Mark Penn's New Message: Hillary Is In "21st Century Solutions Business"
On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary pollster Mark Penn unveiled the campaign's new message: Hillary, he said, is in the "21st Century solutions business," while Obama is in the "problems business."
The new message coincides with a reworked stump speech that Hillary made this morning, in which she used strikingly similar language.
Separately, on the call Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson made it clear that he thinks the campaign has something of a winning message in the demand that Obama agree to more head-to-head debates, something the campaign desperately wants in order to blunt the impact of Obama's superior oratory on the stump.
Wolfson, in what perhaps signals recognition of the more than a dozen debates we've already had, pointed out that the two have only had a single head to head debate. "Is Senator Obama hiding from the direct comparison that voters deserve?" Wolfson asked, adding: "He will have a difficult time explaining that."
One other interesting tidbit: Penn flatly put a hard number on where the delegate count would stand after the big contests on March 4th: He said that she would be within 25 delegates of Obama.















"21st Century solutions business" sounds weird, it has no rhythm in it
"yes we can" is better
hell even Limbaugh's "keep her in so we can win" is better
February 13, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't knock it!
It'll only make her look worse and worse! It's obvious they're in spaghetti mode with marketing scheme. They'll throw everything they braintstorm against the wall in public view to see if anything at all will stick.
February 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was exactly my impression. How many themes have we been through now? I am losing count of the re-branding attempts we have seen.
February 13, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"21st Century solutions business" sounds like 'corporate downsizing,' or something the guy who's downsizing you would say.
Great job, Penn!
February 13, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, reinventing herself again.
This is the slowest I've ever seen a trainwreck happen.
February 13, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
She could always try The New Clinton.
Hell, it worked for Nixon . . . eventually.
February 13, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What evidence do they have that this "Obama doesn't debate enough" meme has any traction? I keep hearing Clinton aides say this but I haven't seen them present anything that proves it.
February 13, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like eighteen debates hasn't been enough.
I'm a toital politics geek, and I'm sick to death of the primary debates.
February 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Hillary's stump this morning:
The "empty rhetoric" attack is a more pointed twist on the old "no experience" attack, and judging what I heard from voters while campaigning for Obama, I think it does have some resonance. McCain also seemed to pick up this line in his speech last line.
I don't think that it will be enough for Clinton to regain any ground. Her known policy plans aren't much more specific than Obama's, and she hasn't offered anything new. Healthcare has been beaten into the ground already, and I don't even know their differences on mortgage relief. In other words, they have made similar promises, and Clinton hasn't made much of a case for how she'll be able to deliver on her promises better than Obama, other than to allude to her much-vaunted experience, which isn't anything new either.
That said, I think that Obama will need to better address the concern she raises, if not now than in the general.
February 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Empty rhetoric" and "no solutions" or "no plans" are the same bullshit attacks the Republicans use against Democrats year after year, no matter how many plans we actually have, and no matter how much better they are than their plans. She is following the Bush approach of repeating a lie enough times in an attempt to make it stick, just like he did with Kerry.
I'm tired of her slimy ass, and Penn's too, they can both go to hell.
February 13, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg D, you're supposed to write "I agree with Genghis" :)
The people from who I've heard concern about Obama's experience and substance have not generally been rabid hillbots. They've either leaned Clinton or been undecided, but they'll support Obama if he wins the nomination.
At that point, there will be a new a batch of undecided--those crazy swing voters, and I expect them to be similarly concerned about Obama's (perceived) lack of experience and substance. The experience attack is old, and I think that Obama has effectively countered it with his judgment argument and the need for change. But the substance attack is getting new attention from both Clinton and McCain. Obama should address it more aggressively in order to win over the new undecideds.
February 13, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, that did not work so well, let me try again:
I agree with this, if only to help the Clinton supporters transition to his campaign after he gets the nod (assuming, of course, that he does - the which is not yet a foregone conlcusion in my book).
I am not sure that I agree with this. Let me submit to you that the voters who say this might simply like Clinton or not like Obama for reasons too vague to articulate, but not wishing to appear like dummies they tell you "I value experience." I dare say that these same Clinton voters will not, in all likelihood, rush to McCain in the fall because he has even more experience than Clinton. In other words, I doubt that this argument is going to do any better going forward than it has of yet. It is less a lever to pry the unconvinced off their floor and into Clinton's basket than it is a line that rolls easily off the tongues of the already convinced. At least that is my humble opinion, for whatever little that is worth.
February 13, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
sounds like a last grasp effort; is this going to play in Texas and Ohio versus Obama's Hope? I don't think so.
February 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Within 25 delegates, or 25 pledged delegates?
Cause does anyone really care about the supers right now?
If Obama is up 125 pledged delegates but Clinton has 100 super-d leg up on him, will anyone at all see that as evidence that she's still competitive on March 5th?
February 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Solutions" like voting for the Iraq War, voting to call the Iranina Guard terrorists so W could go to war with them too, or even NAFTA? This ain't going to fly.
February 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he meant 25 total delegates, including super--err--"auto"delegates, which yes, would still put her down about 125 real delegates.
And I think Edwards and Biden and all of the others would beg to differ on the only one "head to head" debate, because I'm pretty sure in every one of the 18 previous debates that I saw 70% of the time was Hillary and Obama. Exposure isn't the problem here. Excuses excuses Hillary, you are so transparent.
February 13, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point on the prior debates. Excellent point. NO MORE DEBATES. Free ad time for clinton and it takes time away from obama meeting with voters and letting them get to know him. The more he meets with people, the more people like him and vote for him.
February 13, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's free ad time for Obama, too, and as long as they keep it positive, I think it's a win for him (vs. McCain). Right now, it seems there's a lot more media attention on the Democrats than the Republicans, and as long as we can keep this positive, that attention is a good thing.
February 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't need the free exposure. He's plenty of money for advertising. Clinton is a bit up against it, as far as money goes, so is pressuring for more debates.
Strategically speaking Obama has no reason to debate.
February 13, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he must have fudged his numbers then. If he's counting "automatic" delegates he's not taking into account the "defection factor".
February 13, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take Obama's "empty" rhetoric - which of course is false as anyone who takes two minutes to look into it will quickly discover that he has some well-thought-out ideas - over Hillary's "ever-changing say-anything-to-fit-the-moment reinventing-myself-yet-again" rhetoric.
February 13, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most voters do not read candidates' plans. If Clinton (or McCain) succeed in branding Obama as a candidate of empty rhetoric, voters will assume it's true. Obama has to say more than "read my plan at www.barackobama.com".
February 13, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he is. See his speech this morning. Of course, because he's such a great orator the press is happy to carry forth this idea that he's all talk, no plans. But he's been quite specific on many occasions. (And honestly, all Democratic candidates have been far more specific than Republicans, so how McCain can make that argument is beyond me.)
February 13, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I remember watching the debate before NV when all three candidates were so very clear and precise in their detailed specifics. I thought "well, this should lay to rest the idea that he is all style and no substance." As you can see, it has not. In other words, in the same way that Clinton is the "divisive" candidate and McCain is the "maverick," it might well be that Obama is already tarred with the "all-style-no-substance" meme. Once these things take hard it is very hard to reverse the trend. As such, I am not sure that he can ever be specific enough by this point to allay that criticism. I think he should try, but it might be too late. The silver lining of this line of thinking, however, is that he is already winning with this meme in place, so it might well be that voters are willing to forgive this perceived deficit anyway.
February 13, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that he has been tarred as such, and I would add that it's not all his opponents' doing. Obama's speeches are lofty and inspiring and generally short on specifics, which has many advantages but also drawbacks.
I also agree that this perception will difficult to reverse, but I do think that he can make more headway. Clinton has an incredible command of detail, against which Obama compares unfavorably, but his policy specifics are also quite good, which will be more obvious against McCain (who is no slouch but not Hillary). Greater policy differences will also make it easier to have good policy debates. Finally, in the lead up to general, I'm sure that he will produce more policy proposals, which should help.
February 13, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. I have noticed the same thing in most of the recent victory speeches.
Clinton has an incredible command of detail, against which Obama compares unfavorably, but his policy specifics are also quite good, which will be more obvious against McCain (who is no slouch but not Hillary).I agree in the main with this, but I would qualify this by saying that his current winning streak makes me wonder just how important such specifics are. Swing voters are a notoriously scatter-brained and impressionable lot, who seem to place undue emphasis on rather superficial characteristics (would I like to have a beer with this guy...). It might be that substance, important thought it may be to folks like us, might be more of an obstacle than not in the race to win over the undecided voters in swing states as it distracts from the business of emphasizing one's affection for God and country or one's love of apple pie and barbecue.
February 13, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
19th Century Racists with 21st Century Solutions.
LOL @ how friggin desperate Shillary is.
Mark Penn just turned her into Buck Rogers
February 13, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
God damn Mark Penn is an idiot.
Seriously, "21st Century solutions business" Sounds like the vague, ephemeral nonsense you'd hear at mid-level managers meeting conference room stocked with cheap-ass office furniture.
February 13, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a funny visual. I was actually thinking of an IBM ad. I think they use the same statements in their ads. Too funny.
February 13, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking more of that episode of 'Futurama' where Fry meets that guy from the 1980s: "Voters, don't you worry about 21st Century solutions business; let me worry about blank."
February 13, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just don't have the 21st Century vision to perceive the dynanmic paradigm shift.
February 13, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
21st Century typeo^^ dynamic
February 13, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's good to know that Penn has the math as we build a bridge back to the 1990's so that we can have 21st Century solutions to the problems Senator Clinton voted for, like the Iraq War.
February 13, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Sounds pretty lame, but I'm sure they poll tested it..
February 13, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
By my calculations, Clinton's getting within 25 pledged delegates after March 4 is possible. But it would mean winning all of the upcoming contests (Wisconsin, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Texas, Ohio) by 25 percentage points. That would be a head-snapping reversal of recent form.
What's more, the intricacies of the Texas format -- an open primary/closed caucus combo with delegates geographically distributed not by population but on the basis of past Dem turnout -- may make it difficult for Clinton to claim the necessary delegates even if she amasses a large plurality in the popular vote.
Clinton's nomination, what was once a sure thing, increasingly looks like a long shot.
February 13, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary, he said, is in the "21st Century solutions business,"
Isn't it very bad timing for Hillary to become a property agent with 21st Century, right in the midst of the housing collapse.
Does her Golden Blazer coming with a matching Pants Suit?
Will she be holding opening house showings soon?
February 13, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
not fair - you arrived without warning, and now my monitor is full of ... -- never mind; kudos and thanks for the giggle
February 13, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Mark Penn really say that? He thinks Obama's lead could be as much as twenty-five delegates after March 4? Things must be gloomier at the Clinton campaign than I thought.
Look at it this way. The AP puts Obama's total overall lead at 25; CNN puts it at thirty. So they're saying that after Obama wins Wisconsin and Hawaii, they can play him roughly even in the four March 4 states, and maybe make up the half-dozen delegates he's gained. That's a victory?
Even the maximal interpretation - CBS puts the lead at 67 - is fairly bleak. That'd be a promise to make up a total of 42 delegates on March 4, perhaps a few more to account for WI and HI. Of course, the current consensus is that unless Hillary can win in OH and TX by the sort of margin that would produce such tallies, she's finished, anyway.
February 13, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!
February 13, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes me think of Century 21 Real Estate. Aren't they the ones with the yellow jackets?
Well, Hillary has been wearing bright yellow an awful lot lately....
February 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This it seems to me is the same old tired "all we need is a new marketing message" Madison Ave. type of campaigning.
Mark Penn, and Clinton's irrational devotion to him, is the reason her campaign is in the straights in which she now finds it.
February 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"solutions business" sounds like one of those "thinking outside the box" phrases...like in bullsh&t bingo...
As for the whole debate issue? I don't think the argument from Clinton that they've only had one where it was just the two of them is really going to work...if they'd only had, say, 3 debates before the one with just the two, maybe. 17? Yawn.
February 13, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's ideating!
Everything coming out of the Clinton campaign right now smacks of desperation.
February 13, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
snore...
February 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Patty Solis Doyle. So 20th Century. Out you go. Here comes Maggie, here comes Maggie. Older than Patty by a mile, but reeking of 21st Century solutions.
Spray that Eua De Bullshit on the media.
Should auld acquaintance be forgot. Ask Lani Guinnere.
Patty we hardly knew ye.
February 13, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
He gets paid for this?
February 13, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, over 5 mill and counting. I would have fired his sorry a** right after iowa. The guy is such a loser and has apparently advised her on mistake, after mistake, after mistake. You can't keep changing your message over and over again. Take a time-out from the 24 hour news cycle, have a sit down and figure out WTF you are going to do. This constant shifting and changing of message is absurd.
February 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the "problems business"?
What does that even mean?
February 13, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is now just embarrassing. I never thought I'd feel bad for HRC.
Penn's a disaster.
February 13, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Lord, that's stupid. I'm pretty sure this is supposed to make us feel so sorry for her we'll give her a sympathy vote.
February 13, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cue those guys from the beer commercial: brilliant!
February 13, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I know that I live in a "little" state that has an open primary so our votes don't matter to Hillary but come on. Even in Wisconsin we live in the 21st century. We have tv's and cable or satelite. We have been able to watch the last 18 debates. I haven't heard anyone calling for more debates except Hillary who is seems can't afford to do much advertising.
She should be careful about these debates unless she is ready to actually answer some questions - not just change the subject. When is she releasing those tax returns?
February 13, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary hired Mark Penn and Patty Solis Doyle.
What does that tell you about how capable she would be about filling cabinet and judges slots. Go back and look up some of the names that had to be withdrawn during her term in the White House. They were people that Hillary promoted for the spots.
Ready from day one, my arse! More like: ready to screw up from day one.
Senator Obama was ready for the fifty state campaign from day one. Guess who was not!
February 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still prefer my campaign slogan for her, since it captures her fighting spirit:
Hillary The Warrior Princess who slays all Republican Dragons.
February 13, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, if they are down by 25 delegates then they win? I can't figure out the math here... Every time Penn draws a line in the sand, Obama crosses it. Then Penn draws a new line etc...
February 13, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the Desk of Mark Penn
Step One: Rebrand candidate (again)
Step Two: ?????
Step Three: Win nomination
February 13, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other interesting tidbit: Penn flatly put a hard number on where the delegate count would stand after the big contests on March 4th: He said that she would be within 25 delegates of Obama.
Okay, so I guess we can now expect with a fair degree of certainty that this won't, in fact, be the case.
Honestly, for a guy who allegedly spends his life poring over reams of finely-sliced data, he never seems to know what the fuck he's talking about. Has anybody ever seen Mark Penn and Bob Shrum in the same room together?
February 13, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Penn is an idiot. He should be fired.
Does he think that daily conference calls with reporters spinning this bs is going to sway voters that they are not, in fact, losing badly at the ballot box?
I think Penn is in the "conference call reality denial business".
February 13, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Senator Clinton can't get rid of this guy Penn , she has no right being president. Hillary supporters please listen up!
-- don't give a penny more until she exercises some leadership in her campaign. My husband and I have been very generous (within our budget) to Obama, since our first contribution a year ago. If I were a Clinton supporter (I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination)I would tell her no more money until she loses this fellow. Meanwhile, if she wins, no money from me. I could not stomach the thought of any of it going to pay for one of this guy's $500 combovers.
February 13, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, this is weak stuff from Penn.
Off the top of my head, you can counter that Obama is in the "business" of creating "problems" for his opponents -- i.e., he beats them in elections. Obama has not had a "problem" with pulling ahead of Hillary in the race. In fact, the general consensus seems to be that Hillary has the biggest "problem" at this point. She does not seem to have found a "21st Century solution," or any other solution, to winning the nomination.
Granted, running the country is very different from running a campaign. (Or least it should be.) But the line, "My opponent is all talk, while I get real results," rings rather ironic when your opponent has been delivering actual electoral results, while you use talk to rationalize that fact away.
This is the problem with running on experience. If you're not in the lead, then the subconscious question in voters' minds is, "If experience is so valuable, why haven't you used it to control the race?" Conversely, abstract themes like "hope" and "change" have the same effectiveness whether you're ahead or behind.
February 13, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but better read then Penn's latest stupidity, Pretty good read about the state of the dem party in the NY Times. I would recommend to clinton and obama people. Very interesting analysis.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/a-fight-about-what/index.html?ref=opinion
February 13, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary (OK, Bill) was in the 20th Century problem business. Were it not for the Clinton scandals, W would never had made it to be President.
No thanks - we already saw the Bush-Clinton-Bush movie - and the next sequel has been cancelled.
February 13, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is Inevitable that Hillary will continue to win the states that we will have to win in November, because the voters there understand that only she has the Strength and Experience to deliver 21st Century Solutions Starting On Day One, and they know that because they can see her record of Fighting to Deliver 21st Century Solutions, Just as She did in the 90s, and just as she has been Fighting to Do for the Last 35 Years.
She's very passionate about that. Really.
Talk among yourselves. I'm getting verklempt.
February 13, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious!
You're bad....
February 13, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, this is another reason why the clintons should not be back in the white house. They have run the dumbest campaign in recent memory. How is that possible with all her "experience" and leadership qualities. It has been a total slow motion train wreck.
I really don't understand what the campaign strategy was. They didn't contest all the super tuesday states and only concentrated on the big states. They never would have succeeded in a knock-out blow with that strategy. Also, they had no ground game and no organizing in states after super-tuesday. Now, they are rushing back to contest wisconsin at the last minute to avoid another blow-out. See below:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_on_el_pr/wisconsin_primary
Where is the strategy? Where is the long term thoughtful campaign to win? I really can't figure out their thought processes. The blew through over 100 million dollars for this? The huckster is running a better campaign. She really should have cleaned house in her campaign long ago. Now it is probably way too late.
February 13, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
21st Century Solutions Business? What next? PowerPoint campaign slides? TPS reports? Casual Friday reform?
February 13, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Penn is the new Bob Shrum.
February 13, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a Hillary fan, but have been trying hard not to join the attacks. But this theme, if they use it, puts her judgment once again into serious question. She claims "blue collar workers" as a big part of her base.
I'm thinking of back when I tended bar at a blue collar restaurant. I can see the customers with their shots and beers glancing at the TV and hearing "I'm in the 22st century solutions business". Just like their idiot boss. byebye Clinton voters.
Using "solutions" so you don't have to say "problems" has been a laughable cliche for at least 20 years. That she has PR geniuses who don't know that running her campaign makes me think she might really send Colin Powell around the world to "represent what is best in Americans".
It's getting really hard to remain civil.
February 13, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any more "substance" in Hillary's campaign than in Obama's, i.e., look at what he talks about, what is on his web site, etc., and there's a good amount of specificity in his platform, no less so than Hillary's. Hillary has created this label for Obama -- all style, no substance -- based on the fact that he's ALSO a good orator. It's a double-standard (which I know can be good politics if you are the one creating and applying the double-standard).
Point is, I hope Obama highlights how meaningless are these notions of "21st Century solutions business" and "problems business" -- they strike me a ridiculous and lacking any substance whatsoever.
February 13, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
21st Century Solutions, thinking outside-the-box; like these people ever learned to think inside the box, or somehow have foreknowledge of the 21st Century. But people have been known to fall for this snake oil. The money flows, and where it goes, nobody knows. They just regurgitate the SOS, and keep on getting richer – shades of P.T. Barnum. Fact is, it's been a 35-year train wreck. Oh, and the people who gravitate to the Clintons ... don't get me started. Well, the Clinton’s didn’t do so well in the Potomac Primary, but I remember when Bill Clinton promised 565 pioneer students a 21st Century education. It was warm in Monterey, Calif., as the party faithful began to congregate. I was sitting on a picnic table under a pine tree, sensing history was in the making: http://theseedsof9-11.com
February 13, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plan A was an early avalanche of wins to reinforce her assumed inevitability. When those didn't happen the lack of a plan B became problematic. I can't find a cite, but I recall reading that Clinton had spent ~$150M prior to the Iowa Caucus, and it appears that most of what she had left went toward the NH win. Super-Tuesday was pulled off using money her campaign didn't have. (that $5M loan)
It's pretty clear to me that Clinton's super-Tuesday strategy (focus on a few big states) was driven by her money problems. She held off on the staff changes and bail-out loan 'till afterward so as not to look weak. She didn't expect to win these next few races, so she took the opportunity to re-group now hoping it will have all blown over and be forgotten when the polls open in TX and OH. I'm guessing the new folks are working for less money than the old ones were.
February 13, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was amused by this Penn line in today's campaign press release ("The Path to the Nomination"):
"The reason Hillary is so strong in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania is that her message of delivering solutions resonates strongly with voters in those states."
Voters elsewhere? Not so into solutions.
February 13, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
As others have noted, Mark Penn is an incompetent, imbecilic idiot. Everything he says and does only proves this point and calls into question Hillary's judgment in staying loyal to him.
But here's what I think is the important point: Campaigns that keep changing slogans and retooling messages only reveal the lack of a singular underlying rationale for their candidacies other than personal ambition.
Lurching from "inevitability" to "experience" to "change" to "21st Century Solutions" only makes clear there's no there there except for what Mark Penn says. It reinforces the "authenticity" question for lack of a better word.
By contrast, Obama's core message has been the same since Day One, pardon the expression, and even since his 2004 Convention speech. That, to me, doesn't just reflect political savvy; it also reflects a genuine, authentic rationale for his candidacy, one grounded in his character and beliefs rather than whatever some bozo pollster tells him in a moment of crisis.
February 13, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Empty rhetoric" and "no solutions" or "no plans" are the same bullshit attacks the Republicans use against Democrats year after year, no matter how many plans we actually have, and no matter how much better they are than their plans.
this is why-I do not understand Hillary supporters. it seems like they don't hear/see/understand what she's really saying. this kind of "I know everything and you don't" BUSH policy got this country into a deep, deep, deep ****. it is more of the same. I want change, not just switch.
February 13, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Want to see something even more embarrassing?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8eb_1202939937
February 13, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but I think this Penn character has done a terrible job for Hillary's campaign. He calls himself a strategist??? He seriously has not done justice to Hillary. Be fair now, Obama supporters--HRC SHOULD have been a strong, first-rate candidate. But Penn's short-sightedness (no plan B) put the campaign in panic mode ridiculously early in the primaries. And the inauthentic, over-scripted, mangement of her image reveals a shocking lack of confidence on his part of her ability to appeal to voters. I think that was a huge mistake too. I think Hillary is FAR more likeable than her campaign seems to think. That really sucks.
February 13, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"21 Century Solutions Business" sounds like a Cisco or Avaya commercial from 1999. Not exactly presidential in several ways.
First - "21 Century": It's been the 21st century for 8 years now. Pointing out that you're hip with the 21st century make about as much sense as saying "I heard this great new band called U2, I think they could make it big."
Second - "Solutions": Even though I lived through the dot-com era, I never figured out exactly what "solutions" were. As far as I can tell, it was just a marketing term to make IT stuff sound more businessy. I have a buddy in finance who absolutely refuses to have anything to do with businesses that market "solutions" for this reason.
Third - "Business": I thought she was running for elected office in the government. The word "business" combined with the above make it sound like she's selling expensive copiers or VoIP telephones.
February 14, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a good slogan. However, I do think Obama will need to stay somewhat aggressive with Hill, rather than try and frontrunner-float above it all. She is desperately going to try and change the narrative. I think it would be wise for him to hit her on the ever-changing campaign themes. It shows a lack of will and consistency--the say and do anything to get allected theme that they (Obama campaign) had success with in South Carolina. Also, please explicitly mention that "hey, it's ok to have a little VISION with policy prescriptions." the two are are not contradictory! People prefer Presidents with real vision rather "21st century solutions."
This is my advice.
February 14, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I've lost count too. We're on "Ready to Lead on Day One" revision eight or so by my count.
The most sense I can make of Hillary's present campaign is she's running on Bill's time in office for the "experience" it gives her, while running away from her and Bill's actual record on NAFTA, failed healthcare reform, deregulation, and so on. Which weren't "mistakes" so much as the triangulation of DLC which the Clintons championed and personified; especially in Hillary's private corporate dealings such as serving on WalMarts board and work at Rose Law, the epitome of an establishment corporate lawyer, specializing in patent law of all things, while Bill was all for "free trade" and other laissez faire voodoo.
Then they attempted to spin those "mistakes" into
"experience." One of Bill's more "charming" endorsements was when he said in his most sincere aw-shucks way "voters want someone who's made mistakes." Lol. So the NeoCons and the New Dems should be our ideal candidates because nobody has made more mistakes.
Another of my favorite memes is she's "vetted" which is a nice euphemism for being strongly disliked by nearly half of the electorate before the general campaign even begins.
After losing Iowa she became a "change" candidate, and pointed out she's been for change for "30 years." Which explains perfectly why she specialized in patent law at Rose Law, becasue nothing says popular reform like helping large corporations to act in anticomeptatiev manner via the often frivilous industry of patent litigation.
Her inner activist also accounts for her time on WalMart's board, quite lucratively, while they were busting unions, disregarding labor laws, and becoming notorious for gender discrimination. She was trying to change them from within. Which of course didn't happen. But that must be another example of her mistakes and failures equating to "experience."
Her long history of "change" also explains why she initially ran her campaign as the experienced candidate and was beaming as Biden called her the "experience candidate" and Obama the "change candidate" and said there was a real difference between them in that regard.
Once she started saying she was for change too... well it just got changier and changier from then on.
February 14, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the other definition of "Solution" fits better: Something that's been dissolved in water. In Hillary Clinton's world "21st century solutions" are ideas that have been watered down until they're are totally inoffensive.
February 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink