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:12:30 PM EST
    ... between Hillary and obama?

    thats one stat. I'm sure there are many many more stats showing obama way out-classed hillary in bottom-up organization while she went top-down.

    Parent

    How about his organizational advantage (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:16:40 PM EST
    in all of the caucus states?

    Or his ground game that's developing in OH and especially Texas?

    But, much easier for some folks to utter "Oprah" and pretend they're too cool for the room.

    Parent

    The ground game is quite impressive (none / 0) (#57)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:53:03 PM EST
    I've been following reports from various states as the campaign's set up shop.  There are a number of interesting reports from Texas here, and as far as I can tell, they're representative of what's happened, and is happening, in other states.

    The biggest impact of this -- as one of the people in those reports notes -- is not what it's done for Senator Obama's campaign. It's what it's done to mobilize and energize the Democratic base in a way that the national party has failed to do.  This bodes very well for the Democratic nominee in November -- all they have to do is use it.

    Parent

    I believe that counts as chatter. n/t (none / 0) (#9)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:08:41 PM EST
    Nope, a reduction to the absurd (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:10:10 PM EST
    I'll settle for (none / 0) (#11)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:12:26 PM EST
    stunningly unoriginal and borderline trollish equivalence drawing between Obama's campaign and Oprah Winfrey.

    If your comment has any, and I mean ANY, intellectual merit, feel free to spell it out.

    Parent

    Are you saying that Oprah (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:15:26 PM EST
    is not on board for Obama's supposedly  populist  campaign? Does   she not  believe in the populism?

    Parent
    I"m saying that "Oprah" is not an (none / 0) (#19)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:19:02 PM EST
    intelligent answer to the discussion of Obama and populism.

    Parent
    No, you're pretending that I don't have a point (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:21:16 PM EST
    by your standard, who's to say that Oprah isn't a populist?

    Parent
    Why do you insist on dragging (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:24:24 PM EST
    Oprah into the discussion?

    Trollish.  Good night.

    Parent

    Uh, because she's prominently associated (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:26:32 PM EST
    with a supposedly populist campaign.

    Parent
    So, you're using a logical fallacy. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:29:45 PM EST
    Attributing the views and philosophy of a supporter to the candidate.

    Parent
    Thank you for answering my question (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:31:26 PM EST
    According to you, Oprah might not believe in Obama's message and philosophy.

    Parent
    I really haven't given the issue any thought. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:34:57 PM EST
    She might support it, she might not.  

    AFAIK, it's not one of her articulated reasons for supporting him, but that doesn't imply much--there's only so much one can fit into a stump speech.

    Parent

    I have let the two of you go at it (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:38:38 PM EST
    you are both big boys.

    But let's move on. Both of you.

    Parent

    Who's trollish? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:05:07 AM EST
    I gave you my first "1" for labeling andgarden as "trollish" which is not true and inappropriate. Just because you might not like his comment that doesn't give you the right to call his comment "trollish."

    I find it offensive and an attempt to stifle an alternate viewpoint. Shutting down debate or comments may be something that you do on other blogs but I come here for civil discourse where everyone can engage in a civil debate and read the comments without someone trying to run over someone who holds an alternative viewpoint.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:17:53 PM EST
    You certainly have redefined populism.

    Parent
    Yeah, I'm just making this stuff up: (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:22:33 PM EST
    Populism is characterized by a sometimes radical critique of the status quo, but on the whole does not have a strong ideological identity as either a left-wing or right-wing movement. Some scholars argue that populist politics as organizing for empowerment represents the return of older "Aristotelean" politics of horizontal interactions among equals who are different, for the sake of public problem solving [24]. Populism has taken left-wing, right-wing, and even centrist forms, as well as forms of politics that bring together groups and individuals of diverse partisan views. [25] In recent years, conservative United States politicians have begun adopting populist rhetoric; for example, telling people to stand up to "the powerful trial lawyer lobby," "the liberal elite," or "the Hollywood elite." Also in recent years, "left-wing" United States politicians have increasingly begun adopting populist rhetoric; the use of the term "two Americas" in the 2004 Presidential Democratic Party campaign of John Edwards is an example of an attempt to employ Populist themes to persuade voters. In some contrast to both, Barack Obama, whose references to popular empowerment may reflect his experiences as a community organizer in one of the schools of organizing (the Gamaliel Foundation) descended from the late Saul Alinsky, also articulates populist themes. Populists are seen by some politicians as a largely democratic and positive force in society, even while a wing of scholarship in political science contends that populist mass movements are irrational and introduce instability into the political process. Margaret Canovan argues that both these polar views are faulty, and has defined two main branches of modern populism worldwide -- agrarian and political -- and mapped out seven disparate sub-categories:

    Link.
    But, as Andgarden so authoritatively stated, "Oprah."

    Parent

    Populist? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:34:47 PM EST
    He loses the blue collar demographic.  His health care plan is not IMO populist (not universal).  He mostly uses NAFTA to beat up on the Clintons.  

    I don't think grassroots = populist.  

    Parent

    You equate blue collar with 'the people.' (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:41:21 PM EST
    I am also unaware of the mass movement building to demand mandates.

    Also, who says he loses the blue collar demographic?

    Vote by Education Clinton Obama Uninstructed            
    No College Degree (58%) 43% 56% 0%            
    College Graduate (42%) 39% 60%

    Vote by Income Clinton Obama Uninstructed            
    Less Than $100,000 (81%) 42% 57% 0%            
    $100,000 or More (19%) 38% 62%

    Is Someone in Household a Union Member? Clinton Obama Uninstructed            
    Yes (35%) 44% 53% N/A            
    No (65%) 41% 59% 0%            


    Parent
    That is from the Wisconsin exit poll: (none / 0) (#46)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:42:52 PM EST
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#61)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:55:24 PM EST
    But so far, blue-collar has been her demographic to lose.  

    Parent
    And she's lost it. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:06:06 PM EST
    Lost it in just about every post-February 5 state.

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#69)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:24:38 PM EST
    But I think she might still have it in Ohio.  And my point is, if the blue collar vote is now going over to Obama, it's doing so very late in the game.  Which I think is weird for a populist movement.

    "In a state where people are focused on job losses, "economy" voters are Clinton's biggest strength, favoring her by a 52 percent-to-37 percent margin over Obama, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Thursday, which gave her a lead of 50 percent to 43 percent overall. Many voters say they were weary of decades of unfulfilled promises from presidential candidates pledging to help communities suffering in a post- industrial economy."
    Link

    Also, FWIW, the media narrative still paints her as the candidate favored by the working-class and the working-class mentality.  

    Parent

    Precisely (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:36:28 PM EST
    Actually (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:40:07 PM EST
    the progressives movement was started by middle class at the turn of last century.  A demographic probably really similar to Obama's liberal creative class base. as for populism here is the definition per wikipedia:

    Political populism

        * Populist democracy, including calls for more political participation through reforms such as the use of popular referendums.
        * Politicians' populism marked by non-ideological appeals for "the people" to build a unified coalition.
        * Reactionary populism, such as the white backlash harvested by George Wallace.
        * Populist dictatorship, such as that established by Juan Perón in Argentina. (Canovan, 1981)




    Parent
    Populist does not equal progressive (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:46:38 PM EST
    that is the point.

    Parent
    Progressive doesn't even equal progressive (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:48:15 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:52:32 PM EST
    True.

    Parent
    I am a fan of Richard Hofstadter (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:24:42 PM EST
    The definition you quote seems foreign to the usage in American political history and thought.

    BTW, I am not a populist.

    Parent

    My core definition of populism is about (none / 0) (#27)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:28:10 PM EST
    empowering the people.  Populism means many things to many people.   For one thing, traditional definitions of populism in the US were restricted to uneducated folks, white gus,labor unions, farming cooperatives, etc etc.  That's a flavor of populism, but not the only one.

    Parent
    I speak of the common meaning (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:32:58 PM EST
    when discussed in the context of American political history.

    Parent
    I think that definition is deceptive, so (none / 0) (#37)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:36:14 PM EST
    I decline to confine myself to it.

    How can populist policies be, well, unpopular?    

    Parent

    As long as you are upfront about it (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:37:25 PM EST
    I do not believe the TPM reader was referring to your unique usage.

    Parent
    Penn and the DLC are notorious (none / 0) (#47)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:46:11 PM EST
    top-downers.  Can you imagine them pushing legisliation (as opposed to providing lip service) to make government more responsive to citizens and less to moneyed interests?

    Parent
    If they thought it was politically beneficial (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:48:11 PM EST
    Of course I can. I suggest you read the DLC on lobbying, campaign finance and reform.

    They are completely in tune with Obama on that, among other things.

    Parent

    That falls under "lip service." (none / 0) (#58)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:53:13 PM EST
    Everyone claims to be in favor of cleaning up government and reducing the role of big money in politics.  Only shameless corruptarians like Mitch McConnell and John Murtha feel free to dismiss ethics reform.

    Track records count a lot more than rhetoric on this kind of issue.  

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:54:53 PM EST
    If you say so.

    Parent
    what policies? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:39:41 PM EST
    There are many possible reasons why Edwards never took off. His major policies are not among them. As Krugman and others have pointed out, they had a significant influence on Obama and Clinton.

    Parent
    I just read this comment (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:34:04 PM EST
    Couldn't agree more, I think the SNL skit where he was dressed like a pauper really nailed it. There just aren't a lot of mill workers left.

    Parent
    yes, but (none / 0) (#63)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:01:49 PM EST
    i think the operative word in your last sentence with respect to the obama campaign is "belief."  sure, axelrod & co. have been pushing the belief bit to the hilt--but without the empathy, integrity, scruples, or commitment to a substantive platform that underlay former populist movements.

    Parent
    Tabula Rasa Obama (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:58:45 PM EST
    and his congruous crew.

    Except that (none / 0) (#13)
    by Baal on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:14:27 PM EST
    few have had the advantages Hillary had going into this race and tanked it quite so badly.  These DLC types have never done any of us much good.

    But you've got a point on Edwards, the one candidate whose message really resonated with me.

    I find none of these analyses to be particularly useful.  Instead it is time to end McCain's spineless and worthless political career.

    Didn't (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    Axelrod do JE campaign last time.  Seems like he is pretty good at playing up candidates personalities.

    Um, BTD? Obama is not incredibly talented (none / 0) (#21)
    by goldberry on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:21:29 PM EST
    He is very good at giving a stump speech.  He's not terribly good at much of anything else.  When he's not expected to perform, he looks lethargic and bored.  When he doesn't have a script, he sounds unfocused and rambling.  
    We don't know what he stands for and he doesn't WANT you to know.  'Cos that would kinda blow it for him.  He has done nothing of note in his political career except manage to avoid some very politically sensitive votes.  
    So, where's the talent?  I'm still waiting to see it.  Oh, I know people who are voting for Obama are seeing something in him or they have convinced themselves that they are seeing something.  But I don't even buy the change argument.  He's benefitting from the media treating women like dirt, he's taken the black vote for granted like every other Democrat and he's ducking away from universal healthcare.  Where's the change?  A person can be different from the one you have in office now but if he's too inexperienced and clings to the same free-market, laissez-faire economics as his predecessor, where's the change?  
    color me puzzled.  
    All I want is a well run government again.  Is that so wrong?  

    Axelrod reran the successful ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:31:35 PM EST
    Deval Patrick candidacy in Iowa (with a few things cribbed from the Harold Washington race in Chicago), and it worked.

    The press embraced Obama, because they were tired of Clinton, and Obama makes good b-roll and he's easy to cover.  He gives the same speech everyday, and he never says anything that will anger their corporate masters.

    They also used their money advantage to game the caucuses.  Romney did the same thing, but it didn't work due to the winner take-all states.

    The only people who caught onto this were a few smart political watchers and voters in Massachusetts.

    The act is starting to wear thin, but Obama may have enough of an advantage to take the nomination.  And then he hopes that the same tactic will work against McCain.  We'll see.

    Once in a lifetime candidate?  Or Pepsi Generation  ad campaign?  

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:35:41 PM EST
    Patrick modeled himself after Obama's 04 senate race.

    Parent
    Not really ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:50:39 PM EST
    Obama's senate race wasn't competitive, and both were retooled versions of Harold Washington's race for Mayor of Chicago.

    The big difference of course was that Washington was an effective mayor, and it seems so far Patrick has been something of a washout as Governor.

    Parent

    No, his 04 Senate race was nothing like Deval's (none / 0) (#70)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:25:11 PM EST
    At least not to any of us who live in the state. His '04 Senate race was about revealing sex scandals of his opponents and jumping back when the press went in for the kill.

    Parent
    New Coke :-) (none / 0) (#53)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:49:53 PM EST
    This is good analysis. (none / 0) (#68)
    by dk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:24:24 PM EST
    I think you've pretty much nailed it.

    Parent
    I think you might (none / 0) (#71)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:41:42 PM EST
    find Fred Siegel's piece in City Journal a good read.  At least he understood the point Clinton was trying to make with Obama lifting from Patrick's campaign.  

    Parent
    the only thing HIllary has ever run (none / 0) (#40)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:37:28 PM EST
    ws the health care commission, and her own campaign. Pretty serious incompetence displayed in both cases. What makes you think she would show any ability in actually running the government?

    Parent
    from wiki (none / 0) (#49)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:46:51 PM EST

    Rodham co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977;

    chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year in Arkansas;

    Arkansas Educational Standards Committee chair from 1982 to 1992;

    American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession chair;

    so what you say is not entirely true.

    Wiki

    Parent

    So, why is he beating her soundly then? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:42:07 PM EST
    Just lucky?

    Parent
    Soundly? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:56:41 PM EST
    It will be a narrow victory at best.  

    And the fact that most of the news media is acting as arms of his campaign has helped.

    A sound beating is what Gore gave Bradley.  Or Kerry gave his competitors. Or Bush gave McCain.

    If Obama wins, it won't fit in that category.  If he loses, it obviously won't.

    Parent

    So far at least (none / 0) (#55)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:50:53 PM EST
    So, it was pure luck that he had (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:54:36 PM EST
    a post-February 5 plan and a plan to contest caucuses, while Clinton's approach was to ignore half the states on Super Tuesday and all states after Super Tuesday.

    Parent
    hear, hear! (none / 0) (#66)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:10:18 PM EST
    Geek (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:31:10 PM EST
    Please. Leave that stuff behind.

    I am going to delete this comment.

    Anyone who writes something like that here will find their comment deleted and if they repeat they will find themselves banned.

    Unlike Daily Kos however, that applies to Hillary Clinton insults as well.

    Over managed by Mark Penn (none / 0) (#67)
    by 1jane on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:22:09 PM EST
    It is too bad Clinton allowed Mark Penn to over think and over manage her campaign. Where are the really good women campaign managers in her campaign, why did they decide to leave? It's suprising she chose an old school male to run her campaign. Even more amazing the over 60 white woman supporters state over and over, "We just want a woman president." Other voters state, "They want the best candidate." Fall in love with your candidate in the primary. Get over it and work hard to defeat McCain. We can't afford another 8 years of Bush policies.