Mark Penn: I Wasn't In Charge Of Hillary's Campaign
Hillary Clinton hasn't even conceded defeat for the Democratic nomination, but top staffers are already publicly blaming each other for what has gone wrong in the campaign. And it seems to be degenerating into two camps: Chief pollster Mark Penn vs. everyone else.
Penn told the Los Angeles Times that his role in the campaign has been overstated — he says he has simply been "an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to me."
"I have had no say or involvement in four key areas — the financial budget and resource allocation, political or organizational sides," Penn told the Los Angeles Times. "Those were the responsibility of Patti Solis Doyle, Harold Ickes and Mike Henry, and they met separately on all matters relating to those areas."
Finger pointing - always the sign of a campaign that's about to turn the corner.
March 3, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwahahahaha. What an idiot.
March 3, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was shocked when Penn told the Canadians that his candidate wasn't serious about NAFTA. Oh...that was a guy in Obama's campaign? Oh, well policy pronouncements from Obama's policy people should be ignored. We need to focus on petty infighting in the Hillary campaign!
March 3, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes - Hillary is spending much more time talking about policies with voters. Policies such as answering a phone at 3am and going on Saturday Night Live. Thank god she never makes any speeches or has any slogans.
Seriously, Obama and Clinton actually have very similar positions on the issues (they have differences in their health care proposals and he was against the war when she voted for it in 2002). Obama is a lot better at bringing people to these issues with a simple message and effective organizing campaign.
The other thing is that it's a small slice of people who want our candidates as overt policy wonks - but these overt wonks don't make good Presidential candidates (re: Kerry, Gore).
Obama is just a good organizer and knows the power of an effective message to build a movement. That doesn't mean that there's not meat and substance behind the message.
March 3, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read a different version of the Canada NAFTA story than the rest of us?
Hillary's campaign is implicated as well.
Both campaign's have denied the story.
The ONLY difference is that an Obama aide DID make an introductory tour of the Canadian Consulate in Chicago. The only 'sin' here is that Obama's campaign may have jumped the gun on making nice with our closest ally and trade partner.
March 3, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
now that's what a LACK OF LEADERSHIP looks like
March 3, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Penn's internal polling must be showing that Hillary is going to get beaten in Texas. If Penn thought there was any chance of Hillary pulling out Texas, he would not be disassociating himself with the campaign, and would be instead putting himself in position to take credit for Hillary's "remarkable turnaround."
Part of me wants Hillary to win both Ohio and Texas, just to see all the finger-pointers in her campaign do a 180 and try to take credit for what they were disclaiming only hours before.
March 3, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Be careful what you wish for. Please.
March 3, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink