The Penn Factor

Anne Kornblut offers up a profile of Mark Penn for The Washington Post that everyone ought to read. To make a long story short, though, if you think the problem with the Democratic Party is that it's insufficiently inclined to support wars, you'll like Mark Penn. If you think the Party is insufficiently friendly to the interests of major corporations and wealthy individuals, you'll like Mark Penn. If you think Menachim Begin was a great man and that the world needs more Dick Morris acolytes, you'll like Mark Penn. And if you like Mark Penn, you'll love Hillary Clinton since he "controls the main elements of her campaign . . . has consolidated his power, according to advisers close to the campaign, taking increasing control of the operation . . . has become involved in virtually every move Clinton makes, with the result that the campaign reflects the chief strategist as much as the candidate."

The one thing I'd really have to quibble with is the notion that Penn has "undisputed brilliance." I would dispute the idea that he's brilliant and I'm fairly sure I'm not alone. He's a clever businessman who's made a good deal of money for himself, but so have lots of other consultants. The view that the correct general election strategy on every issue is for the Democratic candidate to move to the right doesn't seem like really innovative thinking to me.

Comments

I'm sticking with Obama.

Posted by Chris | April 30, 2007 1:37 AM

Actually this has got me to wondering, who is Edwards' chief campaign strategist? Clinton's got Penn, Obama has David Axelord. Surely Edwards also has someone, or a combination of someones. It would quite illuminating to find out who.

Posted by Korha | April 30, 2007 2:09 AM

David Axelrod*

Posted by Korha | April 30, 2007 2:10 AM

If you don't like Mark Penn, you're a sexist.

Posted by digamma | April 30, 2007 2:47 AM

It's not really a suprise about Penn. Look who his business partner is. It's that tool named Schoen. I think Stoller wrote about him last week. Why do Republicans run towards their base in the primary, but the Democrats run away from theirs?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 30, 2007 3:12 AM

I'm not allowed to like Begin? Blessed are the peacemakers.

Posted by Steve | April 30, 2007 4:07 AM

"I'm not allowed to like Begin? Blessed are the peacemakers."

Blessed are the terrorists, when they're our terrorists . . .

Posted by rea | April 30, 2007 5:16 AM

Lest we forget: He's still better than Bob Shrum.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | April 30, 2007 6:29 AM

Mr. Matalin also works for Hillary, right? She seems bound and determined to stay the DLC course, as though nothing has happened since 1988, or since 2003.

If she's nominated I suppose I'll vote for her, but I'll feel that I've finally definitively become a man without a country.

Posted by John Emerson | April 30, 2007 8:15 AM

I'm trying to think of some way that this Post profile could benefit Clinton's campaign, but I can't think of it. I'm sure she's happy to know that Penn "controls [her]." Maybe he'll make sure she doesn't get a copy of the paper?

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | April 30, 2007 8:44 AM

But see, if now Clinton fires him, it will just make Penn stronger. He can then go the Dick Morris route and write a book for a large advance and join the Fox News payroll as a Democratic consultant whose party "left him." All the pay for 1/3 the work!

Posted by Rob | April 30, 2007 9:25 AM

And if you like Mark Penn you'll love Mickey Kaus.

Posted by JHM | April 30, 2007 9:44 AM

I have no issue whatsoever with anyone who has a demonstrably successful record of electing Democrats. I do, however, have an issue with the left of my party who seem hell-bent on losing the Oval Office yet again.

Whether it’s their incessant call for a Clinton apology, or denying that there is a “global war on terror”, it seems as if they are doing everything in their power to ensure another eight years of a GOP executive branch.

There is a reason why Emmanuel recruited conservative Democrats in his successful recapturing of a house majority in 2006. Further, they fail to grasp the indisputable fact that a Democrat who is perceived as weak on terror/security is unelectable as President.

Posted by JoeCHI | April 30, 2007 12:04 PM

JoeCHIbot: That's an interesting reading of the 2006 election. When did you write it? Sometime before the election?

Posted by John Emerson | April 30, 2007 12:22 PM

Mmmmmm, mealy mouthed, poll tested centrism and beligerent militarism. What's not to like?

Posted by Col Bat Guano | April 30, 2007 5:03 PM

JoeCHI,

You may have been right in 2002 and 2004, but its a different story now. I agree with you that Democrats need to be perceived as being strong on terrorism, but that's not the same as being strong on Iraq. Most Americans just want to get the hell out of Iraq.

Posted by Peter H | April 30, 2007 11:13 PM