The Cossacks Work for the Czar

Sam Stein reports on Paul Begala's view of the Clinton campaign:

Begala, who has served as a CNN analyst during this election cycle, spent much of the event touting Sen. Hillary Clinton as a capable and experienced candidate who shouldn't be sullied by her chief strategist's mistakes. Asked how the New York Democrat could end up in her current predicament -- even Begala said it looked, at this moment, like Sen. Barack Obama would win the nomination -- he put the onus on Penn's ill-conceived game plan.

This doesn't really add up. Knowing who to hire, who to listen to, who to ditch, and when is a very important part of the job of a candidate, a president, or, indeed, any kind of executive of manager. Clinton can no more be unsullied by Mark Penn than George W. Bush can be unsullied by Donald Rumsfeld or Doug Feith. Nobody's going to run a large organization without making some personnel errors, but Clinton's association with Penn is longstanding, broad, and deep. It's hardly the entirety of her political persona, but it's a inescapably large element of it.

Comments

Man are you right on the money here. The real test of a manager is the people she or he choses for the jobs.

Her choice of and persistence in keeping Penn around speaks volumes about her lack of competence and even her susceptibility to influence peddlers. It doesn't not speak well of her in any way - let's just call it like it is here!

The first time there were issues with Penn, loyalty could hold sway - but this is not a new problem. He has been problematic for a long time. We have daily proof of a president who is very loyal to his chosen few - and look where we are today.

Posted by Clint Holeman | April 11, 2008 3:29 PM

but Clinton's association with Penn is longstanding, broad, and deep. It's hardly the entirety of her political persona, but it's a inescapably large element of it.

And don't forget about the Patti Solis Doyle fiasco.

Posted by right | April 11, 2008 3:43 PM

but Clinton's association with Penn is longstanding, broad, and deep. It's hardly the entirety of her political persona, but it's a inescapably large element of it.

Kind of like Obama and Tony Rezko.

Posted by dry_fish | April 11, 2008 3:48 PM

Welcome to "how many consultants can dance on the head of a pin, while splitting hairs." Begala's right, and Yglesias is right too. Penn is no "mere" advisor, and yet that Penn did not serve Clinton's assets well is also true. There is a better candidate lurking within Ms. Clinton than Penn permitted to emerge. The one doesn't rule out the other. Sure, judge Clinton for Penn, but don't reduce Clinton to Penn.

Posted by Martin | April 11, 2008 3:49 PM

Contingency planning - and the Clintons' lack thereof - was the problem here. . . Should Penn have anticipated the rise of an opposition candidate? . . . Or should the Clintons?

Whomever should have prepared a backup plan, it was not done. . . When Obama began showing real strength, the Clinton reaction was to become reactionary. . . Panic, snap judgements that backfired and downright foolishness followed.

She thought she was inevitable and, as matters developed, she was wrong.

Posted by Wisconsin Reader | April 11, 2008 3:50 PM

Bad form, dry_fish. Wright, not Rezko, is the stale talking point that Clintonoids are desperately clinging to.

Posted by Josh E. | April 11, 2008 4:28 PM

"Kind of like Obama and Tony Rezko."

That's a bit of a stretch, ...as in, not even vaguely similar in terms of context, the depth and complexity of the relationship involved, and the ramifications of said relationship.

If Obama had hired Rezko as his personal Rasputin, paid him huge sums of money for a truly pathetic job performance, and continued to retain his services even after doing perhaps irreparable damage to his campaign, then maybe you'd have something there.

Do keep trying, though, maybe somethin' will stick...

Posted by Rihilism | April 11, 2008 4:31 PM

I hear Rezko wrote "A More Perfect Union."

Posted by 55 | April 11, 2008 4:34 PM

"There is a better candidate lurking within Ms. Clinton than Penn permitted to emerge."

Where is the evidence of this? Is Mrs. Clinton smart and determined? Sure. But where has she proven any real political skills beyond that?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | April 11, 2008 4:39 PM

I think this campaign has clearly shown Hillary Clinton to be lacking as a candidate. Bad decisions, stupid statements, outright lies, and positions shifting to fit her political needs (like MI and FL) all show somebody who is not competent to be President. Just project her actions and reactions to the situations the President will necessarily face. The resulting picture isn't pretty.

Posted by LFC | April 11, 2008 4:54 PM

If Hillary is beaten, in large part it will because she's clinging desperately to 20-year-old DLC wisdom. I'm a little surprised that she and the other DLCers didn't notice that things have (unsurprisingly, after 20 years) and didn't change their game a little.

If it happens, I'll be overjoyed! to see that crowd marginalized and humiliated. Hopefully they'll have to spend spend the next 8-16 years watching their enemies within the Democratic party run the show while the DLCers beg for crumbs.

All this confirms my belief that the DLC was anti-liberal and pro-war on firm principle and not because of the political realities. The political realities were just trotted out as arguments against liberals. The DLC is willing to die for centrism, and bring the Democrats down with them too if they have to.

Posted by John Emerson | April 11, 2008 7:41 PM

didn't notice that things have (unsurprisingly, after 20 years) changed....

Posted by John Emerson | April 11, 2008 7:51 PM

When you hear Clinton acolytes and apologists talk about Penn, you wonder if they think the Democratic Party requires candidates to pick their advisors out of a hat. Or that the candidates are required to do everything their chief strategist says.

The unsaid: a campaign begins and ends with the candidate.

The conclusion: the meta-narrative should not be 'Clinton's run a lousy campaign', 'but Clinton's a lousy candidate'.

Posted by Steve G | April 11, 2008 8:48 PM

The problem with Begala's analysis is that hanging on to unqualified managers with inflated resumes that don't stand up to scrutiny--due to a nebulous mix of hesitancy to admit you were wrong about your character judgements in the first place and misplaced nostalga for the pyrrhic polictical victories of the 90s--is the raison d'etre of the Clinton campaign, not a critique she is likely to be receptive to, and certainly not one that can be used in her defense.

Posted by Client #11 | April 11, 2008 10:39 PM

Obama: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Do you true believers realize, if quotes like this repeat and repeat, that we're gonna lose? In the most Dem-friendly scenario in all of our lifetime?

God help us if there are similar quotes from the "Community Organizer" from the early 90's.

Posted by Andruw | April 12, 2008 1:02 AM

Andruw, despite Obama saying stuff like that, polls still show him as the candidate that most share's American values (including above McCain). Clinton was way below McCain on that. She has nowhere to go but down on stuff like that.

"Welcome to "how many consultants can dance on the head of a pin, while splitting hairs." Begala's right, and Yglesias is right too. Penn is no "mere" advisor, and yet that Penn did not serve Clinton's assets well is also true. There is a better candidate lurking within Ms. Clinton than Penn permitted to emerge. The one doesn't rule out the other. Sure, judge Clinton for Penn, but don't reduce Clinton to Penn.

Posted by Martin | April 11, 2008 3:49 PM"

If Bush hadn't appointed Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Snow, etc. and had instead appointed Gore, Zinni, Brzenski, Reich, etc., he would probably have been a better president. As MY once put it, if Bush had gills, he would be a fish. One of the main jobs of the president is that of a manager: choosing the best people to run various federal government departments, choosing the best advisors of varying beliefs and then choosing the best arguments they put forth, etc. Hillary Clinton has never been shown to be able to do this. Nobody forced her to pick Penn. She picked Penn because she over-values loyalty and agrees with his ideas on mictrotrends and microtargeting groups for support over microinitiatives. She thinks small and her campaign reflected that.

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 3:11 AM

It is "Knowing whom to hire,"not who to hire.

Posted by bill | April 12, 2008 2:41 PM

It is "Knowing whom to hire,"not who to hire.

Posted by bill | April 12, 2008 2:41 PM

It is "Knowing whom to hire,"not who to hire.

Posted by bill | April 12, 2008 2:42 PM

It is "Knowing whom to hire,"not who to hire.

Posted by bill | April 12, 2008 2:42 PM