Ickes: Mark Penn Is Responsible For Hillary Campaign
More infighting in Camp Hillary? Clinton adviser Harold Ickes seems to stick the knife in Mark Penn in an interview with The New York Observer...
“Mark Penn has run this campaign,” said Ickes in a brief phone interview this morning. “Besides Hillary Clinton, he is the single most responsible person for this campaign.“Now, he has been circumscribed to some extent by Maggie Williams,” said Ickes, who then pointed out that that was only a recent development.
When asked about the assertion by one senior Clinton official the campaign was effectively run by committee, diluting Penn’s authority, Ickes was incredulous.
“I don’t know what campaign you’re talking about,” said Ickes. “I have been at meetings where he introduces himself as the campaign’s chief strategist. I’ve heard him call himself that many times, say, ‘I am the chief strategist.’”
Asked if Penn preferred the title of chief strategist to pollster, Ickes said, “Prefer it? He insists on it!”
When asked if Penn was therefore responsible for the campaign’s strategy, Ickes said, “It’s pretty plain for anyone to see that he has shaped the strategy of the campaign. He has called the shots.”
“Mark Penn,” he said, “has dominated the message in this campaign. Dominated it.”
Ouch.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!
February 28, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never stop posting :)
February 28, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree - it never seems to get old! :)
February 28, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I laugh more with each new post.
February 28, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I smell something burning.
February 28, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh, those internal polls must not be looking too good for ohio.
February 28, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This just in...
Mark Penn has just issued a press release stating that much like red states, small states, multi-cultural states, southern states, and midwestern states..... anything Harold Ickes states doesn't count.
February 28, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact is that the campaign has continued to struggle after Maggie Williams was brought in, so they have to find another scapegoat instead of Solis-Doyle. Penn is an easy choice, but after a while, you've got to ask why Hillary has surrounded herself with such incompetent people over the years. That doesn't speak well to her ability to put together a good team around her in the White House.
February 28, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
BREAKING NEWS:
Mark Penn, chief strategist of the Clinton Campaign for President, has been thrown under a bus by colleague Harold Ickes.
I think ole Ickes is trying to make sure he can get a job after this debacle.
February 28, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The recrimination starts!
February 28, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other thing, anybody notice how much time clinton is spending in texas since her poll numbers there started tanking and since early voting started? Zero time has been spent there. She is spending all her time in Ohio. I believe that the absolute last chance firewall for the clintons is ohio. The clintons lose ohio, then they are done. If they win it by one vote, they will try to continue on. It will then be up to the supers to stop the madness.
February 28, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is planning to fall back and make her last stand in Antarctica. She has a natural advantage there, since she is The Ice Queen, and even Penguins shiver when ever she is near.
February 28, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh. Not cool at all.
February 28, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice that Josh Marshall is saying the same thing in his weekly round up. I find this plausible, but I would note two pieces of counter-evidence. 1) Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton are both still very active in Texas, and both keep reiterating that it is a must win for Hillary Clinton. As such, if they are planning to take a victory in Ohio as a mandate for continuing even in the face of a Texas loss, they are not setting the rhetorical stage for it; at least not yet. 2) Marc Ambinder is reporting (and I have no idea who are his sources for this claim, so take it with a grain of salt) that a large chunk of the campaign's paid staff are preparing to resign en masse on Mar 5 if she does not win TX.
February 28, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Marc hinted at that, but I doubt the veracity of the statement, even if Marc is a relatively solid source (as he seems to be).
Basically, I'll believe it when I see it.
February 28, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember though that they dispatched mr. bill to south carolina when it was a lost cause. Also, they have kinda had him out in the weeds to keep the attention away from him. If he was campaigning in ohio he would steal the attention from h. clinton, which the campaign wants to avoid.
I don't believe the staff resigning on 3/5 if she doesn't win texas. That would be career suicide for the staff. The clintons have a ton of political power in the dem party and will after this primary season is over. The staff will be loyal to the end rearranging the deck chairs as the ship goes down.
February 28, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur with the SC point. My thoughts exactly.
February 28, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be clear, the point I am trying to make is not "Bill Clinton's presence in TX indicates that they still think it is winnable." Rather, I am trying to draw attention to the fact that both Bill and Chelsea Clinton are still saying that TX is essential. If Sen Clinton's plan is to play up a win in OH as a mandate for her to keep on going, you would think that they would convey to her near surrogates (like Bill and Chelsea) not to claim that TX was a must-win for her. In the same vein, I notice that Taylor Marsh is saying "To be certain, Clinton needs wins next Tuesday, not big ones, but she needs to win Texas, Ohio and, say, Rhode Island as well." Marsh seems to stick rather reliably to Clinton campaign talking points, so if "Ohio is enough" were the new strategy, one would be hard pressed to see it in the present rhetoric.
February 28, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, valid point and that has been what the media narrative was from what mr. bill said. If you look at his direct quote, that's not what he said though. He said that he "thinks" that she needs to win both to be the nominee. I can hear the narrative already from him if the campaign changes its firewall for the tenth time. For example, my addition to the quote if they change again is that he will say something to the effect that he could always be wrong and that she won all the big dem states, or something along those lines. I don't put alot of credence in what mr. bill says in any event.
On the flip side, you very well could be right about the drop out if they don't win both, but the goal posts have constantly been changing in the clintons' campaign. I wouldn't put it past them to change them again.
February 28, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not put it past them either. To be very clear, I am not saying that I believe that she will drop out if she loses TX. I am saying that I do not know. The signals coming from her own mouth suggest that she is preparing to wake up on Mar 5 saying "the voters of OH have spoken and who am I to ignore them" while the signals coming from other parts of her campaign suggest that she is planning to quit if she does not win both TX and OH. I am at a loss to draw a conclusion from these contradictory data, but I certainly agree with you that I would not be surprised at this point if she keeps going in the face of a TX loss.
February 28, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
For once, I agree (meaning, I'm inferring i haven't agreed alot with you in the recent past, though I haven't written it).
Hillary has been squarely sitting in Ohio for quite awhile. I think this is the setup of the narrative post-3/4. If Hillary hangs on to Ohio, that is.
So, should Obama continue to split time between the two states, and go for the knockout? That is a difficult decision for him and his staff to make. Any ideas?
February 28, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely am of the opinion that he should continue to split his time between Ohio and Texas and go from the knockout. As others have said, even if she wins Ohio by one vote she's staying in until Pennsylvania. He should try and shut it down now and move on to focus his efforts on McCain.
I've also seen reports that, because the Clinton campaign doesn't have an efficient ground game down there, Bill Clinton's appearances have been very poorly attended because they're leaving it up to the local Dem. party people to publicize the events (as opposed to Michelle Obama's appearances, which are very well publicized by Obama's people, who are running an excellent ground operation). So I don't know how much impact he's going to have at this point.
February 28, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The nature and substance of the firewall keeps changing. First it was Texas and Ohio. Now it appears (based on recent activity, and the reported "misunderstanding" on the part of the Clinton campaign of the truly crazy Texas primary/caucus delegate rules) to be Ohio. But what doesn't change is this: she needs to win both, and win big, bigger than she has up to this point, in order to pull even with Obama in terms of pledged delegates. The Clinton campaign, of course, never mentions this little inconvenient truth.
So if I were David Axelrod, I'd have Obama in both states. He just needs to stay close. She needs a blowout.
February 28, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
When it ain't broke don't fix it. He is running an incredible campaign and should keep doing what he is doing, which is split time between the two. Splitting time doesn't piss anyone off and keeps people energized. He needs a big win in texas and he needs to energize the voters for the caucuses. Bottom line, keep splitting time.
February 28, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that he "needs" a big win in TX. He could suffer modest losses in both TX and OH and still win the nomination in the end. That said, a big win in TX is certainly a big help to him, so I am glad that he is working towards that goal.
February 28, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right that he doesn't "need" a big win, but it would be nice. A big win would off-set a narrow loss in ohio and maybe help sway the supers to shut down the clintons. Also, texas does have the makings right now for possibly a big win.
February 28, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, and I am very excited about that. Mrs DeLassus and I will be phone banking on Sunday to help the TX effort.
February 28, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Ms Soprano and CT Voter, I think splitting his time is the best strategy at this point. Not that the Obama campaign is eagerly seeking my advise on this point, but since you asked, this is my opinion. :-)
February 28, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's just spreading the love and giving credit to Penn - not dissing him. Cause they still have a chance to get the nomination.
They just need to start getting more votes in states that matter, that's all.
February 28, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like Penn could make the argument that things have really gone down hill since Maggie Williams came in. Of course, using Obama's favorite metaphor, maybe Maggie was brought in to try to get the bus out of the ditch that Mark Penn had driven into.
Either way, fingers are being pointed.
February 28, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happened to the sunny outlook? It now pivots to trying to make sure your career doesn't go down with the ship. Hey, at least it is Mark Penn who is taking the blame, and not someone of any value to the Democratic Party.
February 28, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am hearing that the newest Clinton spin is that they will "regain unsurpassable momentum" from Ohio and Texas even if they do not actually manage to close the delegate gap.
February 28, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure they'll gain momentum, but in what direction?
February 28, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
“Mark Penn,” he said, “has dominated the message in this campaign. Dominated it.”
Hillery Clinton bringing 35 years of, ready from day one, experience to play in how her campaign was being run.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for the thoughts of Mark Penn.
Good to know.
February 28, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know we're supposed to act as though it's not over when some people still get to vote. But, folks, the Clinton candidacy is SO fucked.
February 28, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter. But I have to say, if I were Clinton, I'd cut off Ickes immediately. What kind of advisor brings an internal squabble like this out into the press five days of a make-or-break election?
Penn has definitely run Clinton's campaign into the ground. But Ickes just shot it in the face.
February 28, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very true. Something tells me Ickes saw the handwriting on the wall. He's a smart operator, so I'm sure there is something else that is motivating him at this point.
As we all know, there is no love lost between the two.
Personally, though, it's not Ickes that shot the campaign in the face, Or if it is, Penn gave him the gun earlier this week (or was it last) at his book signing where he blamed everything on others besides him.
As usual, all are responsible.
February 28, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. That's pretty bad and shows there's not a team there. All these inside reports of the Clinton's campaign have sort of annoyed me as gossip among the pundits. Now, this past week it's been Ickes and Singer pointing fingers. I'm not sure how that plays out. If either of these guys worked under me with my team, I would guarantee they couldn't get a job again.
February 28, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
More like stabbed in the back.
February 28, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question is, why hasn't anyone been able to point out to the Clintons' that Penn's ideas might not be working so well? As has been noted many other times, it doesn't appear that the Clintons had a serious plan post-Super Tuesday. Penn, I'm sure, was an integral part of that lack of planning. Follow Super Tuesday up with 10 straight victories, and why isn't Penn being thrown under the bus?
I don't get it. Yesterday he was talking about the Clinton campaign being "misunderstood". That is nonsense--to have someone inside the campaign talk about being misunderstood. Who's fault is that? Why is this lack of competence still being rewarded?
February 28, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Suggests to me that Penn might have the goods on the Clintons (or at least some goods, God knows there is enough to go around). Perhaps throwing him under the bus would throw the campaign under it as well.
February 28, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
They can't throw him under the bus . . . it's stuck in the ditch.
February 28, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!! You just made me spit coffee on my keyboard. GREAT comment!
February 28, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
the phrase "Heckuva job, brownie." COmes to mind.
How you run your campaign is a good indicator of how you're going to govern.
Hillary has shown she values "loyalty" over competence or else Mark Penn would have been out of a job months ago.
We've had 8 years of a president who thinks competency isn't a valuable part of the job. How is Hillary going to change that?
February 28, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
They used the Rumsfeld/Cheney strategy: Hillary will be greeted with Flowers and Sweets on Super Tuesday, and there will be no resistance met, or it will be in it's last throes. No need to deploy troops to protect those Red States Cacuses Ammo Dumps. Mark Penn is Rumsfeld, Hillary is George W. Bush, Bill is Dick Cheney, and Patty Solis is Jerry Bremer.
February 28, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analogy, Liam!
February 28, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Carol,
And of course the big revelation that it leads to is this:
George W. Bush failed the Leadership test because he never asked or demanded that a contingency back up plan be in place, in case the Flowers and Sweets, and Shock and Awe, failed to accomplish what was being projected for them.
Hillary Clinton has just demostrated that she was just as incurious, and detached from the planning and implementation of the bigest project in her entire lifetime, as George W. Bush was. She too never asked or demanded that a contingency plan be in place, just in case she did not Shock and Awe the resistance on Super Tuesday. She has already failed the Leadership test.
February 28, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a very plausible explanation for this statement by Ickes. He knows the campaign will end in the next few days with an admission of defeat. And he wants the blame properly assigned before Penn has a chance to divert the blame elsewhere. After all he has a career and a business to defend, and a book to sell.
February 28, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, perhaps Ickes is trying to reassure superdelegates that the crappy campaign isn't Hillary's fault. Its Penn's. Tough argument to make (with a straight face, at least), since Clinton is the candidate, and presumably the one in charge, and ultimately responsible for everything.
But maybe this is Ickes' way of saying to the superdelegates "Yeah, this campaign has been troubled, but we know the reason why, and that reason won't be an issue in a Clinton administration".
February 28, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Mark Penn has dominated the message".
Well, folks, here's a quote from Mark Penn. You be the judge and tell me what kind of message he's conveying:
February 28, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you. I would have been perfectly willing to run Sen Clinton's campaign into the ground for only a fraction of his price.
February 28, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You probably would have done a better job too. Not that I know that you in particular would--it's just the average person on the street could do a better job (or have a better overall record) than Penn.
February 28, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of running her campaign into the ground? ;)
Is Greg supposed to take that as an insult or a compliment?
February 29, 2008 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do people still think this campaign can keep itself together for nine more months?
February 28, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's kind of the point. Apparently, no one does.
February 28, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor guy. This is the "politics of pile-on" he decried way back when.
You know...it's not easy. It's not easy. But he wouldn't do it if it wasn't the right thing to do. And he couldn't do it if he didn't passionately believe that it was the right thing to do.
February 28, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given all the good news for Barack and all the bad news for Hillary over the past three weeks or so, I can't for the life of me understand how she's still competitive in Texas and Ohio and, lest we keep forgetting, might actually win both races. And given that the Obama campaign has thoroughly lost the expectations game (meaning that expectations for him are now through the roof while those for Hillary are through the floor), for Obama to loose by even small margins in TX and OH would be disastrous -- and never mind the friggin delegate count. The post-election media blast would puncture eardrums and earn Hillary a ton of money and a high leg up in PA. If she then pulled off a win in PA, we'd find ourselves once again sizing up super delegates and, yes, Michigan and Florida. A best, in other words, Denver would become a mile-high pile of shit. So I'm with those who think Obama must at least win Texas handsomely, especially if Hillary manages a respectable win in Ohio, which from the looks of it she probably will. I had been saying that Obama needed to win both states, so I'm getting more lenient.
February 28, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Given all the good news for Barack and all the bad news for Hillary over the past three weeks or so, I can't for the life of me understand how she's still competitive in Texas and Ohio and, lest we keep forgetting, might actually win both races."
Well, he has caught up in those states, and I can see how people there wouldn't start paying attention until election day nears. But there's also the fact that not a lot of people pay really close attention. Yesterday, a friend told me that she thought it was really low of the Clinton campaign to pass around that photo to Drudge. Then, in the next breath says that Obama just needs to openly talk about the fact that he's muslim to diffuse the situation. I informed her he's not muslim and she was surprised. She's no dummy and does watch the news, so I was pretty surprised.
February 28, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make a good point, but I think that your dystopian vision is not the only plausible scenario that might emerge from Clinton winning in both TX and OH. After all, there was a breathless certainty in the days immediately following IA that he would be unbeatable, and then he lost both NH and NV. The story that followed was that Clinton was back on track and resuming her natural position as front-runner, but Obama simply dusted himself off and moved the battle to SC. If he were to lose in TX and OH (even at this point) I expect that the press would love the "comeback kid" storyline, but only for about a week. Then new fundraising stories, reports on the delegate totals and poll results would set her back a bit. As such, while I agree that big wins for Obama in TX and OH are the best possible story, I dare say that he could still survive narrow losses in both.
February 28, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, I don't think Obama and his campaign staff have taken a sigh of relief since the surprise of their NH loss. The shock of that loss went all through the volunteers in his campaign. I've heard Obama refer to NH a few times...not to take any election for granted.
I suspect that attitude continues and does infect the volunteers in next Tuesday's states. I read somewhere that one difference between the campaign is that Obama's volunteers and staff believe Obama MUST win while the Clinton campaign is much more relaxed about it.
Relaxed = Losing
February 28, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
A small loss wouldnt be disastrous at all. Hillary needs to win by landslides in all the remaining contests for her to have a reasonable shot at catching/surpassing Obama on the delegate count.
So Hillary may win Texas and Ohio. But she needs to win by huge margins in order for it "to count".
Of course, given how disastrous her ground game has been, and given the fact that her campaign just found out about the texas caucuses this month, I don't know if she can win Texas.
But Ohio, my homestate, may go her way. Of course, I'll be out canvassing all weekend to prevent that from happening , but even if it does, its hard to see her continuing if she ONLY wins Ohio.
February 28, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the desk of:
Mark Poison Penn.
Losing is the new winning.
February 28, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is going for the knock-out punch and that is a win in both Texas and Ohio, and the more decisively the better. If he wins both, Hillary will concede within two days.
Even with a loss of this magnitude, the Clintons can retain power in the party (severely diluted) but not if they continue a doomed campaign.
I think Obama will win both Texas and Ohio by a decisive amount.
February 28, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bill people were always the big leakers. This article is unsurprising. You have to admit, though, that for all of PSD's problems, you didn't have these types of stories out when she was around.
February 28, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't a leak. This is on the record under his actual name.
I do not get how blase everyone seems to be about this. When a campaign is in trouble, the senior staff will give anonymous quotage to the press in an attempt to steer the argument his or her way.
When a senior advisor goes on the record to flail another senior advisor like this, its a whole other thing. Anyone here besides me old enough to have seen "The China Syndrome?" Remember that loud alarm buzzer that went off with the flashing lights when the reactor was in meltdown? "BRRAAAANK BRRRAAAAANK BRRRAAAANK!" That's what this is.
February 28, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. The Clintons usually have a very messy organizational structure--well, usually none--but I don't recall an advisor going on record beating up on another advisor while both were still employed. This does strike me as very, very strange behavior.
I don't quite know what to make of it.
February 28, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's fun to note that it was Ickes, when he was working for Jesse Jackson, who convinced the Democrats to change their rules to eliminate the DNC (not public officials) superdelegates. And now he gets to spend his time telling those people what an important role they have in deciding what's REALLY best for the party.
February 28, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very true. Something tells me Ickes saw the handwriting on the wall. He's a smart operator, so I'm sure there is something else that is motivating him at this point.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23378037/
"Were Mrs. Clinton not in the race, Mr. Ickes said, he has no doubt he would be happily working for Mr. Obama."
"Mr. Ickes’s battles have often been as much inside the campaign as outside it. He and Mr. Penn have a long history of enmity — they did not talk when both worked for Mr. Clinton when he was in the White House."
February 28, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
JayAndrewAllen nails it. Well put, sir. What with all the Titantic metaphors floating (sorry) around lately, I'm tempted to say that the broadcasting of this sort of direct evidence of internal tension (to put it politely) is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I understand some commenters above think the loyal campaign-insiders will keep their lips zipped and their business cards handy out of a crass (but understandable) self-regard, but if Texas turns out like I'm hoping it will, this could be just the first of a series of truly ugly public blow-ups, finger-pointing, and recrimination(s).
If it weren't Democrats involved, I'd be dowright gleeful. As it is, I'm mostly just bummed out. Onward to the GE and President Obama's inauguration.
February 28, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It takes a certain level of genius to really mess things up, to the point where your record of decision-making is far worse than just rolling the dice. Not just anyone off the street can manage it; it takes years of experience.
February 28, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said! ♪♪♪
February 28, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for bringing that up. In the light of all the comments and so on, I'm beginning to think that Ickes is being convinced, by the superdelegates he can't convince - that the person to be helping now is really Obama.
So I wonder if this is a signal to the Obama campaign.
February 28, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
just got back in the states...hillary is all over the place in ohio right now, and spending lots on tv, radio, etc. john glenn and gov. ted are all over tv for her. yet obama holds one rally and it's front page news in the cols. dispatch. i drove by both campaign headquarters here in central ohio (actually, 3 barack has two large offices, one on OSU campus). the # of vols in the offices is 10-1 in obamas favor.
it's cold as ever here, tho. but the weather hasn't had much effect on turnout so far. we'll see. still time. news cycles important in the ohio papers for the next few days.
February 28, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL At first glance I thought the headline said...Icky Mark Penn! How appropriate.
February 28, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is going to be on for two minutes in every market in Texas and Ohio on Monday?
Egads. That's tough.
February 28, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
JayAndrewAllen
Maybe Ickes is hoping to be jettisoned so that he doesn't have to defect to the Obama camp and have his loyalty questioned. If he is jettisoned he can also provide all types of opposition research to the other side.
Or
This is all a planned strategy to keep the real person who is at fault looking good. That is HRC. First patty Solis Doyle took one for the team and now Penn is going to take one two, so that it can be said that THEY and not Hillary are responsible for this gross mismanagement of a team that had an inevitable candidate and the most respected juggernaut of a political machine built up in the past 2 decades.
Somebody has to take the fall and it can't be the candidate....after all, otherwise her 35 years of experience means she ain't ready on day one like all of us didn't know that when she voted yes to take us to go to war.
This Ickes chatter is likely damage control for the candidate.
February 28, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
MAGGIE WILLIAMS CIRCUMSCIZED MARK PENN!
I didn't know she was a rabbi!
February 29, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink