home

Mark Penn on the General Election

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:49:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Mark Penn has been an albatross across the neck of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Today he does it again:

Here is what Penn said. . . ."Obama "really can't win the general election." As you'll hear, he also says that "if Barack Obama can't win" in Pennsylvania, "how could he win the general election?"

Later, a reporter asks what he meant. Clinton campaign communications chief Howard Wolfson jumps in to say that "Mark did not say that." Then Penn says that if Obama doesn't win the Pennsylvania primary, it "raises serious questions" about whether he can win the general election.

What do you think the solid Howard Wolfson thinks of Penn? Probably the same as I do, that Penn is a dope.

< Clinton Campaign Not Fighting For Revotes | Dean: Candidates Can Veto Revote Plan >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Mark Penn on the General Election | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If Penn was really at good at (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:58:10 PM EST
    predicting election outcomes, the Clinton campaign probably wouldn't be running behind right now because they might have worked a bit harder from the start rather than believing their own PR about inevitability.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by badger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    and one of the reasons I leaned towards Hillary prior to IA/NH was I thought she'd have the knowledge and skill to put together a strong campaign team (having participated in winning two national elections and one primary) - something neither Gore nor Kerry accomplished IMO.

    Similarly, my willingness to tolerate someone with Penn's background would be that he could deliver votes.

    Neither seems to have been a good assumption.

    Parent

    Did Obama say the same thing about Hillary? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by BigB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:06:38 PM EST
    BTD, I don't understand why you are singling this out. Obama has been saying for months that Hillary has high negatives, that you cannot start off with half the country being against you, that he will get Hillary's supporters but she will not get his supporters, that she will say and do anything to win, and so and so forth.

    And, you are offended by what Mark Penn is saying?

    This si what I don't understand. Obama says all kinds of things about Hillary that if she were to eb the nominee the Repuplicans will use against her. Yet, if Hillary's campiagn says anything against Obama somehow that is not kosher.

    I think it is stupid and harmful (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    And I called out the Obama campaign for the same thing before.

    Parent
    It speaks volumes about the Clinton campaign... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by sar75 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:15:25 PM EST
    ...that they haven't let Penn go.  Are there any Clinton supporters who think he's doing a good job?  

    I have no trouble with operatives who play hardball. But you need to play it well, and he clearly doesn't.

    Parent

    Obama's whole schtick is that HRC is divisive (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    The same 99.9% of people who hear Obama and his team saying over and over that HRC is "divisive" -- and taking that slapped-on attribute as FACT that she can't win -- don't know who the hell Mark Penn is who said off the cuff that Obama can't win.

    I'm trying to do the emotional math on this but it has to start with some realistic idea of what math is.

    I'm not AS mad at Mark Penn for an off the cuff statement about electability that Obama's been beating silly on the stump about HRC for months about stuff she didn't even do. (People just hate her, trust me, doesn't sit with me as a plank on a campaign.)

    Whether it's grown-up math or some emotional quantifying, it can't be the half=assed half=math that Pug-friendly media use when, eg, ascribing half the blame to a milifraction of Dem behavior to egregious GOP malfeasance (eg trying to pin half the Abramoff crap on Dems).

    And it certainly can't be the half-assed bean-counting TeamO's making everyone go cross-eyed over how to count MI over FL or FL over MI, whichever goes their guy's way.

    Parent

    haha (none / 0) (#71)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:02:52 PM EST
    I'm not AS mad at Mark Penn for an off the cuff statement about electability
    Seriously?  Off the cuff?  Have you been paying attention to anything that Penn has been saying for months?

    One of the main things he says is that Obama can't win because he hasn't won certain state primaries.  It most certainly wasn't off the cuff.  I don't think that Penn knows what "off the cuff" even is.  He is a strategist - everything he does is in the form of messaging.

    Parent

    I've been deciding on HRC and BO (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:33:32 PM EST
    I never heard of Mark Penn until recently.

    All of these consultants who've been surfacing according to the latest bit of douchebaggery don't interest me.

    There's a bigger onus on Obama to run the kind of campaign he promised would bring about a new era of post-partisan politics.

    You inow, the kind that does away with the tactics of hiding behind hired mudslingers like he's been doing.

    I was giving him the benefit of the doubt to have the intelligence and creativity to show leadership on important issues. He's not doing that but hiding behind the muck slingers more as the days unfold.

    Hanging back while others do his dirty work isn't New Politics, i think he's a total fraud.

    Parent

    If you haven't heard of Mark Penn (none / 0) (#104)
    by Mark Adams on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:52:58 PM EST
    then you haven't been paying attention AT ALL.

    It's implicit in your comment that you are also holding Obama to a higher standard than Hillary.

    Parent

    Obama claims to have a higher standard than HRC (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:00:54 PM EST
    I'm taking him at his word that he's bring CHANGE and new politics to DC.

    His higher standards is what he promised, in fact guaranteed by saying he's the one to make over politics as we know them now. It's the centerpiece of his campaign. It's what he's been "inspiring" people with.

    But it's what he's NOT DOING -- more and more obviously by the day, and bottom-dealing worse than his rivals (or enemies, as his supporters seem to regard them).

    HRC has only said she's experienced with how things go in DC and that she can beat them. I believe she can.

    Parent

    hmmm (none / 0) (#107)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:54:52 PM EST
    I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not just suggest Ellie was low-knowledge.

    Parent
    Heehee, it's more accurate than the other charges (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:05:08 PM EST
    I actually admit to my ignorance not only on the rules and inside baseball, but on two candidates who weren't my top choices.

    I've been keeping an open mind on HRC vs Obama especially on what those individuals promise and actually try to live up to during the primary.

    Obama's been disappointing me but I've been seeing more and more of a silver lining in "divisive" HRC.

    As for being low in the know, I freely admit to coming from a long line of blissfully happy idiots. :-)

    Parent

    Not everyone cares about the engine (none / 0) (#129)
    by cymro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    Saying that someone MUST have heard of Mark Penn if they have been following the campaign is like insisting that everyone who is selecting a new car MUST know all about all the mechanical specs of the engines of the cars they are evaluating. It's just not so.

    Likewise, someone can follow the candidates and their debates, their positions, the polls, the primary results, the delegate counts, the superdelegate debate, the MI and FL fiasco, etc. without needing to know anything about the faceless administrators who are the engine of the campaign behind the scenes.

    Campaign activists and avid blog consumers might find this hard to believe, but not everyone thinks like they do, or cares about the same minutiae.

    Parent

    A difference... (none / 0) (#135)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:25:36 AM EST
    ...there's a difference between arguing that one candidate is more electable than another, and pointing out why.  But as far as I know, no one on the Obama campaign has said, flat out, that Clinton is unelectable. His supporters do all the time, and I, one of them, think they're wrong.

    As I've said time again here, I think that the structural advantages of the Democratic candidate are just so huge that it's hard to see either one losing.  Just wait and see how this economy develops over the next seven months.  How a Republican wins in an environment when only 1/3 of people think they're better off now than they were eight years ago (same as 1992, and that number has more to drop) is hard to imagine.

    Parent

    I don't like the strategy... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:35:37 PM EST
    ...but seriously, what else is left?  The Florida revote is starting to fall apart which dramatically reduces the chances of winning the popular vote and pretty much clinches that the delegate count will be lost.  All that's left is the appeal to Superdelegates and the only argument left is the "winning big states in the primaries proves electability."  

    If she abandons that line of reasoning, what's the rationale for not conceding?  

    What else is left? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Arbitrarity on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:57:19 PM EST
    Easy.

    Stop writing off states and start trying to win them.

    I've seen a lot of smack talk about how Obama spent so much money in Texas and Ohio, and still lost them both.  That is true, he did.  But, he's trying.  He's going after votes in states which are extremely unfavorable to him, demographic wise.  

    I've not seen anything of the sort from the Clinton campaign.  The strategy seems to be dismiss, denigrate, and look only to the states with the favorable outcomes.

    Had she even challenged, her numbers would have looked a lot better, and this would look a lot more favorable to her right now.

    Forget spin.  Start to win.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#73)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:08:12 PM EST
    Are you quoting me?  I wrote something similar here last week or so.

    Well yes, she should still do that.  The problem is that most likely she's not going to win NC, OR, MT, SD, or IN.  If she does, then that changes things.  Instead, I suspect she's going to focus her energy on PA, talk about how winning the primary there is akin to winning the general and hope that SDs buy it.

    Parent

    I don't see the problem. (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:53:47 PM EST
    If Obama cannot win in November, that is certainly a  legitimate reason for not nominating him!
    The reverse argument has been central for Obama's campaign.

    He's wrong because... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:59:22 PM EST
    Winning the PA primary has nothing to do with winning in november.  It doesn't even really correlate to winning PA in November.  That's the point.  And saying there's "no way" he can win is just false in any case.

    Parent
    clearly penn is spinning for his client. (none / 0) (#11)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:00:43 PM EST
    with a unified party, it is difficult to imagine how either candidate loses.  every time penn dishes on those that have voted for obama he ironically diminishes the chances for unity and his client's desired outcome.

    i support miz clinton and mister obama, but i take offense to this sort of slime.

    Parent

    He may be a dope... (none / 0) (#2)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    But damn, he's a well-paid dope. I need to get in on a little of that dopiness myself. ;)

    We're told ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    that many in the Campaign don't like Penn.  But I don't necessarily buy the "Clinton campaign infighting" stories.

    Penn was behind the "3AM" ad which I think was a big help to Clinton.

    They might be better off (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    keeping him in the backroom writing video scripts rather than putting him out in front of the media.

    Parent
    The problem is (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    he won't stay there.

    Get the hook.

    Parent

    The could give him the wrong (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:07:12 PM EST
    conference call number at least.

    Parent
    Clinton Rules (none / 0) (#5)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:59:10 PM EST
    Whether you're right or wrong, BTD, absolutely no one was crying foul when everyone and their brother argued that Hillary was too polarizing to win the GE.

    I was (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:59:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    You are consistent.

    The rest of the world is not.

    Penn lives in the rest of the world.


    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:05:20 PM EST
    but the point wasn't to accuse you of hypocrisy.  The point is that this sort of attack is widely considered fair game, or at least it is when the target is Hillary.

    I still don't understand why they let Mark Penn anywhere near a microphone.

    Parent

    So Was Digby (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:06:13 PM EST


    Parent
    agreed. (none / 0) (#18)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    it is bad form for either campaign to make the case against the other candidate.  miz clinton would be better served if her staff made her case instead tearing a brother dem apart.

    miz clinton, has proven herself on every position that matters to november.  calling her out for the past polarizing politics is no less slimy.

    good point.

    Parent

    Obama certainly can't win (none / 0) (#7)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:59:40 PM EST
    If he hires Mark Penn.  Mark Penn has been with the Clintons since 1996s.  He is one of the chief architects of Clintonian triangulation, spin, and selling out.  That HRC still won't ditch him tells you a lot about how a second Clinton Presidency will go.

    THis is off topic (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:14:32 PM EST
    But I'll respond.

    1996 was a big win.

    Even picked up some congressional seats.

    Clinton left office with the highest job approval rating of any president in the modern era.

    So much for that disaster.  However you want to disparage it.

    I don't think this is the thread to rehash the 90s, but if you want, we can do that.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#32)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    so you're on the record as supporting Mark Penn and his attempts to turn the Democrats into the GOP.

    Parent
    Oh man (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:23:16 PM EST
    That's the caricature.  Yes.  I've seen that caricature before.

    It's like you have to believe certain things to be a Christian.

    You have to believe certain things to be a part of the progressive blogosphere.

    One of them is that Mark Penn is evil.


    Parent

    I think ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:25:37 PM EST
    a lot of it has to do with his appearance.

    I wish I didn't believe this, but I do.

    Parent

    He probably uses a PC (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:44 PM EST
    Not an iMac.


    Parent
    He is pretty bad (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:29:25 PM EST
    I have no love for him and think he stinks as a strategist.

    Parent
    Just my experience (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:48:23 PM EST
    Maybe a long time ago there was a discussion about Mark Penn, and people thought about it rationally and came to a decision that is well-informed.

    As I've stated before, maybe I missed that.

    But for now, all it looks like is I'm just supposed to believe it in the tautological sense.

    You know.  He is cause he just is.

    I'd be stupid if I didn't believe it.


    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#43)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:32:33 PM EST
    When Obama reaches out to Republicans rhetorically, it's an unpardonable sin, but when you criticize Mark Penn for pushing the Clintons to triangulate it on substance, it's a just a poor misunderstood guy getting picked on because of his appearance.

    I would at least think you guys would be mad at him for fleecing the HRC campaign on fees while giving so little in return.

    Parent

    You have no proof (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:41:06 PM EST
    No proof whatsoever of Mark Penn setting policy.


    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#49)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:41:43 PM EST
    Educate yourself.

    Parent
    Just another Polemic (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:43:43 PM EST
    I'm not going to sift through websites filled with the rhetoric I've already seen a thousand times.


    Parent
    That's an article in The Nation (none / 0) (#55)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:48:11 PM EST
    Are you familiar with that magazine?  It's not just some random website.  If I weren't such a charitable soul, I might begin to suspect you don't actually care about what Mark Penn has been up to and how he has influenced your candidate's politics.

    Parent
    MSNBC (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:49:11 PM EST
    isn't just a random website.


    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#64)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    Now you're comparing The Nation to MSNBC?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:00:53 PM EST
    I am.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:53:41 PM EST
    I love the giant Barack Obama ad in the middle of that article.

    Good placement!

    Parent

    Please (none / 0) (#66)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:58:21 PM EST
    just read the article and see what you think.  Throwing pebbles at one of the most long-standing progressive news outlets in the country is not going to get you far.

    Parent
    A lot of reputable (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:02:05 PM EST
    sources have gone down the rabbit hole this cycle.

    The Nation is probably just another one of them.

    Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller also used to be "reputable sources."

    Parent

    Sad attempt (none / 0) (#74)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:09:27 PM EST
    Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller have nothing to do with either the magazine or this particular article.  If you simply refuse to consider anything that might undermine, however slightly, your support for the Clinton campaign, just say so and I'll stop wasting my time.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#88)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:19:58 PM EST
    Their just other examples of previously reputable sources who have, at this point, simply been swept up into the movement.

    Parent
    Ah yes... (none / 0) (#94)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:25:14 PM EST
    ... as soon as they endorse someone different than who you support, they are no longer reputable.

    I see.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:29:29 PM EST
    As soon as they start applying double standards I say they've gone down the rabbit hole.

    For instance, being able to make a distinction between Obama speaking favorably of Reagan's political strategies and an endorsement of Reagan's policies.

    And then refusing to make the same distinctions about Clinton and the political strategies she employs.

    That's a double standard.


    Parent

    Like the advice that HRC is a Monster? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:12:01 PM EST
    Wasn't the TeamO lieutenant who put that out there part and parcel behind the major PLANK of Obama's campaign for Unity?

    I don't even know who most of these characters are, only what my lying eyes are telling me.

    Obama and his supporters (and advisors) aren't living up to their promises NOW and can't deliver when everything is in their favor.

    This exponentially shrinks when they'll be "uniting" with McCain and the Rethuggernaut.

    Should they survive even a few weeks of that, they're not ready to govern. His guarantees are based on fluff.

    Parent

    Putting Social Security On The Table (none / 0) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:20:12 PM EST
    and doing Harry and Louise ads against Universal Health Care is a little more than just rhetoric to me.

    Parent
    Can he shut up? (none / 0) (#9)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:00:01 PM EST
    I don't know if he can, actually. The man seems to have a serious problem with the concept. Maybe the campaign should invest in a ball gag.

    I hope this campaign represents the end of his serious political career. Sadly, that's seldom how these things work.

    His career will end only if (none / 0) (#14)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:03:03 PM EST
    Clinton loses now or in November.  He's their boy through thick and thin.

    Parent
    His career wouldn't end then, either (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:14:54 PM EST
    that's not how it works -- even when they lose, they find a way to keep themselves relevant. Otherwise, Donna Brazile wouldn't be on the TV screen.

    Really, their consultants come out a wash for me. I don't like either list very much. A lot of the DLC idiots that bugged me from the Bill Clinton administration are now in the Obama campaign, too.

    Parent

    Well he'd probably go back to union-busting (none / 0) (#33)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    That's what he does between Clinton campaigns.

    Parent
    From 1996 to 2000 (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:36:10 PM EST
    Union membership increased in the United States.

    Whatever products his company offers to it's clients certainly isn't reflected in the policies of Political employers.

    To contrast, if you want to see what real union busting looks like check out Union Membership during the 1980s, you know, when Obama's mentor, Ronald Reagan was running things.

    Really.  Isnt' there a Mark Penn feeding frenzy underneath the sweaty confines of the orange blanket.


    Parent

    Please just find out the basic facts (none / 0) (#62)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    I'll link them again here.

    Then maybe we can have a productive discussion.  It seems you just want me to shut up rather than point out inconvenient facts about the campaign you support.

    Parent

    It's an anti-Clinton (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    article.  I've read enough of it to know where it goes.

    It proceeds from the faulty assumption that a strategy advisor sets policy.

    It's like me being incapable (or pretending to be incapable) of telling the difference between Obama talking about Reagan's bipartisanship strategy and the policies pushed by Reagan.

    Right.  Obama has spoken favorably of Reagan's bipartisanship strategies but he doesn't agree with Reagan's policies.

    Right???

    Right???

    Berman is insulting to my intelligence, and presumably to yours as well, because he seems to think we're incapable of making such distinctions.

    Parent

    Right? (none / 0) (#76)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:11:12 PM EST
    Hmm... yup, Obama is bad because he said nice things about Reagan.  But nope, Clinton has never said any nice things about Reagan:
    Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.
    Seriously, stop having incredibl double standards.

    So you are not okay with Obama saying that Reagan had good strategies, but you are okay with Clinton saying that having Reagan and Bush I as favorite presidents shows how she thinks?

    Yup... no double standard there.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:17:46 PM EST
    That both Clinton and Obama have said nice things about Reagan.

    That's not the point.  The point is understanding the difference between a strategy advisor (Penn for Clinton, Gibbs for Obama) and a policy advisor (Clark for Clinton, Power for Obama).

    I'd like to think we can all make such a distinction.

    Parent

    Penn is both (none / 0) (#91)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:21:09 PM EST
    Which you'd understand if you read the article.

    Parent
    No he's not (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:24:50 PM EST
    The article is wrong.

    If he was both, then Clinton would have implemented policies that led to a reduction in Union membership from 1996 (the time of Penn joining the Clinton team) to 2000.

    That is just one fact that I have offered to refute Berman's innuendo.


    Parent

    This performance (none / 0) (#97)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:31:38 PM EST
    grows even more clownish.  As if there's some kind of necessary and direct correlation between Presidential politics and union membership.  If you actually read the article, you'd see that his triangulation efforts in 1996-2000 were focused on welfare reform and other issues.  You are aware that a person can be reactionary on several issues but only focus on one at a particular point in time, right?  The point is that Penn is a right-winger who consistently pushes candidates he advises to the right.  It was welfare with Bill, maybe with Hillary it will be labor, foreign policy, or something else.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:34:37 PM EST
    And despite welfare reform, the poverty rate declined each year of Clinton's term.

    Just another example of Penn's vendetta against poor people being thwarted by the team that employed him.

    Crazy stuff, eh?

    Tell you what.  If President Obama can reduce the poverty rate and get people off welfare at the same time, I'll give him the same credit I give Clinton.

    Parent

    More misdirection I see (none / 0) (#100)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:39:48 PM EST
    So you support welfare reform?  Do you claim it's progressive?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#103)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:47:09 PM EST
    I do.

    You believe everyone on welfare doesn't want to be.  Cause that's what they'll tell you.  Do you want to be on welfare?  No.  That's what they say.  So you offer them a job that pays a little bit more than welfare, nothing great, it's not their dreams or what they think they need to have to have luxurious life and they have to work for it and ask them if they want that?  They say 'No' there too.

    Yes.  I'm a democrat.  I'm progressive and we have fundamentally different ideas of what constitutes human nature.

    I know what it's like to live in a country where living on the dole is considered a career.

    We disagree.

    Ain't that a hoot.

    If the poverty rate declines, how're you really gonna complain?

    The poverty rate declined?  Is that a bad thing?

    Parent

    Ah, here we go (none / 0) (#109)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:59:50 PM EST
    First it was the argument that Penn's wingnut ideas had no influence because he was a mere strategist.  When that failed, now the argument is that the wingnut policies Penn favors are actually good ideas.  No wonder you don't like The Nation.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#113)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:04:02 PM EST
    It was a policy Clinton supported regardless of Penn's political strategizing.

    Cause it reduced the poverty rate.

    Penn's a union buster.  Union membership increases.

    Penn wants to screw poor people.  Poor people get richer.

    No wonder you like the Nation.


    Parent

    Yep, poverty decreases (none / 0) (#118)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    When the NASDAQ bubble inflates the economy.  Overlooking a common cause.

    Parent
    Welfare queens eh? (none / 0) (#111)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:01:29 PM EST
    I thought you were arguing earlier that Reagan-worship was a bad thing.

    Parent
    That's polarizing langruage (none / 0) (#114)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:04:37 PM EST
    The poverty rate went up during Reagan.


    Parent
    And just the FYI (none / 0) (#117)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:13:02 PM EST
    The poverty rate increased for 3 of Carter's years too.

    Being well meaning and having the right ideology doesn't solve any problems.


    Parent

    Look... (none / 0) (#92)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:23:54 PM EST
    ... if you want to make absurd claims that Obama was mentored by Reagan, I am going to bring up the very similar comments that Clinton has made about Reagan.  

    Remember, you brought up Reagan, not me, and Reagan has nothing to do with Penn or this conversation.

    And since you brought it up and significantly misrepresented it, I am going to correct your false assertions.

    Parent

    No doubt (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:25:46 PM EST
    No doubt.

    My main point stands.


    Parent

    Actually it's anti-Penn (none / 0) (#80)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:14:35 PM EST
    and raises questions about how he might influence Clinton.  It doesn't proceed from "an assumption" that a strategy advisor sets policy.  It provides several specific examples where Morris and Penn influenced Clinton's policy stances.

    Parent
    stop lying (none / 0) (#72)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:08:06 PM EST
    when Obama's mentor, Ronald Reagan was running things.
    Seriously... making crap up doesn't strengthen your argument.

    Some facts:

    • Reagan never mentored Obama.

    • Obama has never even implied that he was mentored by Obama.

    • Obama has never even implied that he liked any of Reagan's policies.

    • Clinton has also said nice things about Reagan, including saying that he was one of her favorite presidents.  Shoot - that press release even says that her list of favorite presidents tells us how she thinks.

    So seriously, stop lying.  It most definitely doesn't help your argument or the conversation.

    Parent

    if you want to live up to your name (none / 0) (#79)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:14:15 PM EST
    you might calm down.  jeez.

    Obama has never even implied that he was mentored by Obama.


    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#82)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:16:01 PM EST
    ... respond to a typo rather than the post.

    Parent
    I misspoke (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:18:35 PM EST
    No.  He wasn't actually a mentor.


    Parent
    The Often Used Clinton Quote (none / 0) (#101)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:45:39 PM EST
    about admiring Reagan as one of her favorite presidents is an unfortunate misquote written in a editorial.  Had she really said that, I would have a real problem with it.  But she never did, and even the paper printed a retraction.  What she said was that she admired his communication skills.  Nothing evne close to the same thing.

    Parent
    umm... (none / 0) (#108)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:55:30 PM EST
    ... a press release, on her own site, lists Reagan and Bush I among her favorite presidents.

    I have already linked and quoted it, but I will do it again.

    Link:

    Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.
    So if HRC disagrees with the endorsement and content of the editorial, she probably shouldn't have placed it on her website.

    Parent
    I don't think she disagrees with an endorsment (none / 0) (#112)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:01:53 PM EST
    But the quote is inaccurate, and she should probably note that.

    Parent
    OOps, my bad (none / 0) (#124)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:56:41 PM EST
    She actually does note the inaccuracy of the quote:

    http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5309

    Let's not speak of this again.


    Parent

    This has been debunked (none / 0) (#125)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:02:39 PM EST
    and corrected.  I don't know why her website has not added a link on the page with the press release to the correction.  For future reference so you aren't accused of lying:

    David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, released the following statement:

    The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?

    She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan's communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that.



    Parent
    Stingingup (none / 0) (#136)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:55:14 AM EST
    http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5309

    Link to Clinton's website showing the retraction.

    Parent

    And Obama has ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:23:08 PM EST
    Robert Gibbs (as communications director) who created the anti-Dean "Osama" ad.

    Clean hands these guys do not have.


    Parent

    His career will end when you buy out (none / 0) (#39)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:29:11 PM EST
    Burston-Marsteller, where is is CEO, and fire him.  Other than that this fat cat is only gonna get fatter.


    Parent
    Political career (none / 0) (#46)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:36:36 PM EST
    Not career as a modern-day Pinkerton.  I wonder what would happen if Obama made a few ads pointing out HRC's chief strategist is a union-buster.  I bet that would play well in PA.

    Parent
    Tit for tat (none / 0) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:56:12 PM EST
    I remember Obama was taking donations (from the owner who was closing down his union plant) while speaking to the union employees about how he supported them.

    Parent
    We're not talking about taking donations (none / 0) (#86)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    We're talking about a man with a long-standing record of working for reprehensible causes with a 12-year close and influential relationship with an allegedly "progressive" candidate.  Simply not comparable.

    Parent
    By the way (none / 0) (#75)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:10:01 PM EST
    on the Maytag plant closure in Illinois, made so much of by Obama, Axelrod worked for the company management.  Didn't help the union much, eh?

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#83)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:17:34 PM EST
    But I'd say that explicitly helping a company craft its anti-union message is a far graver sin than working for it.

    Parent
    Dude, that's what he did for Maytag (none / 0) (#133)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:40:31 PM EST
    provide those lovely PR services while they sold out and the plant was moved to Mexico.  You are really a blind supporter it seems.


    Parent
    Is This A Joke? (none / 0) (#10)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:00:37 PM EST
    Isn't it part of a campaign to question one's adversary's chances of winning the GE?  Hasn't the other side questioned Hillary's ability to win "their" votes in November?  This looks like basic old politics to me.  Where is the problem?

    BTD probably went over to ... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    some other blog where they're making this "outrage of the day."

    I think he's overreacting.  Voters don't care about this kind of inside baseball stuff.

    Parent

    Thanks, I'm Still Getting Used To This Site (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    But at that 'other' blog, they made a big deal about me being new, and tried to get me kicked off.

    Parent
    He's right (none / 0) (#13)
    by goldberry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:02:54 PM EST
    I don't think Obama can snag the nomination with the slate of states he has.  It doesn't feel right.  You know it, I know it, Penn said it.  

    if obama snags the nomination with (none / 0) (#23)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    the help of super delegates, i don't think he can win in november. i haven't seen him take the big states. i have seen a very divided partisan campaign. i think obama's campaign has been largely responsible for that. will he bring the women and blue collar with him? that is an open question. his floundering with mi/florida recounts has turned off two important states. so please tell me how does he win? penn should have a muzzle, i agree.

    Parent
    Both candidates. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Arbitrarity on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:17:02 PM EST
    Have potential serious issues on their hands with a fractured party.

    Parent
    sadly i am beginning to agree with you. (none / 0) (#50)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:42:09 PM EST


    Parent
    And when you factor in that, according to (none / 0) (#42)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    Think Progress, Rove is an unpaid advisor to the McCain campaign, it's pretty easy to lose some confidence in Obama's chances in a matchup with McCain.

    I wouldn't expect it would be pretty if Hillary is the candidate, but I really think much of what could be thrown at her comes across as "old news," which will definitely not be the case with Obama.

    Parent

    i continue to be surprised and deeply (none / 0) (#48)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    disappointed in the obama campaign. i was just on taylor marsh looking at the diary regarding the now retired minister of obama's church. i respect this man's right to say what he thinks even if i don't agree. and his congregation has a right to worship and believe what they want. but i have to tell you, some of the things that man has said left me saying wtf! for example the good reverend seems to think that bill clinton took advantage of the black community, in essence he rode them. i won't use the terms used on the video out of resepct for talk left here. right after 9/11, he blames the us for the attacks. he calls the usa the us of kkk. i have to ask you, obama says this man is his mentor. ok! but exactly how is this going to get him elected as president of all the american people? and just what do you think the right wing will do with it in a general election if obama is nominated. i hate to even think about it. it will make the kerry campaign swiftboating look like a walk in the park.

    Parent
    republican strategists (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    have already said the ads against Obama would make the Swift Boat ads look like a Christmas greeting.

    I absolutely believe it.


    Parent

    the whole thing just made me sad. (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:43:01 PM EST
    the dems are snatching defeat out of the hands of victory. of course, i sincerely hope i am wrong on all schores in this area. that would be nice.

    Parent
    As Annoying (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:05:27 PM EST
    As Olberman was in his latest harrangue, his advice to Clinton, regarding Penn, albeit purely rhetorical, seemed right on.

    I stopped watching Keith Obamann long ago (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:19:59 PM EST
    I got sick of his obsession with drunk twenty-something women in shame spirals, whose pictures he exploited by glomming onto every scrap of Net gotchas he could find.

    I don't know if my tipping point was watching a bunch of doughy men complaining that Britney Spears got fat or that KO went to great pains to scrub his drunk twenty-something girlfriend's damning pix off the Internet.

    In any case, I prefer the free time. Devoting this amount of time to telling off HRC but not equally taking TeamO to task for not conceding MI and FL rather than tear apart the Dems is just same old same old.

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:47:02 PM EST
    Never watched his show. I gave up my teevee almost 20 years ago. I just see the occasional clip on C&L when something comes up about him. I must admit that I have enjoyed few good rants of his against BushCo. Even though I did agree with what he said regarding Ferraro's comment, and what he said about HRC's advisors, most of his tirade was pretty repelling.

    Parent
    Wish I had the discipline but I need my sports fix (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:54:25 PM EST
    I gave up my teevee almost 20 years ago

    I watch a few shows, the news, commercial free movies but the net and availability of shows I like on DVD is changing that.

    Realtime sports, though ... ouch, that would be hard for me to give up.

    Parent

    I Am Not (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:45:31 PM EST
    A sports fan, but I know some and they do need tv, whether it is their own, a sports pal, or the bar. I never understood the screaming at the TV part though, as if the players could hear them.

    Parent
    They can't? No way!! Next you'll tell me ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:08:46 PM EST
    ... people in horror movies can't hear me when I tell them not to go into the basement!

    Seriously, if my friends and family didn't have yelling at the TV as an outlet (whether news, sports or movies) we'd be yelling at each other.

    Oh weit, we do that AFTER the sports / news etc. anyway. Never mind!

    Parent

    Hahahhaa (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:15:56 PM EST
    I almost lost an ear drum sitting on a couch next to a friend who all of a sudden screamed at the top of his voice during some game. I slugged him and he did not even notice.....

    Gotta work on my punch I guess.

    Parent

    I strongly disagree (none / 0) (#22)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    I have never disagreed more.  I think Wolfson thinks Penn is much more than a dope. pfft

    I think Penn(sylvania) is relevant myself.  Obama has had huge media exposure, has money, had a run of wins.  I want to see a shift.  It seems everyone's heels are dug in.

    pennsylvania (none / 0) (#34)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:21:35 PM EST
    changes nothing.  most likely, at the end of it all, including florida and michigan, we will be right where we are.  this begs the essential question:

    how are you going to win the super's?

    claiming you opponent cannot win will not get it done.  you must argue why you are the better candidate in the context of the results.  to ignore the results is dicey.

    back to the future, the strength of your case to do that today will be, give or take in either direction, the same in four months.  it appears mister obama has a stronger case to make today.  hard to see how any of this changes that argument in four months.

    some have compared the penn strategy to the guiliani approach.  over time it might morph to huckabee without a better case.

    Parent

    Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#41)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:30:23 PM EST
    A shift in Pennsylvania would provide a basis for an argument to the supers.

    Parent
    how would a result in pennsylvania (none / 0) (#51)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:42:13 PM EST
    that favored clinton change the case to be made today?

    i voted for miz clinton, but i am not seeing the way to the nomination.  when i hear penn tearing down obama, i have difficulty supporting his candidate going forward.

    i am proud of my vote, but i will not take the party down because i did not get the result i desired.  it would serve both sides to find a way forward that is positive.  this is my efficacy now.

    Parent

    He just should have said (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:16:06 PM EST
    It is very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very UNlikely that Obama can win the General Election.

    Then he'd be off the hook.

    Yes.  He misspoke.

    I'm sure Howard will speak to him and Penn will say, yeah, you're right, I misspoke.

    Comment (none / 0) (#31)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:17:29 PM EST
    His comment was for the SD's, don't you think?  Plant a seed of doubt in their head.

    Like I said in another post (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:44:19 PM EST
    Thank God Penn and Axelrod aren't the actual candidates.  I try not to view either one through their surrogates, but neither of these guys gives their candidate a good name.

    amen (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:19:58 PM EST
    I cant believe either of them are still out front

    Parent
    Can Mark Penn Just Shut Up? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:50:35 PM EST
    the evidence says no

    Why not just list (none / 0) (#67)
    by Polkan on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:58:38 PM EST
    Penn's predictions that turned out right and the ones that turned out wrong?

    Penn's comment about Obama's electability (none / 0) (#106)
    by LCaution on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:54:43 PM EST
    I must admit that I am utterly, totally and completely baffled by this statement.  If an opponent's campaign, surrogate, whatever cannot argue that the other person can't win the GE, what, pray tell is legitimate criticism?

    Please, electability has been an issue on the table for months - as others in the comment section have pointed out.

    Indeed, I just Googled "electability" and the first item that popped up was:
    "Clinton dogged by `electability' questions - Politics- msnbc.com"

    It is always an issue, in every campaign, when a party doesn't have an incumbent President.

    For the record, I don't think Obama can beat McCain (Romney, maybe. Giuliani and the rest? yep.)  The media may love both men equally, but the affair with McCain is much older and stronger. And most of the techniques that Obama has used against Hillary will be useless, even counterproductive against McCain.

    I'm curious to see how BO survives the Pugs (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:21:08 PM EST
    If routine, albeit goofy spin for one's own candidate is now unfair by Obama rules, I can't imagine how the more Fair And Balanced Dems giving Obama a wide swath plan to greet the RNC wrecking crew.

    I don't want another Kerry redux of conceding turns at bat or taking shots at the basket to always being on the defensive, and doing even that poorly.

    It just doesn't work.

    Parent

    the republicans (none / 0) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:30:17 PM EST
    certainly will not have tortured conversations about political correctness and what is and is not "permitted"
    would you be the same Ellie from americablog?

    Parent
    No that's another one, but I often agree with her! (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:40:22 PM EST
    I confess that I haven't read much of Americablog in awhile.

    My blog gorging, I mean reading, has shrunk to a handful since doing my duty in '06.

    I like strong voices on the front page more than the babble of comments sections, although I occasionally to go off on babbles and only if something bugs me.

    :: cough ::

    Parent

    I relate (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:56:16 PM EST
    to no americablog
    hello anyway

    Parent
    people taking sides (none / 0) (#131)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:56:21 PM EST
    is not unusual in a Primary.

    Especially a Primary like this one which pits two embedded constituencies--Hillary has Traditional Democrats (minus the African Americas) and Obama (with the African American vote) has the traditional College and Professional class, plus whatever young voters he actually brings into politics. (I KNOW Hillary has young voters and professionals and some support among African Americans, so don't jump on me yet, please).

    What is unusual is the percentage of voters who say that they used to be neutral, or actually support Obama who have turned on Obama here at Talk Left.

    At Obama-leaning Blogs, which is probably the majority of left-of-center Blogs, the number of people who say they once supported Hillary and now do not is astronomical.

    Here is a Pipe Dream: what if we Democratic Party Members took the money out of OUR Primaries. Is it possible? I have nothing against consultants and producers and agency writers making a living, but the money spent already by Obama and Senator Clinton sickens me more than any Spitzer story and that story has me blue (Buffalo, NY Democrat here), although I like this Patterson guy. (Silver Lining?)

    p.s. I wish my voting records were available so people won't accuse me of "being in the tank for my Savior Obama or being an Obama-Bot---a phrase I am too old to understand by the way--I voted for each Clinton twice.

    p.s. does it help talk Left (none / 0) (#132)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:58:27 PM EST
    If I click on links from Memeorandum? I try to each time I see a link, but does it give Talk Left more links on future stories if people use that link?

    Mark Penn on the General Election | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment