« New York Congresswoman: Hillary's Chances "Pretty Unlikely" | Home | Michigan Dems Suggest Compromise Delegate Plan »
Report: Mark Penn Thought Dem Primaries Were Winner-Take-All
With the Clinton campaign widely viewed as being on its last legs, staffers are now more free than ever to dish out some dirt on the many strategic blunders of Mark Penn.
The latest: At a strategy session last year, Penn reportedly said that a Clinton win in California would effectively wrap up the nomination by awarding her all of the state's 370 delegates.
As we all know, Democrats don't do winner-take-all primaries, but instead use a form of proportional representation that has been in force for about 20 years -- a fact that didn't seem to sink in with the Clinton campaign and their big-state strategy.
Advertisement
It's amazing how littel $10 million dollars buyes these days.
May 8, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
My very same thought.
Also, this is the type of leadership we can expect from a Clinton administration. I wonder if they've even read the Constitution yet, let alone party rules.
May 8, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Obama campaign should print out this post and frame it on the wall. I bet they're rolling on the floor over at camp Obama.
Well played, Hillary.
May 8, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eric:
Mark Penn is a Republican. That's why Charlie Black, McCain's campaign strategist, co-owns a part of Mark Penn's firm.
May 8, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, now THAT'S rich.
How much did they pay this buffoon again?
May 8, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"little" "buys"
damn fingers
May 8, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And he's getting paid how much?
Seriously?
What a farce.
May 8, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, I would say that is pretty clear evidence that this man is a Republican. It also explains why Clinton ran such a republican campaign. She hired one to advise her.
May 8, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Strategery at its finest.
May 8, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
(Un)believable that they would hire such an idiot!
May 8, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank god we won't get a chance to find out how many "loyal", moronic crypto-Republicans would have served in her administration.
May 8, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is Mark Penn is a Renfro. A half dead, but eating, subhuman, union buster with only half a brain.
Thank God Clinton lost, I have a feeling her cabinet would be filled with Renfros had she won.
May 8, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eric,
Just because Josh is away from the office doesn't mean you can start pulling material straight from The Onion!
May 8, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
May 8, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The hiring and retaining of Mark Penn Head, proves that Senator Clinton is a terrible executive We do not need another "heck of a job Browny" style of leadership in the Oval Office.
May 8, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
No shit.
The Clintons' blind loyalty rivals Bush's. No thank you.
May 8, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clintons (or at least Bill) and loyalty? That's an oxymoron.
As Jen Weiner's husband ably points out, the Clintons have thrown under the bus any number of loyal friends and loyal Democrats -- Harold Ickes, Lani Guinier, Marian Wright Endelman, and Jesse Jackson -- all in an effort to maintain or accumulate power.
May 8, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad I am not the only one who saw the similarities. Hiring for loyalty over competence. Who does that remind you of?
May 8, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even George Bush thinks Mark Penn is incompentant.
May 8, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cold, concise, accurate.
This made me laugh, sad as it is.
May 8, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
No wonder Hillary and Bill keep saying that under Republican rues she would already be the nominee.
May 8, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speechless
May 8, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Simply staggering...
May 8, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank the gods for Mark.
May 8, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad ruthless people can fail on the organizational end of things too from time to time.
May 8, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is testament to the idea that just because someone is a ruthless bastard doesn't meen they are a SMART ruthless bastard.
May 8, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wold add two additional big mistakes the Clinton campaign made.
Running a DLC type campaign designed around the electorate and realities of the mid-1980s and which did not heed the success of the Trippi/Dean campaign model, which the Obama camp has so successfully deployed.
And Bill Clinton alienating African American during and after the SC primary when Clinton still enjoyed significant AA voter support.
May 8, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
They've gone beyond the race card to the race deck. First Garin, now Hillary with the white voters meme--specifically, uneducated working class whites. I thought she was supposed to be on her classy exit tour. She's still trying to win over the SDs.
Now that Obama's won, I'm trying to get into the magnanimous zone, but she's making it really difficult. Why am I surprised?
May 8, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read that interview. Before, I thought "Give 'em a couple of days to grieve, and stop trying to push her out". After the "hardworking Americans, white Americans" comment, I think the superdelegates should start drifting over to Obama a little more quickly and publicly.
May 8, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "white vote" meme seems to be their pander to the next 6 electorates, especially the WV and KY vote.
They will defend that they are just repeating what has been in the media for weeks, so they have a legitimate defence.
It makes it no less disgusting though.
May 8, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The SDs aren't stupid; and, I assume, completely understand what the Clinton camp is up to. That's why the whole approach mystifies me. Just who does the Clinton camp think they are fooling. It seems like an insult to the SDs.
May 8, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because they're dumb?
Seriously, looking at the compiled evidence, a huge stack of miscalculations, arrogance, and really no plan to govern. The Clinton presidency was an 8-year campaign.
The country cries out for governance.
May 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is the way political geniuses choose their advisors I think we were wise wo select a neophite as our nominee.
May 8, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more. With all of the campaign experience that the Clintons should have brought to the table, they made the rookie mistakes...not the rookie.
She is a terrible manager, at best.
May 8, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm ready to lead (Republicans) on day one."
Oh, what? I'm running in the Democratic primary. Oh, crap.
May 8, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm waiting for Hillary08, Weaver, Gotalife, Louisville, dembellic or any "Clinton Supporter" to stick up for this joke of a campaign.
May 8, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you won't have to wait long. No doubt Gottalife will be cutting and pasting the word "leadership" in mere moments.
May 8, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those clowns are repuglicans, just here for kicks. Operation Chaos is winding down now so they are back home at free republic or little green footballs.
May 8, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary08 might be legit.
May 8, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a chance in hell.
May 8, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
May 8, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You think that is bad, I heard Penn thought he was really running Hillary's Senate re-election campaign, and was always yelling at staffers to "stop calling people in Iowa for chrissakes!!"
May 8, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what's really, really bad is Obama contributors may end up paying Penn's bills . . . oh, wait, maybe that's entirely fitting.
May 8, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're going to have to negotiate something akin to seating FLA and MI. We'll pay your debt. You eat your loans. I don't want to do it, but Obama will have to sell it as a reconciliation move...because otherwise it's saying to Hillary's supporters "screw you, you pay for this mess." Which is what I feel, but I want them to come around to Barack. And we're talking small time supporters representing masses of voters, all the fat cats are tapped.
Maybe funnel the money to the DNC and let them deal.
Don't shoot me.
May 8, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The idea of her hanging onto this race past its logical conclusion just so she can get someone to pay her tab is pretty disgusting to me, though.
May 8, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It'll be interesting to see how that shakes down. Senator Obama enjoyed contributions from small donors. I imagine many of those people would be upset to pay the bills of an opposing candidate who, according to their tax returns, do not need help.
May 8, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Count me as one of those. If I wanted my money to line Penn's pockets, I would have supported Hillary in the first place. She got herself into this mess. No one forced her to liquidate the money she raised from her book AND her Senate salary for a campaign everyone knew couldn't win. I, for one, will be pissed at shit if a deal is struck where Obama agrees to pay off her debts.
May 8, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
personally, I wouldn't mind if Senator Obama paid off the vendors, but not the self-loans, and nothing for Penn's outfit.
May 8, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vendors I'd be totally okay with.
But not any top campaign advisors or Hillary's personal loan.
May 8, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mean, where is the incentive to stop if she knows in the back of her head Daddy Obama will pay off all her debts.
May 8, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on this one. I've never given to a political campaign until Obama came along. To think of my donation going to Hillary is, well, disturbing.
May 8, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it gets her to stand down, I'll contribute another $50 tonight.
May 8, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why spread internet based rumors with no basis in fact?
May 8, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
May 8, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another item in that list details how the Clintons discounted the caucus states, primarily because Hillary's base -- low income voters, women and the elderly -- were "were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires." We've been hearing this argument for months, and I'm sick of it.
First, Obama has plenty of female supporters, and I'm willing to bet that a lot of them were out there caucusing for him. But secondly, I love, yet again, the notion being put forth that all of us Obama supporters are trust-fund babies, with no obligations whatsoever, being chauffeured to the caucuses in our gold cars.
If you support a candidate, you'll do everything you can to be there for them. I'm sure there were plenty of Obama supporters who took the night off work to caucus for him, and lots of others who tried, but could not. And as far as the elderly go, I know that my grandparents can certainly find free time in the evening to celebrate the occasional birthday, etc., so I see no reason why caucusing would be a problem for elderly voters.
It's a ridiculous excuse, and the Clintons should just admit that they blew it.
May 8, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maine caucuses on a Sunday. We had snow. We had long lines. We had plenty of old people with walkers and wheelchairs--many on Hillary's side, lots on Barack's.
The point of a caucus is that it's a mini-convention. So it rewards the motivated and the informed. Why shouldn't it? It also saves the taxpayers tons of dough, because the parties pay for most of it. We used the high school gym, and paid for the custodian. The town clerk and asst. clerk came in to register voters, the town paid for their time. We put up a collection to pay for an ad in the local weekly. That's it.
Oh, and it was a blast.
May 8, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. I bet you guys spent the whole time getting in the face of the Hillary supporters and intimidating them. I mean, Bill Clinton personally overheard that kind of thing going on, in the middle of a crowded casino, in the midst of a large group, and while moving.
May 8, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, my gold car was in the shop when I had to go vote. So I took the jet.
May 8, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you have the jet circle the landing field a few extra times, just to waste more fuel?
May 8, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course. What do you think I am, a working class voter?
May 8, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard working American. White American.
June 12, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heck of a job, Pennie!
May 8, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton Campaign, In a Nutshell:
Hubris tied Hillary's shoe laces together.
May 8, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heck of a job, Penny!
May 8, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ready to Lead on Day One!!
I have 35 years of experience!!
May 8, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Bugs Bunny would say:
"What a maroon!"
May 8, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. As low of an opinion as I have of Mark Penn, when I first heard this I still couldn't believe it. What a moron. And he still hasn't been fired and the Clintons are still paying his firm millions of dollars!
May 8, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Bill was in office one of the things that I liked most about his leadership was he hired people who did their job well even if they didn't meet the traditional mold and hold them accountable for their performance. People like Robert Reich and Madelyn Albright did a great job for America. Others like Les Aspin were quickly let go when they failed to live up to expectations. The decision to use and then stick by this buffoon just baffles me.
Clearly at some point Hillary like Bush found loyalty easier than demanding performance. In the end her initial failing was staffing her election with too many old friends that she was too comfortable with.
May 8, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Bill's personnel decisions were mixed. For every Robert Reich, you had a Lloyd Bentsen and a Robert Rubin.
Most significantly, it was Bill who turned to Dick Morris and Mark Penn after the 1994 debacle . . . who decided to try to salvage what was then a failing presidency by throwing his lot in with unprincipled, Republican-at-heart sleazebags. I would argue that he got back on top for other reasons, but regardless, he's the one responsible for making the Hillary-Penn connection.
May 8, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill pushing to take fight to the convention?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121020624486475371.html?mod=blog
Is it safe to say they won't be going gently into that good night?
May 8, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I keep typing and McCain did not flatly deny on The Daily Show:
The logical conclusion when Republicanism gives way to meglomania . . .May 8, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would make sense. She would just have to ensure McCain dies of old age.
May 8, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little something in his shot glass during their daily morning toast.
May 8, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget that even AFTER learning what proportional allocation is, THEY KEPT THE SAME STRATEGY! I don't even have the words to express how ridiculous that is. I'm speechless.
May 8, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Penn cannot possibly be that stupid. I don't think even Lurita Doan is that stupid. Well, Douglas Feith is.
May 8, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, that was my first reaction (as my post above notes). But in thinking about it further, anyone who has worked for or with a D.C. PR firm knows that a lot of their CEOs are egomaniacal morons convinced they know it all who refuse to listen to anyone else and who got to their positions not by being competent strategists but by being able to bring on board clients who don't know any better. Their "talents," such as they are, are in bullshitting, schmoozing, who they know, and what they have on someone. Penn is certainly of that ilk, but he is not alone. The difference is that most presidential campaigns know better than to hire them.
May 8, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only problem is that he mentioned CA. We voted after IA, NH, MI, FL, SC and NV. If he didn't realized after Jan. 3rd that these weren't WTA contest that makes him a dolt of the highest order.
May 8, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
INQUIRY: Has anyone ever seen Karl Rove and Mark Penn in the same room at the same time?
Considering that a little latex and Eddy Murphy becomes Professor Klump . . .
May 8, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, yes Hil, there is indeed a pattern emerging...
May 8, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love to start my day with schadenfreude! Thanks for posting this.
May 8, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You want the reason Hillary lost? Here it is...
May 8, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see:
Prizes personal loyalty above everything? Check
Refusal to admit error? Check
Inability to change mind? Check
Stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality? Check
Clinging to illusion against all reason? Check
Accepting ill-informed advice because it reinforces your favored view? Check
Persisting on a disasterous course even when catastrophic results are obvious? Check
Who was it that was running in this campaign again?
May 8, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was most impressed with this article's side commentary on the amazing strategic competence of the Obama campaign. I almost wept when I read how Plouffe was in North Carolina only two weeks after Super Tuesday, laying the groundwork for what the campaign even then foresaw as a crucial contest. What a splendid illustration of how "big vision" is essential for gaining mastery of reality. Do I look forward to an Obama presidency? You bet!
May 8, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the time, if you recall, people thought Plouffe might be there to woo Edwards. But he vehemently denied it.
May 8, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch!
May 8, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see, picking an inner circle based on loyalty rather than competence, surrounding yourself with yes-people, key players with fundamentally impaired strategic vision, all surrounded by incredible amounts of big money from donors who 'helpfully' chime in with 'suggestions'...sounds like the last 7 1/2 years, god forbid we dont need any more!
May 8, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
all I have to say: thank you Mark Penn
May 8, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
From Andrew Sullivan
Voter (pointing to delegate-math statistics on CNN): Now that's what I call a dead candidate.
Geoff Garin: No, no.....No, she's stunned!
Voter: STUNNED?!?
GG: Yeah! The voters stunned her, just as she was wakin' up! Hillary stuns easy, major.
Voter: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely had enough of this. That campaign is definitely deceased, and when I voted for Mrs. Clinton not two days ago, you assured me that her total lack of movement was due to her bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.
GG: Well, she's...she's, ah...probably pining for Yankee Stadium. She's a big Yanks fan, you know.
Voter: PININ' for YANKEE STADIUM?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did she fall flat on her back on Tuesday night?
GG: Hillary Clinton prefers keepin' on her back! She's a fighter, an underdog. Remarkable bird, is'nt she, squire? Lovely plumage!
Voter: She's not pinin'! She's passed on! Her campaign is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If Hillary Clinton hadn't nailed herself to the Democratic Party perch she'd be pushing up the daisies! This campaign's metabolic processes are now history! She's off the twig! She's kicked the bucket, she's shuffled off her mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!!
May 8, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watching Hillary try to snag SDs with an overtly racist argument doesn't fill me with that kumbaya feeling. Let her twist slowly in the wind over her bills. It'll be a learning experience for the poor schmucks who lent her money.
Besides, should Obama lose the GE, she'll be back.
May 8, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwah ha ha ha ha! Oh, Penny, you're always good for a laugh. Thanks.
May 8, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clintons (or at least Bill) and loyalty? That's an oxymoron.
As Jen Weiner's husband ably points out, the Clintons have thrown under the bus any number of loyal friends and loyal Democrats -- Harold Ickes, Lani Guinier, Marian Wright Endelman, and Jesse Jackson -- all in an effort to maintain or accumulate power.
May 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just yesterday HRC made the same statement: if we were operating under the Republican rules (winner take all) I would be the nominee now (paraphrased).
This is pathetic. No integrity and she and her posse treat people like they are rubes.
May 8, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lincoln was right after all. About fooling all of the people all of the time. Hillary's toast. Not elitist melba toast. Just plain ol' toast.
May 8, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of that episode of "WKRP in Cincinnati":
"I thought turkeys could fly . . . ."
May 8, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink