Mistakes Were Made

In today's New York Times:

Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist, said in an interview: “It’s important for all Democrats to keep the word ‘mistake’ firmly on the Republicans and on President Bush. Senator Clinton has been very clear that we, as a party, should keep the focus on Bush — these were his mistakes. Ultimately that’s very important, not just for her, but for the entire Democratic party.”

Ah, Mark Penn; innerant font of polling wisdom for DLC and HRC alike. His October 5, 2004 op-ed is always worth revisiting:

But after Bush changed his campaign tactics to tack back toward the center, Kerry believed his drop in the polls could be fixed by adding more "edge" to his message. He moved to make his opposition to Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq the centerpiece of his campaign message, a message with tremendous appeal to the Democratic base but whose appeal to swing voters is uncertain. Now there is a renewed opportunity to win back this group of voters who report that they have already definitely decided their vote, but who have repeatedly changed their minds this year. . . .

We might all learn a lesson from Bill Clinton in 1992. He won by making the Persian Gulf War irrelevant to the election. He focused on swing voters, with plans for welfare reform and middle-class tax cuts, and he drove the economy, not the war, as the central defining issue. In 1996 he focused on a plan to balance the budget and cruised to a landslide victory.

The difference between 1992 and 2004 (or 2008 for that matter) is, obviously, that the war was over by 1992, which made it much easier to render irrelevant. The idea that swing voters don't care about the deployment of over 100,000 American soldiers and Marines into a war zone, meanwhile, strikes me as slightly insane. The idea of Mark Penn serving as chief strategist for a presidential nominee (or, worse, a president) should send shivers down the spine of liberals everywhere.

Comments

First post!

(No, I really have nothing substantive to add. Mark Penn is clearly a Clinton hack, and Matt's right on the money.)

Posted by Korha | February 12, 2007 1:39 AM

Ultimately that’s very important, not just for her, but for the entire Democratic party.

But mostly for her. It's important for Hillary that nobody start asking why Obama could see through Bush's lies right away, and she couldn't.

Posted by tucco | February 12, 2007 1:45 AM

I agree that the focus should be on Bush, and his mistakes, but things would probably go smoother for Hillary if she got out in front about her own authorization and put it behind her.

Posted by Jimm | February 12, 2007 1:48 AM

I also agree with the party that the focus should not be on internecine squabbling, though what "ought" to happen and what "will" happen are not in my or Hillary's control.

Posted by Jimm | February 12, 2007 1:49 AM

Seriously, there must be a way to force the DLC fucks into exile. I hear Argentina's nice. Gawd, what douche bags.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 12, 2007 2:11 AM

Inerrant, not innerant.

Posted by ucfjoustudent | February 12, 2007 2:36 AM

It should be noted that Penn's advice is precisely what the Dems did in 2002 when they had their asses handed out to them.

Granted I don't think there's anything they could have done to win that election, but a coherent foreign policy message could have helped them in 2004.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | February 12, 2007 3:35 AM

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Democrats should be focused on the mistakes made by Bush. It is, unfortunately, true that the guy with the better story wins the election.

The Republicans have an absolutely awful story, in their foreign policy and their conduct of the occupation and reconstruction in Iraq. But, the Republicans are not going to tell that story on themselves. Nor is the right-wing, corporate Media going to tell that story, if it can possibly avoid it.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | February 12, 2007 4:02 AM

"The Republicans have an absolutely awful story, in their foreign policy and their conduct of the occupation and reconstruction in Iraq. But, the Republicans are not going to tell that story on themselves. Nor is the right-wing, corporate Media going to tell that story, if it can possibly avoid it."

there's an easy way to make sure that awful story still gets told. you tell it yourself.

third person, whatever. go step by step.

hold news conferences and speeches, and each time dedicate it to telling of a particular fuck-up or incident.

and you hammer the shit out of it.

have a news conference one day and spend 45 minutes talking about big oil's funding of anti-global warming researchers, and make it real simple, and involve the audience.

then spend 45 minutes a few days later talking about the complete lack of interest our leadership has shown in finding osama bin laden over the last 3 or 4 years. and again, hammer the shit out of it and don't treat it with a passing fancy.

the press will pick up on this shit eventually. they have to, right?

Posted by lyle | February 12, 2007 4:25 AM

The idea of Mark Penn serving as chief strategist for a presidential nominee (or, worse, a president) should send shivers down the spine of liberals everywhere.

The idea of a president who would listen to this kind of guy, and swallow his advice year in and year out, is what should send shivers down your spine. Hillary's values and policies aren't out of line with mine, but she's unqualified.

Posted by Andy McLennan | February 12, 2007 5:13 AM

Why even contemplate supporting HRC? Would her saying "I was wrong" make one tiny difference for anything substantive?

She is guilty of war crimes for cravenly and opportunistically voting to authorize an illegal "preventive" war of aggression. Time is up, case is closed on HRC. That vote says everything anyone needs to know about her and is predictive of her subsequent and future actions. Her dance around the questions of who made which mistakes and when is proof of her character, lack thereof department. Stop enabling her please.

Posted by tiptap | February 12, 2007 5:33 AM

Stop the self-destructive garbage about "war crimes," you moron. Push Hillary Clinton, but in a manner that is constructuve. OK, moron.

Posted by Jennifer | February 12, 2007 7:02 AM

Thank you Jennifer, now do you believe that our preventive war on Iraq was legal under international law? Simple question, yes or no? Or is that too moronic a question for you?

Posted by tiptap | February 12, 2007 7:35 AM

Well, so now we know that when HRC is president, it will be the policy of her administration never to admit mistakes, and to blame political opponents for everything that goes wrong. More Profiles in Decidership from the Clinton campaign.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 12, 2007 7:59 AM

"The idea of Mark Penn serving as chief strategist for a presidential nominee (or, worse, a president) should send shivers down the spine of liberals everywhere."

And why, precisely, should that send shivers down my spine?

I don't like the idea of HRC as nominee for a wide variety of reasons, and I don't think Mark Penn-ism is the exact direction the party should be heading, but why, precisely, do you think Mark Penn is as abhorrent as Marty Peretz thinks the Arabs are?

------

More broadly, for someone who once claimed to not be a politco, it really is a bit odd to see you abandon reality-based commentary for agit-prop.

It's weird. The Bush folks thought the war was important enough to abandon reality, and now folks like Matthew think opposing the war is important enough to abandon reality.

Posted by Petey | February 12, 2007 8:04 AM

I have been thinking about ever since MY wrote his "incompetence dodge" article, and am still unclear about quite where MY is going here. Seems to me:

Running against "mistakes" is running against Bush & the Republicans, HRC & the DLC, *this* war and I think provides some safety against countercharges and possible external unknowns, like another al-Qaeda attack.

Running against the *War* is running against hawkishness, especially liberal hawkishness, is almost a hyper-Angellism, against the idea of productive wars, wars that have any net benefit at all to anyone (possibility of wars that prevent net losses or worse outccomes remains).

I don't know, I found the general principles behind the "incompetence dodge" article pretty profound, but I don't know that America is ready for it, or if Matt understands or predicts the domestic politics well enough. But with the praise of Obama, he remains consistent and committed.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 12, 2007 8:05 AM

Shorter Bob:

Hyper-Angellism:the idea that there is no longer any productive military component to foreign policy.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 12, 2007 8:08 AM

Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist, said in an interview: “It’s important for all Democrats to keep the word ‘mistake’ firmly on the Republicans and on President Bush. Senator Clinton has been very clear that we, as a party, should keep the focus on Bush — these were his mistakes. Ultimately that’s very important, not just for her, but for the entire Democratic party.”

Does Mark Penn honestly think that he can keep the entire Democratic electorate on message for two years, during which time passionate discussion of Iraq and other aspects of Middle East policy will be daily campaign fare? Nobody is going to play his stupid little game of "let's not admit Democrats ever made any mistakes." So he and HRC might as well recognize that fact of life now, and stop acting in the theatre of the absurd.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 12, 2007 8:14 AM

I hate to say it but I'm with Penn on this one. Why is it important that Hillary admit that she made a mistake? She did, but the bigger mistake by far was Bush's, since he pushed and lied for the war in the first place, right?

Posted by grytpype | February 12, 2007 8:14 AM

Extreme corollary to above: that even most defensive uses of the military in foreign policy are ultimately not cost effective.

I am done.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 12, 2007 8:15 AM

"Why is it important that Hillary admit that she made a mistake?"

Iran?

I think the idea is to force the foreign policy establishment to accept that there was not only no military solution to Iraq (and Afghanistan might have been better served with police actions), but that any conceivable use of the military in Iraq guaranteed a worse outcome.

Isn't Fukuyama moving in that direction?

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 12, 2007 8:21 AM

Why is it important that Hillary admit that she made a mistake?

Penn's advice amounts to "Be vewwy quiet, Hilawy's huntin' the Pwecidency." Totally reasonable thing for him, as an HRC advisor, to want. Why anyone else would pay attention remains unclear. And why anyone would take advice on how political questions relating to the war should be handled from the DLC and its affiliates remains more unclear.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 12, 2007 8:26 AM

Hillary Clinton will kill candidates downticket everywhere South of New York and West of New Jersey. This is just one of many reasons why. I know a lot of moderate Republicans who are being driven into the Democratic camp. They all have 2 things in common: (1) they hate Hillary Clinton & (2) they think the Iraq War was a bad idea. I cannot express the numbers of ways in which she is a bad candidate for our side.

In fairness - if Clinton were a Republican male, then she would be allowed to be (1) both for the War and (2) against the War. Politics is not fair to Democrats. She can't run this campaign. She can't just lie to her base and the press and expect them to swallow it whole. It's hard, but it's the way things are. Now, McCain may get to be (1) both for a War and (2) against this War. That's because of the McCain rules of Journalism. But she has to expect to play by the Clinton rules. And even McCain may not get to pull this one off.

Posted by MDtoMN | February 12, 2007 9:15 AM

An odd thing about Penn's statement is that Kerry did very well going aggressive on Iraq. He won the debates exactly that way. Of course, the victory was short lived after spin control took over, but Kerry could have delivered anything from "Rubby Ducky" to the quality of the Gettysburg Address and the same thing would then have happened.

Posted by John Haber | February 12, 2007 9:27 AM

"The idea of Mark Penn serving as chief strategist for a presidential nominee (or, worse, a president) should send shivers down the spine of liberals everywhere."

Are you suggesting that Hillary is a liberal? I mean, liberals should be *happy* that this idiot is working for the decidedly un-liberal Hillary.

Posted by david mizner | February 12, 2007 9:37 AM

1) it's "inerrant" not "innerant"
2) I don't trust Hillary one bit. She refuses to admit that her vote in favor of the AUMF was a 'mistake'. Every fucking senator who voted for that thing knew that Bush was hell-bent on a war with Iraq. Any senator who maintains that they were 'fooled' by Bush, is either lying or lacks the political acumen to occupy the office.

Since I doubt that any of the 100 US Senators are idiots, politically speaking, that means that any senator who tells you that Bush 'fooled' them, is lying to you. They knew damn well what they were voting for. Bush gave them a fig leaf and now they are using it. Screw that.

Posted by r€nato | February 12, 2007 9:43 AM

Senator Clinton has been very clear that we, as a party, should keep the focus on Bush — these were his mistakes. Ultimately that’s very important, not just for her, but for the entire Democratic party.”

Dear Mark Penn:

What's best for Hillary != What's best for the Democratic party.

Posted by r€nato | February 12, 2007 9:49 AM

hate to say it but I'm with Penn on this one. Why is it important that Hillary admit that she made a mistake? She did, but the bigger mistake by far was Bush's, since he pushed and lied for the war in the first place, right?

when you know someone is going to pull the trigger, do you really want to be the one who loads the gun and hands it to him? (and then claim you really thought he would negotiate in good faith, and war was the last resort? It didn't work for Kerry, and Hillary was much more of a hawk that he was.)

Posted by Nanorich | February 12, 2007 9:57 AM

Bob -- your argument ad absurdum is just that, absurd. Running against this war is just that, running against *this* war. A majority of Americans believe *this* war was a mistake, and are perfectly capable of holding that view without being against all foreign wars, let alone defensive war. The idea that they would not be able to perceive candidates as holding the same view is simply ludicrous.

Posted by Redshift | February 12, 2007 10:10 AM

To quote a friend, "What the Democrats did was a mistake, what Bush did was a crime."

Posted by infoshaman | February 12, 2007 10:15 AM

"Bob -- your argument ad absurdum is just that, absurd."

We disagree. Lebanon being recent evidence.

If you still believe that military power can be usefully and profitably projected, then we strongly disagree.

Ian Welch at the Agonist has a post today analysing the defense budget, which has finally reached the level of spending as the entire rest of the world combined, yet we are losing two wars.

You apparently have no problem with that utter madness.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 12, 2007 10:24 AM

Wow. Penn just whipped out the "electability" argument for HRC.

Posted by Rob W | February 12, 2007 10:31 AM

Doesn't Hillary realize they heyday of the Mark Penns of this world is over? Recycled DLC crap will not cut it anymore. Clintonian triangulation will not cut it anymore. Clinton did not have a "landslide victory" in '96 unless you count under 50% a "landslide."

I think we are beginning to see the start of the Hillary death spiral which no amount of media hype and special interest money can stop. Thank heaven.

Posted by mjshep | February 12, 2007 10:48 AM

Although I do believe the Democrats should put most of their energy in the end blame of this tragedy where it belongs, on the Bush Administration and the Repugs, Hillary should have taken a page out of JEdwards' book on this issue. Stop listening to your political advisors, admit you were wrong and move on. However, too many months have passed and the continued mantra of addressing her vote by reiterating that she was mislead over and over again by the Bushanistas is just crap - and people who want a change are growing tired this defense and will not accept it. There was so much information out there (even several years ago) that could have been researched over and over with just the stroke on a keyboard to make anyone take pause before committing this country into this debacle. Her decisions and votes were based on her own personal place in the prevailing winds of politics at the time. However, I believe it has become clear that the Democrats got elected in this past election cycle because people have grown tired of politicians who believe themselves to be infallable and arrogant in their judgement of what is right for the electorate. Elected officials who pursue or approve policies and then cast votes upon the prevailing winds of politics and their personal place within it and not upon factual evidence,research and opinions of their constituents, do more harm than good, regardless of their party affiliation.

If in 2004, Hillary had expressed her regret and took responsibility for her part, I think many more people would have viewed her strength and conviction in a more favorable light. However, to this day she still continues on her ludicrious defense - and wants her fellow democrats (and some of those will agree with her because they too wave the same banner as she in defense of their participation) to get on board the train with her. Fortunately, there were and are fellow democrats who did not vote for the war, or who admitted their error earlier on, and it is they who are the thorn in the bush (no pun intended).

If focusing on this issue becomes a liability to her canidacy or final election (and I think that amongst dems and independents who have to reconcile this issue with their overall support of her, it does play a part), she really has only to look inside herself.

Posted by Corrinna | February 12, 2007 11:02 AM

If we're going back to '92 for a parallel path to victory, then we have to bring back Ross Perot.

Posted by Rachel | February 12, 2007 12:07 PM

I just don't see any getting around the fact that Bush had a harder time making these mistakes if Democrats like Hillary Clinton hadn't aided and abetted him.

Posted by Avedon | February 12, 2007 12:23 PM

Bill Clinton never won a "landslide" victory and never would have been President without Perot siphoning off Republican leaning voters. Thats a good part of why the Democrats lost both Houses of Congress 2 years later: Those voters felt that they had been tricked and they were enraged. They never meant to put the Clintons in the White House.

The first Gulf War was over in 1991 and we didn't have troops in Iraq. This guy Penn is an idiot. Why did anyone ever listen to him compare 1991 and 2004?

Posted by TL | February 12, 2007 12:32 PM

There's one very big reason Clinton needs to admit her mistake: It was a mistake that most of the Democrats in Congress didn't make.

In the House, the Democrats voted 81-126 for the Iraq resolution. In the Senate, it was 29-21. That's a fairly clear majority of the Congress (110 "yea" vs. 147 "nay") that was apparently better informed than Hillary Clinton was about what was going on in Iraq and the ability of the administration not to screw it up. Even a majority of the members of the Senate Select Intelligence committee voted against the AUMF.

Is that reason enough?

Posted by darrelplant | February 12, 2007 1:38 PM

Hil got hammered on the issue of her authorization vote in NH this weekend. It's not going to go away. There's a problem with refining your message for independents and moderate Repubs BEFORE you've gotten through the primaries.

Posted by Ref | February 12, 2007 7:12 PM

Which one of these buffoons is going to come out big time for publicly financed elections, like, right now? Whichever one does, if ever, vote for him/her.

Posted by bleat my little corporate pig bleat | February 12, 2007 9:28 PM