Note Marc Ambinder's reporting that despite having been fired by the Clinton campaign, Mark Penn's responsibilities with the Clinton campaign are unchanged. I would also recommend Michelle Cottle's piece on Penn and why the Clintons like him so much. I would summarize her conclusions as saying that the Clintons rely heavily on the political advice of someone who doesn't like liberals or liberalism because they, like Mark Penn, don't really like liberals or liberalism.
« Oops! | Main | Bill Nelson? »
She Just Can't Quit Mark Penn
08 Apr 2008 01:19 pm
Comments (24)
MMMMMMMMMMMMMANDATES!
"...don't really like liberals or liberalism."
The Clintons are centrists with a left-leaning domestic policy. They gained political cachet in the 90s by triangulation -- and still can't quite come to grips with the idea that this can no longer work against the ignorant absolitism of the Bush GOP.
Penn is the least appealing person to appear on my Teevee in the past week. Of course, I haven't seen Bush or Christopher Hitchens lately.
Clinton is as stubborn as Bush. She still can't confront the fact that she and Penn really fucked up her campaign. So he has to stay on, if in a less visible position. In her mind, he hasn't done anything wrong.
So at the end of the day, what might Penn tell a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton that she must do in order to get reelected?
"It makes we wonder, if that were true, why she would volunteer for Gene McCarthy.
Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 8, 2008 1:26 PM"
Giuliani voted for McGovern in 1972. The hippies became Reagan's yuppies.
It figures that a trust fund baby like Matthew Yglesias would be worried about Mark Penn when real progressives can see that Obama is the true enemy because he opposes Universal Health Care.
So at the end of the day, what might Penn tell a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton that she must do in order to get reelected?
bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?
It's nice to see someone not pretending to have forgotten that the Clintons will NEVER be champions of liberalism or progressivism.
HeavyJ, how about James Carville or Joe Lieberman?
Ben Smith is trying to argue that inside the campaign his position really is diminished, from very important person to extremely important person. Externally, nothing appears to have changed except for job title.
Having him on the conference calls is particularly tone-deaf: if he's still very visible doing all the things we used to see him doing, then from our perspective nothing has changed. Even if low level staffers feel safer posting an anonymous anti-Penn cartoon on the bulletin board.
I'm not arguing so much for what an appropriate response is (though it's hilarious that Colombia's is "You're fired! and Clinton's is "Go think up a new job title for yourself!"), but that her campaign is trying to present this as rapidly and firmly dealing with the problem. Not getting to use your old job title just doesn't qualify, and is a lousy advertisement for her eventual management of a cabinet and government. She should see that. Being either completely loyal--even to the extent of not keeping him off conference calls for 24 hours--or scared to fire him (Smith's theory of a Penn talking tour combined with millions in unpaid bills) are not the message of serious and competence she should be projecting with this.
So Obama's advisers are telling himto stay in Iraq for years to come, but the problem is Clinton's advisers. Obama's economic advisers are complete conservatives, so what are you talking about in comparison Matthew? Do you want to have no universal health care and ruin the social security program also?
drjimcooper,
Well, after all his data shows that bombing Iran would improve her standing by no less than three points among conservative Jewish Arab lesbians over 65 living in zipcode 33407 (you know Aaliyah, right? Nice woman, but a bit of a hawk?).
Jennifer, as much as I would want Obama's advisors to push the "get out yesterday" idea instead of "phased withdrawal," Clinton is being advised by the likes of Albright, Pollack, O'Hanlon and Holbrooke, people who went out of their way to help get us in this war. They also backed funding the bill to fund Chalabi's coup attempts during the latter part of the Clinton administration. Power, who the Clinton people wanted out of the Obama campaign, was against the war from the start. Also, how is taxing more income to put more money into the social security fund, which is Obama's plan, going to ruin social security or are you one of those people obsessing over the fact that he once said "social security crisis" in a speech?
Assuming that Cottle's conclusion is accurate, there HAS to be someone better at it than Penn, not to mention someone who is less offensive.
It's not that the Clintons don't like liberals, they ARE liberals! It's that they don't like themselves.
It figures that a trust fund baby like Matthew Yglesias would be worried about Mark Penn when real progressives can see that Obama is the true enemy because he opposes Universal Health Care. Posted by Peetey
Peetey? I get the feeling that someone's constant ad hominem attacks on Matt Ylgesias got him banned.
MY I thought you were angling for Friedman's job not Dowd's. I dislike a fair number of liberals and yet still favor progressive legislation.
So if the Clinton's are center-left because they dislike liberalism, why did Obama end up there on the spectrum. I generally go with he is chicken shit who seeks to please the Broderites but maybe you have something better. (How about: Since he was abandoned by first his father and then his mother, reconciliation is Obama's primary goal not advancing liberal policies)
" I generally go with he is chicken shit who seeks to please the Broderites but maybe you have something better."
Who is "I"? Generally I consider anonymous commenters chicken shit. Especially when they are insulting and wrong.
Edwards didn't back Obama because he felt he didn't have guts and wouldn't win. Huge mistake. Now he can't back him because it looks like he's jumping on the bandwagon and being opportunistic.
"Also, how is taxing more income to put more money into the social security fund, which is Obama's plan, going to ruin social security or are you one of those people obsessing over the fact that he once said 'social security crisis' in a speech?"
A tip top reason not to vote for Obama; and from what I can tell Clinton is ex\oressing far more determination to get us out of Iraq.
The excuses for Obama and lies about Clinton just make me more sympathetic to Clinton.
As long as we make excuses for Obama we can be sure there will be no getting out of Iraq. I will just not vote at all unless I am sure he will get us out. I might not vote for him were he running in my state again today. I want the war over.
Jennifer, you simply cannot produce the slightest bit of evidence that Clinton will get the US out of Iraq any faster than Obama.
Read this:
Clinton and Obama Supporting Scaled-Down Occupation in Iraq
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1684
Money Quotes:
"JEREMY SCAHILL
Author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, Scahill said today: "All three of the major U.S. candidates for president have Iraq plans that would continue the occupation for the foreseeable future. McCain clearly would continue the Bush policy, but both Obama and Clinton have plans that would maintain some of the largest encampments of the occupation -- the Green Zone, the monstrous U.S. embassy, U.S. control of the Baghdad airport. Additionally, the Democratic candidates speak of maintaining a U.S. 'strike force' in Iraq and surrounding countries. In all, this could mean as many as 60,000-80,000 troops in Iraq for many years to come. On top of this, both Democrats have plans that would maintain a massive force of so-called 'private contractors' to support their Iraq policy. They are misleading their supporters when they passionately denounce the war and profess to support bringing it to an end. At best, what Obama or Clinton are offering is a scaled-down occupation -- but still a sizable one -- re-branded as a different mission.
'For the first time in 14 years, weapons manufacturers are donating more to Democrats than to Republicans. The Dems have received 52 percent of the military industry's political donations in this election cycle -- up from a low of 32 percent in 1996. There is a reason for this: it is good business policy.'"
And this:
Obama Advisor: 60,000 Troops Should Stay In Iraq Through 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/obama-advisor-60000-troop_n_95026.html
It'll be interesting to see what Hillary stops pretending to be when she goes back to the Senate next year.
Matt is just another trust fund baby so he doesn't understand that nothing is more vital to the prolateriat than empty symbolism. Houses, Health Insurance, Jobs, unnecessary wars, they come and go, but the lies your political hero tells you to get herself elected, they distract you from how depressing and meaningless your life is.
And hillary doesn't hate liberals, she just thinks Richard mellon Scaife, Rupert murdoch, and matt Drudge are really swell guys--and, all things considered, more fun to hang out with. Oh, the stories they tell!
Comments closed April 22, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I would summarize her conclusions as saying that the Clintons rely heavily on the political advice of someone who doesn't like liberals or liberalism because they, like Mark Penn, don't really like liberals or liberalism.
What are you saying MY? Are you saying she is still the "Goldwater Girl" she was back in 1964? Then again Matt Taibbi claims she was for Nelson Rockefeller and was upset that Nixon beat him and therefore left the Republican party. It makes we wonder, if that were true, why she would volunteer for Gene McCarthy.
Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 8, 2008 1:26 PM