Doesn't it seem like Harold Ickes should wait until the primary campaign is actually finished before dishing like this on the record about his complaints with Mark Penn? This is what anonymous sources are for. You talk on the record after you lose.
« Reform Institute | Main | Tunnel Vision »
Poor Form
28 Feb 2008 04:20 pm
Comments (28)
They *have* lost, Matt.
this is EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!
Maybe the reporter made something out of nothing. I can imagine Ickes making all of the same statements in a positive piece about Penn.
You talk on the record after you lose.
I guess Ickes is just a realist.
Why should Ickes wait to slam Penn when Penn just spent 45 minutes in an interview earlier this week blaming everyone except himself for the campaign's failure? He targetted Solis Doyle, Grunwald, Ickes, and everyone else in reach while insisting that his strategy was the right one.
(also, it is over, they all know it, and they just want to salvage their own reputations at this point, so out come the long knives)
To clarify, Penn's specific allegation that his message was pitch perfect and so Clinton won all the "message states," while there was a massive failure from the money people (IE, Solis Doyle didn't raise money well and spent poorly, which is why the campaign wasn't set up to compete after Feb. 5th) and those tasked with organization, which is why the campaign lost any state requiring organizational strength (the caucuses).
Not that he's wrong about those people failing massively, but of course, he botched his end pretty badly too. I'm sure Harold Ickes and a few other folks are pretty ticked about him spending 45 minutes doing that on the record, without pulling any punches.
I'm with SCMT. If you look at Ickes' actual quotes, it looks like he is just clarifying that Penn is, in fact, responsible for campaign strategy. There's no indication he's doing it in a critical manner.
The Bill people were always sieves to the media. True, usually as "senior presidential aide," but sieves, nonetheless.
You're right, "right." The blame doesn't rest on Ickes.
But the fact remains that this collective auto-vivisection is extremely bad for the campaign. HRC should either withdraw, or insist that her senior aides put up some pretense of actually, you know, campaigning for her (rather than for their next job).
I'm with SCMT. If you look at Ickes' actual quotes, it looks like he is just clarifying that Penn is, in fact, responsible for campaign strategy. There's no indication he's doing it in a critical manner.
Um. Not to be harsh, but it seems a bit oblivious to suggest this stuff is being said by Ickes in a positive way or just for clarification's sake. When a campaign looks sunk and someone says "Person X was entirely responsible for the campaign, the context itself says that it's being done in an extraordinarily critical manner. Ickes isn't an idiot.
These people are still in the midst of a campaign. The fact that they would rather spend their time talking with reporters than doing campaign-related work is not a good sign.
Message to Obama - allow diverse opinions inside the campaign but ditch anyone who leaks or speaks about campaign doings without prior authorization. Maintain the discipline without paranoia. HRC has paranoia and is losing the discipline.
Message to Obama - allow diverse opinions inside the campaign but ditch anyone who leaks or speaks about campaign doings without prior authorization. Maintain the discipline without paranoia. HRC has paranoia and is losing the discipline.
I think it's real juicy that it wasn't done anonymously and I want to know what Petey thinks.
I was a Hillary supporter, because I thought she sucked less bad than Obama. But if she was gonna lose, I would like to have seen her lose for her hawkish stance, enabling and legitimizing Republican frames, perpetuating the Republican lies regarding Middle East policy.
As it is, she looks like she lost because people want "change" and she's seen as "more of the same." Plus, Obama has got a rock-star thing going on.
Hopefully some primary voters DID think Hillary was too much of a hawk, compared to Obama. Wish that'd get larger play. Obama, for his part, still alludes to fallacies like al Qaeda in Iraq, when it serves his purposes.
@luci: Mostly, I think she lost because she had less money and worse organization. I mean, Obama's rock-starness surely helped him, but if he hadn't gotten set up to capitalize on his charisma, he never would have performed like he has.
As someone said above, this is horrible deja vu from the 90's when Clinton's people seemed to blab every critical thought to the media. It also makes the Obama policy of holding the national press at a distance seem an even better idea.
As someone said above, this is horrible deja vu from the 90's when Clinton's people seemed to blab every critical thought to the media.For all the complaints that Obama is doing well because of his "rock star" aura, the Clintons have always had the problem that their entire inner circle seems to think that they're rock stars.
Bush's failures as an executive are well-documented, but his administration has always been pretty strict about making it clear that his staffers work to serve him, not to chat up and promote themselves to reporters.
Boy, Arienna doesn't leave Ickes much room for hand gestures, does she?
One hilarious Ickes comment from the interview:
" he says, he tells superdelegates that “we have an obligation” to wait and pick the best candidate for the Democratic Party. “We can’t nominate a candidate who can’t withstand the withering attacks of the Republicans.”
--------------
Hmmm. So Hillary's position is that the "vast right wing propaganda machine" --of the Bill- Monica affair -- now gets to select the Democratic nominee??
What's the difference? Everybody's blaming Penn. And Hillary is toast.
A another fine example of Hillary Clinton's firm hand on the executive wheel.
The times broadcasts Ickes argument for him: the candidate is better than her campaign: that's a powerful message. Dumping on Penn strengthens and gives credibility to that message.
I do love Ickes. he has reason to feel betrayed by clintons but is still with them: that'sa message too to the dem party.
It could work. The coverage of Clinton today is significantly more positve than it has been for many weeks.
Clinton's people have to say honest things to get coverage and have credibility, particularly with superdelegates.
Barack Obama is a mortal lock for the Democratic nomination. Bet the farm.
@Michael C.: It's maybe a powerful message. To a lot of people, I think it says either: The candidate didn't have enough control of her campaign or The candidate is still trying to find an image that will impress voters.
I just think it's a bit late, and pretty silly. I mean, if you're trying to present yourself as competent to lead a country, it's awfully weak to offer the notion that you weren't directing your own campaign as an excuse.
It's my understanding that it was Ickes job to deliver delegates. It is incredibly bad form to openly blame everything on Penn when it doesn't seem like he's done his job very well, either. Clinton focused on New Jersey while Obama focused on Idaho, and Obama came away with 2 more delegates from those two states. Nice job, Harold.
I agree with Tyro, the amount of arrogance among the Clinton staff is unbelievable. It's pleasing to watch them begin to gag at the smell of humble pie. Clinton's message has been poor, her delegate strategy flawed, her press relations have been terrible, and her spending has been atrocious. That's not all Mark Penn's fault.
Mark Penn wins either way. He's made millions on this campaign, and in '12 or '16 he will be hired again and make more.
Comments closed March 13, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Ezra's post on this is worth a read. A quote:
"Looking back, the campaign's biggest error was fielding a candidate who had legislated as if it were still the 90s, eschewing bold progressive leadership and capitulating to Republican pressure on "national security." If Clinton had spent any of the last few years using her star power to lead high profile fights on universal health care, presidential powers, global warming, or Iraq, she might be in a very different place today. She'd be able to make the contrast with Obama, point to where she'd been a workhorse and he'd proven a showhorse. But she didn't. And at the end of the day, that's not Mark Penn's fault, though it may have been his advice. It's Clinton's fault."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=the_blame_game_1#comments
Sounds about right to me.
Posted by Jake | February 28, 2008 4:25 PM