The Cossacks Work for the Czar

"I like Hillary," writes the mighty Atrios, "I just don't really like the people she surrounds herself with (with some notable exceptions). As the campaign goes on it'll be harder and harder to rationally distinguish between the two."

I'm not sure I really grasp the content of the distinction. Mark Penn doesn't become a person's political guru by accident. It's worth noting that the general approaches of the sort of political consultants who might do work on a presidential campaign are sufficiently well-known that, by hiring the strategist who determines the strategy, the candidate is, in fact, determining in advance which strategy he or she will be advised to adopt. In short, you don't run a certain sort of campaign because you hired Penn, you hire Penn because you've decided to run a certain sort of campaign. This phenomenon become famous with regard to Bob Shrum, but it's more-or-less true for everyone in the business.

Comments

I suppose one distinction might be between the way Hillary campaigns and the way it appears she would govern. I don't know that this is the distinction Atrios was getting at, but I sort of feel that way.

Posted by Glenn | April 30, 2007 4:00 PM

Atrios is finally coming to realize that sympathy for Hillary for what the right-wing machine put her through is one thing, while supporting her presidential run in another.

Posted by David | April 30, 2007 4:08 PM

Mark Penn has strong feelings and probably lots of influence because he keeps his candidates from saying things that hurt with people in the center. Certainly Hillary is well advised to listen to him, but I'm not so sure that she hired him with the intent of listening to and doing ONLY what he suggests. Her campaign mgr is sort of an unknown, but her husband and other close friends clearly have influences as well.

So, I could see daylight between Hillary and Mark if I was close enough, I think.

Over at Ezra Klein's blog, Neil has posted some interesting stuff from the Pew poll. According to them, Hillary is viewed by Dems as the most liberal, but marginally less liberal than Bill Clinton, but Repubs see her as more liberal than Bill, marginally, and way more liberal than Obama or Edwards (even more than Pelosi!)

We should recall that Hillary has higher unfavorables (high 40's, I think) than the other candidates, and I think Mark Penn's job is to reverse or stabilize that number - no gaffs, thank you.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | April 30, 2007 4:26 PM

I like people with a proven track record of helping Democrats win!

Posted by JoeCHI | April 30, 2007 4:34 PM

Jim could be right that the centerism is a response to the perception of liberalism. But hasn't she been trying to be centerist for at least the entire time she has been a senator. It's serious mark against her as a candidate that she's not viewed as a moderate when she acts like one.

Also I can't think of a better indicator of what type of people she will appoint to govern the country then the type of people that she hires to run her campaign.
If she gets elected acting the way Mark Penn advises, then its safe bet that she will govern in a similar way to get re-elected. It's impossible to intelligently evaluate a president and ignore their staffing decisions.

Posted by ChrisB | April 30, 2007 4:49 PM

I think Jim nails it, that he is from the same town as me has nothign to do with it:-)

As a liberal I think Hillary is the worst possible choice. She is the most centrist and moderate of the 3 main contenders yet is percveived by independants and Republicans as the most liberal.

I think Obama is in the best position in that he is pretty much down the line liberal but you find lots of Conservatives who say they like him.

I also think an Obama administration will be able to enact the more liberal agenda for similar reasons.

Posted by Eric | April 30, 2007 4:52 PM

I used to say the same thing about Bill Clinton. I liked him but I didn't like the people he surrounded himself with. When you are running a small state like Arkansas the people around you may not be as much of an issue. When you are running an enormous operation like the US government you better have some effective and ethical people working for you.

Posted by danceswithgoats | April 30, 2007 4:52 PM

I know that if Hillary (do all these people think they know her or something that they can call her by her first name?) gets the nomination I'm tolly not gonna buck up. Just cuz I said I'd never support anyone but Dean and then I sent a letter by certified mail to John Kerry offering to become his personal ball washer doesn't mean anything.

Posted by Linus | April 30, 2007 4:56 PM

Sheesh. You guys are only disagreeing about where you draw the "rationally distinguish between the two" line.

Manufacturing substantive disagreement when it's in fact nothing more than that - what a waste.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | April 30, 2007 4:58 PM

MY- Best titled you've had in a while. Of course there always was a myth of the "good Emperor" surrounded by the deceptive courtiers in Russia who were responsible for all of the many ills of the Russian government. Though HRC's badness is fairly relative. Compared to Edwards and Obama, not so good, compared to McCain and Giuliani, much better.

BTW, what's up your guy Bill 'Whizzer' Richardson?

Posted by AJ | April 30, 2007 5:33 PM

We're almost saying that the Czar works for the Cossacks.

Posted by otto | April 30, 2007 5:36 PM

Of course its good. He stole it from Brad DeLong.

Posted by Rob | April 30, 2007 5:48 PM

Edwards ~ Obama > Clinton. I could see myself voting for Edwards or Obama, but not for Clinton.

Do we really want our list of presidents to read Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? I don't. And then there's the fact that many of the criticisms of H. Clinton are true; e.g. she takes important positions purely for political expediency, and it's very obvious. Clinton strikes me as too much in the Bush mold: She sees winning the presidency as the goal rather than a means to effectuate policy. I just don't like her as a person, as a candidate and don't think she'll make a good president. I won't vote for her.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | April 30, 2007 6:35 PM

Do we really want our list of presidents to read Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? I don't.

Not to be rude or anything, but that's about the dumbest reason to not vote for someone I've ever heard. It's up there with voting for someone because they seem like a fun person to have a beer with.

Posted by Thlayli | April 30, 2007 6:41 PM

Thlayli,

How is it trivial to oppose political dynasties? I would argue that if only two families control the presidency for nearly thirty years, this will only serve to further concentrate power in a very small and select number of hands and further limit the flow of new ideas and new people into the executive branch.

Posted by Philly | April 30, 2007 6:49 PM

I can't understand how anyone can like a politician.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 30, 2007 7:04 PM

Well, if you think political dynasties are a good thing, it would seem pretty stupid.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 30, 2007 7:09 PM

Philly: one man dominated the executive branch for 13 years, and that wasn't exactly a time of stagnation when new ideas were blocked from the White House, was it?

Posted by ajay | April 30, 2007 7:33 PM

ajay,

1) 13 years is a lot less than 32, which is how long a Bush or Clinton will have been in either VP, or P slot if Hillary were to win 2 terms.

2) FDR is (unless your a right wing nut) one of the 2 or 3 greatest presidents we've had, expecting the same from Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton si unrealistic.

Posted by Eric | April 30, 2007 7:39 PM

Shrum and Penn are polar opposites.

The former was behind almost every losing Democratic Presidential campaign over the past 20 years. The latter did what he was hired to do and won!

Politics is a contact sport. Gimme Penn ANY DAY!

Posted by JoeCHI | April 30, 2007 9:15 PM

Everyone:

Let's not forget that the two Presidentials that Penn worked ('92 and '96) featured a crazy three-way election in which the third-party candidate drew 19%, and a campaign against a messageless, tired opponent.

What's more, in '92, Penn wasn't the guiding force of Clinton's victory--Carvile/Begala and Stephanopoulos were, with Stan Greenberg doing the lion's share of the polling. Penn might have been in the room, but he wasn't calling the shots.

In '96, Penn did guide the campaign--but only after Morris knifed himself by having a hooker suck on his toes, and while going up against the oldest candidate ever nominated by a major party for the Presidency--a candidate who struggled to articulate a cogent reason for why voters should reject Clinton and vote for him instead.

I'll give Penn credit for helping guide the candidate to victory, but let's not pretend like he performed some kind of political miracle here.

As for '08, if you read the article, you'll notice that Penn's strategy hinges on winning OH and FL. Where have we seen that move before? Oh, yes...'04! He essentially argues that since Sen. Clinton currently leads among women and Latinos, she's nearly a lock to win in those two states.

I don't know how true that is, but speaking as a voter in CO, I've got an interest in seeing candidates and campaigns come to my state and try to engage voters. Given that Penn pioneered the strategy of campaigning in only 10 or so states obsessively, to the exclusion of everywhere else, I'd rather not see him within 10 miles of a war room.

Posted by Raf Noboa | April 30, 2007 9:31 PM

You have the saying of you are known by the company you keep. Penn is a known sleazebag and untrustworthy with ties to the DLC and republican agendas. This says alot about how hillary thinks, the kind of campaign she wants to run (sneaky and sleazy) and the kind of president she would be if elected.
Axlerod, Obama's strategist and closest adviser, ran Duval Patricks campaign, Harold Washington's run for mayor and Obama's bid for the Senate. his common thread of not doing the sleazy is well known. He reflects alot of the candidate's views and ideas.
I dont' know who or what kind of person is Edwards so, I cannot comment on that.
Needless to say, if Hillary gets elected she will probably have a spot in the white house for Penn and I think it would be good to watch her tactics in the coming months.
the planted story to look like a right wing smear is not below these people to do.

Posted by vwcat | April 30, 2007 11:21 PM

Gary Sugar: Actually, many politicians are personally likeable one-on-one, at least when they want to be; it's a very useful job skill. (Of course, just because they're acting affable and friendly doesn't mean they're sincere, but that's not always obvious when you're in the room).

Posted by "Charles Dodgson" | April 30, 2007 11:42 PM

Geez, vwcat.... of course Hillary's gone to someone with DLC ties. It doesn't say anything at all about her future policies; we already knew that she's essentially the DLC candidate.

Posted by AlanC9 | April 30, 2007 11:48 PM

Well, if you think political dynasties are a good thing, it would seem pretty stupid.

Disqualifying someone because her husband held the job, and the other party nominated a father-son team in the same timeframe, is the part that seems stupid to me.

Here's a radical idea: how about evaluating Sen. Clinton for herself? I'm not saying you have to support her, but if the best thing you can come up with in opposition is this "dynasty" nonsense, well....

Posted by Thlayli | May 1, 2007 5:19 AM

You only hire Bob Shrum if you;ve decided to run a certain kind of campaign a losing one.

Posted by The Next to Last Pope | May 1, 2007 8:32 AM

Actually, many politicians are personally likeable one-on-one, at least when they want to be; it's a very useful job skill. (Of course, just because they're acting affable and friendly doesn't mean they're sincere, but that's not always obvious when you're in the room).

Posted by "Charles Dodgson" | April 30, 2007 11:42 PM

--meet it is I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 1, 2007 9:05 AM

Hillary's been beating men at their own game for most of her life. To do that, she has had to be twice as good, twice as smart, and twice as tough to even be considered their equal.

Is it any wonder that she appears guarded, calculated, or tough?

She has a long history of progressive causes on her resume: including work on behalf of migrants, the poor, children, and women's rights. She campaigned out west for McGovern, and, her first job as a lawyer was as a member of the inquiry staff advising the House Judiciary committee during Watergate. She pushed for gays in the military and universal healthcare long before America was ready for it.

She took every sling, arrow, and punch thrown at her and her husband by the GOP and still ended up beating them. If she wins the Democratic primary, I don't doubt that she (and he)would beat them again.

I would rather be an in-power activist than an out-of-power activist.

So, if it takes the skills of Mark Penn or Rahm Emmanuel, who both have a proven track record of helping Democrats win, then so be it!

One thing is for sure; Bob Shrum, who has had his hand in almost every losing Democratic Presidential campaign (8 by my count?) in recent history, needs to be sent to a deserted island and not allowed to come back to American shores until January 2009!

Posted by JoeCHI | May 1, 2007 9:28 AM

I know that if Hillary (do all these people think they know her or something that they can call her by her first name?) gets the nomination I'm tolly not gonna buck up.

I remember there was some discussion about whether it's condescending or something, but really, she calls herself that in a lot of campaign literature, so it can't be that bad. Sometimes she's called HRC, but sometimes it's weird to have only one candidate known by a three-letter abbreviation. For what it's worth, I've also seen Obama referred to as Barack. The only Democratic candidates who consistently get called by their family names are Edwards, Biden, et al. So on the one hand, the only ones who get the respect are the WASPs — but on the other hand, they all have boring, forgettable, and non-unique names like John and Joe. McCain is always McCain, I seem to remember seeing Giuliani ads that call him Rudy, and Romney is usually Romney but sometimes Mitt. Note also that Giuliani's family name is hard to spell (at least, I think so) and misspelling Obama's last name would be positively disastrous. Conclusion: no disrespect intended by which candidates get called by first names, it's just the safer and less confusing option for some of them.

Yes, the blogosphere is one fucking giant tempest in a teapot, why do you ask?

Posted by Cyrus | May 1, 2007 11:07 AM

If we're to judge the candidate, in part, by who they surround themselves with, and I do think that is important, I'd like to know who is the Mark Penn of the other campaigns?

Posted by ally's gift | May 1, 2007 1:34 PM

tvpsi jkudvowlm fdyzebsv zjgsnxrom yqog ybcztkwu uhxrk

Posted by xhkfow fahjk | June 11, 2007 6:44 PM

vboghfm vsdkhtu oiwgcvxdf uxlpvgob snphgjfo dfyxg pxbiny nkmfq xhabmuglr

Posted by hzlabdy iabn | June 11, 2007 6:44 PM