Why Not Penn?

Noam Scheiber wonders why Patti Solis Doyle got the ax instead of Mark Penn and puts forward some plausible conjectures. Michelle Cottle ads some insight of her own. But let's try this on for size: Maybe Hillary Clinton believes Mark Penn is a brilliant political strategist who saved her husband's administration (and the Democratic Party) in the 1990s, put her in the US Senate, and knows the formula to put her in the White House.

Yes, I think that's ludicrous but then again I never would have made him chief strategist of my presidential campaign. Clinton obviously hired him because she admires his work, and there may well be nothing more machiavellian going on than that she continues to admire his work.

Comments

HRC's PowerPoint:

1. Hire Mark Penn
2. ???
3. Accept nomination!

Posted by The Confidence Man | February 11, 2008 5:27 PM

It's looking more and more like Bush management in the Hillary camp. Loyalism over results and reason. Hillary Clinton - she's the decider.

Posted by Craig | February 11, 2008 5:29 PM

Penny's doing a heckuva job so far.

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 5:31 PM

Sheesh, ever get the feeling that when Bill and Hillary have a conversation it's really just a meeting of their respective advisors arguing across the table?

This is a little weird for me. I guess she was involved in all those White House decisions, which to me means that he will be involved in all of hers if she wins. He says he won't but then again, what's his role now?

They are a pair, that's for sure.

Posted by david in norcal | February 11, 2008 5:32 PM

Because of this:

But even more problematic was the campaign's money crunch. Over the last seven years, Clinton had raised $175 million for her reelection and her presidential campaign. But Solis Doyle didn't tell Clinton that there was next to no cash on hand until after the New Hampshire primary.

"We were lying about money," a source said. "The cash on hand was nothing."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/maine_caucuses_barack_obama_to.html

When Hillary lost the "I loaned $5 million to her own campaign," (because she cared THAT MUCH!) spin, someone had to pay, and it was the person with the purse strings, not the person controlling the message.

She should axe him too, of course.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 11, 2008 5:32 PM

Occam's razor:

Hillary is simply a bad manager. Obama's campaign has run circles around her's.

When your campaign is based on your supposed advantage in exerience and mangerial competence this ain't good.

Posted by Eric k | February 11, 2008 5:36 PM

You can't fire Mark Penn but you can blow up his sail barge.

Posted by joejoejoe | February 11, 2008 5:37 PM

That's pretty much it.

Posted by Sam | February 11, 2008 5:44 PM

I'm looking forward to Penn's spin on Wednesday morning. "We knew we couldn't win in the Potomac states, they are home turf for Obama. What's that? Our national office is in Virginia? Well, it was a caucus state. What's that? Oh, well then there must have been a lot of African-Americans. What's that? We lost the white vote? Well, I'm sure the women all had to stay at home or were working and couldn't vote. Come again? She lost the female vote, too? Well, look, people. I think we all know that the only real Democrats in the country live in Ohio. The eastern part. And a little in the south. We're going to start targeting that area pretty hard. Yep, I'm guessing we get a majority there. But don't hold me to that."

Posted by Craig | February 11, 2008 5:48 PM

Yeah this cheap faux-strategizing that doesn't take into account the most direct answer (Matt's above), is really giviing the Clintons too much credit.

Why didn't she admit her vote on the Iraq War resolution was wrong? Either [insert assertion about the way she probably really feels] versus the direct explanation: she thinks the vote was the right one.

Why didn't she fire Penn? Either [insert inside baseball explanation here] or Matt's direct explanation: she thinks Penn is very talented and the right guy for strategist.

The direct explanation may not be right every time but in these cases I tend to believe them over the hyper-analytical ones.

Posted by riffle | February 11, 2008 5:50 PM

Can he even be fired at this point? If his company controls all the commercial production aspects of the campaign won’t it create an unacceptable slow down in the campaign if he were fired?

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | February 11, 2008 5:51 PM

. . . I never would have made him chief strategist of my presidential campaign.

Petey, right? With Spackerman as national security advisor?

Posted by southpaw | February 11, 2008 5:54 PM

She can't fire him! The campaign owes him something like $5.4 million.

Anyone else getting the feeling it'll be all over but the shouting after tomorrow? The delegate race is becoming a question of math at this point. The one possibility last week's "it will go to the convention" CW didn't account for was voters choosing Obama by a massive, crushing margin.

Posted by southside cat | February 11, 2008 5:59 PM

Who better to turn to than Marty's Minions over at The New Racist for the inside skinny on why America's Union Buster is still strategerizing for Team Hillary?

Corporate Centrism: Not Just a Punch Line Anymore

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | February 11, 2008 6:04 PM

Matt, you know better than to accept what appears to be the case at face value, assuming participants are acting in relatively good faith. These are Clintons! That means there must be subterfuge afoot!

Posted by SDM | February 11, 2008 6:06 PM

If results tomorrow are like the polls, Obama will have about a 140 pledged delegate lead.

For Hillary to beat him by just 1 pledged delegate, she has to get an average of 60% in the remaining contests.

If she splits all the contests but wins just Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, she'll need to take 70% of those delegates.

See the writing on the wall? Either she loses or wins through superdelegates, Florida and/or Michigan (January votes that is).

On the other hand, if Obama outperforms as he has been and the big 3 states are just a draw, then she'd have to run the table and get the delegates seated from FL and MI based on January votes.

You know, it's been said that it gets late early and it certainly has.

Posted by david in norcal | February 11, 2008 6:26 PM

Anyone else getting the feeling it'll be all over but the shouting after tomorrow? The delegate race is becoming a question of math at this point.

Nah. Obama will also need to win convincingly next week in Hawaii and (more importantly) Wisconsin. Even then, I can't imagine Hillary giving up the race before March 4th. I'm sure Obama will be working the four states that day hard in the two weeks following Wisconsin; winning Ohio would (should?) definitely seal the victory for him, if he manages to pull that out... because if he also takes Rhode Island (the state that thrice nominated Myrth York) and Vermont (land of Bernie Sanders), that gives him 27 states in his column. At a certain point the lead is just too great even with proportional allocation (and fwiw, I think you can toss at least 6 more states to Obama *after* March 4th).

Who better to turn to than Marty's Minions over at The New Racist for the inside skinny on why America's Union Buster is still strategerizing for Team Hillary?

Scheiber and Cottle have always struck me as good analysts. If you don't feel the same you should probably give a critical reubttal to their points rather than alleging guilt-by-association or racism.

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 6:29 PM

This post gives me a chance to ask a question I've been wondering about for a while: why do so many people hate Mark Penn?

Here is where I am coming from: I know almost nothing about him. I've heard him disparaged often, but never with specific details.

I'm interested to hear specific details and examples of why he's a bad strategist or deserves to be disliked. Please no ad hominem attacks--those are very unconvincing.

Posted by Jason | February 11, 2008 7:29 PM

Jason

For starters his company helps union bust

Posted by Eric k | February 11, 2008 7:51 PM

Eric K,

Do you have a link to a news article, or even a blog post supporting that? I'm looking for detailed explanations supported by evidence. I read a lot of hearsay, but that's not enough for me.

Posted by Jason | February 11, 2008 8:01 PM

Jason, Google "Burson-Marsteller" (the PR firm he heads) and take a look at some of its clients.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 11, 2008 8:09 PM

My guess is that Penn knows too much dirt about the Clintons, and is the sort of person that if the Clintons turned on him, he would not hesitate to spill some of the details.

As for Penn's horrific record of being on the wrong side of so many issues, here is an excellent article.

As you can read, whether it be union busting, protecting Blackwater, protecting the company that made those dangerous Aqua dots, it seems he always represents the sleazy and underhanded. As the article notes, "Is there a single cause, plague, scandal, affliction, or other form of bad behavior over which Mark Penn is NOT compromised?"

Posted by cm | February 11, 2008 8:09 PM

Hillary Clinton believes Mark Penn is a brilliant political strategist who . . . knows the formula to put her in the White House.

Clearly, this is the most likely explanation.

But it presents an interesting question: What, exactly, is Penn's formula at this point? What is he telling Hillary? What's his strategy for winning, given that Obama is tearing through February, gathering delegates and momentum?

Occam's razor says: Superdelegates. Penn is counting on the superdelegates, telling Hillary not to worry -- even if Obama gets more pledged delegates, the Clinton machine will arm-twist and cajole and bribe and win through the superdelegates.

Posted by CN | February 11, 2008 8:10 PM

Jason - Here's a piece from Mark Schmidt titled 'The real case against Mark Penn' which makes it's own argument against Penn and links to many of the other arguments against Penn online.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/51708/

Excerpt: "...Penn's choice of categories has little to do with the actual data and everything to do with his presumptions going in -- populism doesn't work, don't criticize corporations -- which in turn have a delightfully precise correspondence with the interests of the clients of the firm of which Penn is Worldwide President and CEO. And that's why neither Senator Clinton, the people with good sense in her campaign, labor leaders or other Democrats should accept lobbyist Howard Paster's explanation to Berman that Penn's corporate and anti-union clientele is "part of a whole 'nother life we lead."

Posted by joejoejoe | February 11, 2008 8:11 PM

Jason:

You can start here for some info on Penn's association with union busting. (Google "Burston Marsteller union busting" for more sources. Burston-Marsteller is Penn's firm.)

A lot of people also think that, whatever the significance of Burston-Marsteller's work, Penn's strategic advice is worthless. See this Mark Schmitt post for a good statement of some of these complaints.

Posted by bza | February 11, 2008 8:17 PM

Thanks, everyone. I will take a look at all the articles.

Posted by Jason | February 11, 2008 8:33 PM

Mark Penn has the proverbial face made for radio.

Posted by ThePassion | February 11, 2008 8:36 PM

Sometimes the blogosphere is guilty of overthinking, but this time I'd call it underthinking, because of the lure of finding the insider buzz. Don't fire someone, and you send the signal that you're in a bubble, which people already accuse Clinton of. (You know, the slick, packaged candidate who doesn't listen.) Fire Penn, and you send the signal that you're in free fall. It has nothing to do with the merits of the individuals involved or to whom they're most closely connected.

Posted by John Haber | February 11, 2008 9:06 PM

Candidates put the best face they can on the situation that they are in and make future projections that are based on the presumption that they are going to win.
When they don't do that, it's called a concession speech.
Why do the Obama advocates assume that anything other than a concession speech by Hillary Clinton is some kind of devious and manipulative lie?
The disrespect being shown Hillary Clinton by Obama's supporters -- including the assumption of bad faith and mendacity at every stage of the process -- will be the largest obstacle to uniting the party. Indeed, given what they say, why should anyone assume that they are even interested in bringing in those low-information, ignorant, rubes who voted for Clinton?
Once again, the liberal intellectual wing of the party befouls the bed by accusing other Democrats as being even worse than the GOP simply because those other Democrats don't recognize the moral superiority of the Left.
It's an old old story, and ends in defeat.

Posted by Tom in Ma | February 11, 2008 9:53 PM

Tom in MA,

The polarization within the Democratic party is not only attributed to something as simplistic as the intellectual wing of the Democratic party versus the "low-information, ignorant rubes." I personally know lots of educated people who support Clinton, and a lot of not so intellectually inclined who support Obama.

But if you're going to simplify the party down to "Obama Democrats" versus "Clinton Democrats", Obama Democrats do not want to unite with Clinton Democrats and some would rather even become McCain Democrats. A lot of this has to do with taking principled stances, especially on the issue of the Iraq war. Obama was and always has been steadfastly against the war, while McCain is just as unwavering and for the war. He even took leadership on the surge policy early on, and Obama, too, took leadership early on in opposition to it. Clinton, however, always came to the plate a little too late, and always in the direction of the public mood. This isn't leadership.

If the nominating Hillary Clinton is the strategy of beating those lousy Republicans, count us out. She represents the bitter bickering and partisanship that makes people want to become ignorant in the first place. Some of us don't want to belong to a party that will nominate someone who represents the bitterness that plagues American Politics.

Posted by Natascha | February 12, 2008 1:40 AM

Tom in MA,

The polarization within the Democratic party is not only attributed to something as simplistic as the intellectual wing of the Democratic party versus the "low-information, ignorant rubes." I personally know lots of educated people who support Clinton, and a lot of not so intellectually inclined who support Obama.

But if you're going to simplify the party down to "Obama Democrats" versus "Clinton Democrats", Obama Democrats do not want to unite with Clinton Democrats and some would rather even become McCain Democrats. A lot of this has to do with taking principled stances, especially on the issue of the Iraq war. Obama was and always has been steadfastly against the war, while McCain is just as unwavering and for the war. He even took leadership on the surge policy early on, and Obama, too, took leadership early on in opposition to it. Clinton, however, always came to the plate a little too late, and always in the direction of the public mood. This isn't leadership.

If nominating Hillary Clinton is the strategy of beating those lousy Republicans, count us out. She represents the bitter bickering and partisanship that makes people want to become ignorant in the first place. Some of us don't want to belong to a party that will nominate someone who represents the bitterness that plagues American Politics.

Posted by Natascha | February 12, 2008 1:40 AM

Let's leave aside the fact that the "steadfast" war opponent Barack Obama was voting AGAINST anti-war amendments offered by Russ Feingold and John Kerry as late as the summer 2006:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/181/

Fine, people buy and reproduce a lot of their own candidate's spin. The more shocking aspect of Natascha's post is her view that it really it DOESN'T MATTER what a candidate's position is on the war, as long as it's consistent. McCain is better than Clinton, b/c he's a straight-talker, so what's 100 years in Iraq between friends? Politics is about finding the candidate who is (according to the media and their fan club) the most honest? And the Obama people want to say their "movement" isn't about personality? Then set this lady straight!

There are real issues in politics. Is staying Iraq in perpetuity necessary or foolhardy? Should the wealthy pay a greater share of their income in taxes than the middle class? Should the government make sure everyone has health care coverage and some minimal retirement security or is this a matter for the market? Should women have reproductive rights or should every foetus be protected? Is the separation of church and state a good or a bad thing? Is homosexuality "aberrant" and "sinful" or should it be validated by law in the form of civil unions and same-sex marriage?

"The bitterness that plagues American politics" exists because people strongly disagree on these and other vital matters. It's not a result of the Clintons' personalities or campaign tactics and, fundamentally, it's not because of George W. Bush's style either. Polarization in Congress and the electorate has been building for decades, and was evident before any of these people came on the scene.

The fact is people disagree about important matters. Those disagreements map much more neatly onto partisan divisions than they once did. So partisanship and ideology reinforce each other and people do not always trust or ascribe the best motives to those on the other side. Welcome to politics. Even if Obama is elected it isn't going away.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | February 12, 2008 4:00 AM

The fact that Clinton is so close with that lizard Penn is reason enough to vote for Obama. His company consulted for BLACKWATER for chrissake!

Posted by Jen | February 12, 2008 10:41 AM

I too am baffled by her keeping Penn. I know the blogosphere counts for little and Clinton has ignored the internet, but it seems dumping Penn would restore her reputation a bit amongst the hardcore activists who decried his hiring last year.

Posted by Ricky | February 12, 2008 11:03 AM