The Penn Factor

Andrew labels this tale of Clinton campaign infighting "the Clinton Unraveling." That seems like reading too much into events, but obviously her people expected to win and now it looks like they might lose. To me, the more interesting element is that while Bill Clinton apparently wants more savage attacks on Barack Obama, "Penn, sources say, has counseled moderation, believing an attack would elevate her already-high negatives and drive her too far to the left to win a general election."

At the end of the day, I'd strongly prefer that the Democrats not nominate someone whose top political strategist's thinking is so single-mindedly focused on fear of going "too far to the left."

Comments

What is the connection between attacking and being "far left"?

Theis turd sounds like O'Reilly -- anything you don't like is "radical liberal" or "far left" or whatnot.

The more I hear from Clinton, the less I like her.

I will be proudly voting for Obama, and wish more Edwards people would come to Obama.

Posted by WinSmith | December 13, 2007 2:04 PM

The best quote from that story is also the quote of the day:

"There are two people who have come up with this strategy -- one Hillary Clinton and one Mark Penn," said a top Clinton ally, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Mark wanted to run her, basically, for re-election, and we are seeing what happened."

So now we understand why Senator Clinton's didn't bother to stand for anything during her campaign.

She didn't think she had to run on any particular message since she's running for re-election to be First Lady.

-----

And aren't we all very, very sad to see Mark Penn's career and reputation immolating before our eyes?

Utterly disgraced union-busting Democratic political consultants are a new microtrend.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 2:10 PM

So, I guess the "first black President" wants to make sure there isn't a second.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 13, 2007 2:14 PM

"and wish more Edwards people would come to Obama."

I think Edwards people are fired up and ready to go to come to Obama and put him in the Naval Observatory.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 2:16 PM

I'm sort of suprised that Mark Penn's strategy won out over Bill Clinton's strategy. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, he is second to nobody in campaigning skills. I mean it; he probably is the best pure campaigner of the 20th Century. So when it comes down to whose advice you'd take if you were running for office, I think I'd go with Bill.

Edwards and Obama should cut a deal after the first couple of states, unless of course they are finishing 1-2 in all of 'em (hey, it could happen)...Whoever is in the worst position after S.C. should drop out and back the other guy...My two cents...

Posted by P | December 13, 2007 2:24 PM

Andrew Sullivan's opinions on Hillary Clinton are considerably more overheated than Richard Mellon Scaife's.

She's probably my 5th choice (behind Dodd, Obama, Edwards, Biden), but Sullivan is just completely insane on this topic.

I thought he had written an entire book about how bluster and wild accusations were not the greatest way to think through issues, but his insight on that front seems to be limited to the intersection of religion and politics.

And the fact that Mark Penn is employed is a scathing indictment of Rational Choice Theory.

Posted by anonymous | December 13, 2007 2:51 PM

Why does everybody think Bill is the greatest campaigner/politician in the history of the universe? He was good and all, but he wasn't THAT good. Jeez. Tell me, what share of the vote did he get?

Posted by arbistrista | December 13, 2007 3:06 PM

Andrew labels this tale of Clinton campaign infighting "the Clinton Unraveling." That seems like reading too much into events...

Whah? Sully going over the top on a story involving Hillary Clinton? WHO THE FUCK WOULDA THUNK IT?!

Posted by Rippie | December 13, 2007 3:21 PM

I'd just like thank the individuals responsible for keeping this blog up and running during this holiday season. Seasons Greetings. I believe the blog-o-sphere will continue to play a huge part in the upcoming presidential election. I won't go into a song and dance about free speech; I just want you to know that your efforts are appreciated.

That being said, politics sucks. There ought to be a better way to manage public affairs. Hillary Clinton has once again learned about glass houses. That people who live in them shouldn't throw stones, even if they enjoy it. The idea that throwing more and bigger stones would be better, is a ploy to keep the heat on, while doing nothing. Believe me, neither Clinton can afford to address the past: http://theseedsof9-11.com

As a non-political person, sucked into a political maelstrom, your effort helps keep me afloat: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | December 13, 2007 3:23 PM

Utterly disgraced union-busting Democratic political consultants are a new microtrend.

This is the best thing I have read all day.

Posted by Anonymous | December 13, 2007 3:32 PM

I wrote this comment in a post Matt put up yesterday. Doesn't this bother anyone else?

"Is there any doubt at all that she is the frontrunner solely because of her last name and family connections? Kind of reminds me of another president."

Bush is president now because of his father. The only reason Clinton is where she is is due to her time being married to Bill. I just don't get it. History--very, very recent history--teaches us that electing people because someone in their immediate family was president is a bad idea. A Clinton win will mean 24 straight years of Bushes and Clintons in the White House.

Also there's the small detail that Edwards and Obama are better on policy and that Edwards has the best chance of winning. Southern white man = win. On policy grounds, Edwards and Obama > Hillary. On the basis of electability Edwards > Clinton. I couldn't care less about skin color or chromosomes myself, but if winning is your concern, then keep in mind that Southerners seem to be averse to voting for non-Southerners, and bigots are averse to voting for blacks and women. Any way you slice it, Clinton is not the way to go.

But I wouldn't vote for Edwards either. I said in 2004 that I wouldn't vote for anyone who voted for the war in Iraq, and 4 years doesn't change that litmus test. Besides, like 2/3 of Americans, I live in a state which will only be in play if the election is a landslide.

My prediction is that any matchup of the big 3 Democratic candidates versus any of the Republican candidates results in a Dem win by at least 5% popular vote, probably closer to 10%. The housing bubble will not play itself out until after the election and a recession is likely. Gasoline will begin moving towards $4 a gallon. Bush’s favorability ratings are hitting all-time lows right now in some polls.

My question is, has anyone prognosticated on how many seats the Democrats are likely to pick up in the Senate?

Posted by blah | December 13, 2007 3:58 PM

Dear Blah,

Yes it is true that we first 'met' Hillary as the spouse of Bill but she is a human being who we the country and the world got to know over the past how many years. Rational people see that they and chelsea each have different personalities and even differ on the issues at times. She spoke and worked eloquently for years. she proved herself to many of us. she ran for election. You could have run against her or voted against her if you chose to do so. Neither her family or Bills family are endowed with power: comparing them to the bushes is silly: george w. grandfather was famous and powerful and rich. George w's father was a legacy in the ivy league. Bill and Hillary were not and are not. They aren't second generation anything. they are from the same generation. Her legacy isn't only because of his. many hillary supporters have long found her to be the one with more depth. She is where she is because we have kept her there, because she performed, because she has fought for real change (in our opinions) for as long as we have known of her. We aren't duped by her name. Love and hate the candidates you want to love and hate but know that the rest of us who have not seen the world as you have are not myopic and waiting for your insights to get us on the right path.

Posted by Michael | December 13, 2007 6:30 PM

Dear Blah,

Yes it is true that we first 'met' Hillary as the spouse of Bill but she is a human being who we the country and the world got to know over the past how many years. Rational people see that they and chelsea each have different personalities and even differ on the issues at times. She spoke and worked eloquently for years. she proved herself to many of us. she ran for election. You could have run against her or voted against her if you chose to do so. Neither her family or Bills family are endowed with power: comparing them to the bushes is silly: george w. grandfather was famous and powerful and rich. George w's father was a legacy in the ivy league. Bill and Hillary were not and are not. They aren't second generation anything. they are from the same generation. Her legacy isn't only because of his. many hillary supporters have long found her to be the one with more depth. She is where she is because we have kept her there, because she performed, because she has fought for real change (in our opinions) for as long as we have known of her. We aren't duped by her name. Love and hate the candidates you want to love and hate but know that the rest of us who have not seen the world as you have are not myopic and waiting for your insights to get us on the right path.

Posted by Michael | December 13, 2007 6:31 PM

Dear Blah,

Yes it is true that we first 'met' Hillary as the spouse of Bill but she is a human being who we the country and the world got to know over the past how many years. Rational people see that they and chelsea each have different personalities and even differ on the issues at times. She spoke and worked eloquently for years. she proved herself to many of us. she ran for election. You could have run against her or voted against her if you chose to do so. Neither her family or Bills family are endowed with power: comparing them to the bushes is silly: george w. grandfather was famous and powerful and rich. George w's father was a legacy in the ivy league. Bill and Hillary were not and are not. They aren't second generation anything. they are from the same generation. Her legacy isn't only because of his. many hillary supporters have long found her to be the one with more depth. She is where she is because we have kept her there, because she performed, because she has fought for real change (in our opinions) for as long as we have known of her. We aren't duped by her name. Love and hate the candidates you want to love and hate but know that the rest of us who have not seen the world as you have are not myopic and waiting for your insights to get us on the right path.

Posted by Michael | December 13, 2007 6:31 PM

Is anyone else tired of these silly reductionist inside baseball stories? Penn sounds problematic, and Clinton's strategy of keeping her head down till the general election is dull to watch and seems increasingly risky, but I just don't buy this article.

Penn says "don't go left" and Clinton says "okay"? First, life's not that simple. Second, I've never had the sense that Clinton was an empty suit who could be directed by a behind the scenes svengali like Penn is supposed to be. Third, Clinton has maybe a half-dozen close advisors who have equal influence as Penn but this story makes it sound like she has a little horned Penn on one shoulder and a halo'ed Bill Clinton on the other, arguing into her ears.

This is silly horse race reporting that probably has very little to do with what's really happening inside the campaign, except at the most superficial level (i.e., I'm sure they are constantly grappling with whether to go on the attack, make more explicit policy proposals, etc.).

Posted by Joe | December 13, 2007 7:59 PM

What do you think the Bill Shaheen thing was about? He's a seasoned professional, his wife was governor of New Hampshire and is running for the Senate. You don't just freelance in that position.

Posted by bob | December 14, 2007 5:47 PM

Matt, considering the history of Presidential election in the postwar era, fear of going too far to the left is a huge deal. Democrats that go too far left tend to lose over 40 states. There hasn't been a liberal Democrat elected to the Presidency since LBJ, and he was a) running against the farthest right of candidates, and b) he was less liberal than any of the current Democrats.

Posted by Adam Herman | December 14, 2007 10:53 PM