Wow, reinventing herself again.

This is the slowest I've ever seen a trainwreck happen.

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.

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?

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.

19th Century Racists with 21st Century Solutions.

LOL @ how friggin desperate Shillary is.

Mark Penn just turned her into Buck Rogers

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.

Huh? Sounds pretty lame, but I'm sure they poll tested it..

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?

We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

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.

"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.

snore...

He gets paid for this?

What is the "problems business"?

What does that even mean?

This is now just embarrassing. I never thought I'd feel bad for HRC.

Penn's a disaster.

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!

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

21st Century Solutions Business? What next? PowerPoint campaign slides? TPS reports? Casual Friday reform?

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.