Report: Tensions In Camp Hillary Focus On Pollster Mark Penn

Comments (46)

DRinOH wrote on December 13, 2007 9:24 AM:

This is fun for me, but when she loses, I want the narrative to be about what a great campaign Obama ran, and what an outstanding candidate he really is. Don't get me wrong, he can't win this on his own and Hillary is his most valuable asset, but in the end, he wins it, Hillary doesn't lose it.

NCSteve wrote on December 13, 2007 9:24 AM:

They are fighting because both sides are right and both sides are wrong. She's in a box, that is partly of her own creation and partly due to Penn's failure to look past his polling numbers to the fundementals and take Obama seriously. The time to go negative was last summer, before she claimed the mantle of inevitability and did the the Sunday Show Sweep. Unfortunately, for her, there was nothing in the polling data then that indicated a need to do that.

Of course they're fighting. That's what you do when there is no right answer. (When you're not working for a narrow minded anti-intellectual dry drunk with religion based delusions of granduer, that is. Apparently in the latter case, you just have to resign and write a book.)

What's really interesting here, however, is the extent to which Bill has been kept at arm's length by Hillary and the campaign. They're not simply trying to keep the appearance that he's being kept at arm's length--he IS being kept at arm's length. He has been reduced to communicating with her through leaks to the press, for God's sake. If this is how they are during the campaign, its how they'll be if she's elected. Anyone who is for Hillary because they think they'll get a second Bill Clinton administration is as self-deluding as a loyal Bushie.

gonzone wrote on December 13, 2007 9:24 AM:

"Penn, sources say, has counseled moderation, believing an attack would elevate her already-high negatives and drive her too far to the left to win a general election."

Typical DLC crap. Penn is one of the biggest mistakes Hillary has made in her campaign team. His going would be a good thing. Dems should never hire union busters and should save the corporate whoring for the GOP.

polrick wrote on December 13, 2007 9:25 AM:

You've made a great point in your last paragraph. Journalists tend to focus on the 'horserace' and belligerent aspects of political campaigns, while spending comparatively little time on the issues. Of course, that's probably what news consumers people want. Unfortunately, though, it means that every little hiccup may be blown out of proportion. We get a few of these stories of infighting, and they snowball into a major campaign theme, to the detriment of real substantive news about the election.

gonzone wrote on December 13, 2007 9:25 AM:

Too far to the left of what/whom?

Zach wrote on December 13, 2007 9:25 AM:

How the heck is Penn part of the Hillary faction and not the Bill faction? He's one of the big three that made Bill the ultimate arbiter of all things moderate.

savvy wrote on December 13, 2007 9:33 AM:

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Sunshine wrote on December 13, 2007 9:40 AM:

If there's tension between the Bill and Hillary camps during the campaign, what will it be like if they're back in the White House?

spencer wrote on December 13, 2007 9:41 AM:

You've made a great point in your last paragraph. Journalists tend to focus on the 'horserace' and belligerent aspects of political campaigns, while spending comparatively little time on the issues. Of course, that's probably what news consumers people want.

The thing is, though, most surveys suggest that news consumers don't actually want this sort of approach to political news. I think journalists do it because it's easy, and it doesn't require them to actually understand any boring ol' policy stuff.

Gary wrote on December 13, 2007 9:58 AM:

Mark Penn . . . good riddance to bad garbage.

I don't think HC will win the nomination. . . and I don't think she should. To deep in the sack with the corporate wing of the party, and too close to neoconia.

But she also made a big mistake in hiring that crapstain Penn.

upper left wrote on December 13, 2007 9:59 AM:

Personally, I find it encouraging and reassuring that the lame stuff Team Hillary has thrown against Obama in the last couple of weeks is apparently the best they've got.

Lets review:

"Obama is a Muslim";

"Obama has wanted to be Prez since kindergarden";

"Obama used cocaine a few times as a teenager";

"Obama has a longstanding contributor (Rezko) who is under investigation for charges completely unrelated to Obama";

"Obama is poopy because he pointed out that Krugman had changes his tone in his review of Obama's health plan";

"yada, yada, yada."

If this is the best the vaunted Clinton Oppo-Team can come up with, then Obama should be in great shape.

Team Hillary looks increasingly incompetent and desperate. Every time she attacks she confirms the meme that she is mean and willing to play dirty to win. She is in a box of her own design.

This junk doesn't stick to Obama, in part because it is petty, and in part, because Obama comes across to most voters as authentic and basically ethical.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 10:15 AM:

Again, it strikes me as not entirely coincidental that after the Clinton campaign has gone aggressively after Obama and it has backfired, particularly among women, Clinton aides are leaking to the press that it is Bill Clinton who is pushing for aggression, and Hillary Clinton who is the voice of moderation.

In short, it appears they are trying to blame Bill for everything that has gone wrong recently, and trying to insulate Senator Clinton herself from current and future blowback.

Michael Lafferty wrote on December 13, 2007 10:15 AM:

"They are fighting because both sides are right and both sides are wrong. She's in a box, that is partly of her own creation and partly due to Penn's failure to look past his polling numbers to the fundamentals…"

While it might appear simplistic, and totally dismissed by fans of Senator Clinton, I believe that that particular gem of analysis is right on the money! I am absolutely no fan of Mark Penn, but I am confident that he recognizes the tendency of her high negatives to ooze out everywhere over time, and likely explode at some point - possibly post coronation following the primaries, and possibly before.

This is a fundamental problem for the Senator's campaign, and the reason that I have always believe and continue to believe that she cannot prevail in the general election. Whatever he positives, her negatives are likely to swallow those attributes as time goes on. I know it's a trite phrase, but I really believe that she is the 'least electable' of the major candidates. Unfortunately for Senator Obama, I see him falling into second place for the mantle of 'least electable,' for less obvious reasons at the moment, but for reasons which will become increasingly apparent as the primary season goes on.

In the end, the outcome isn't likely to become an issue of appropriate, fair, historic or just: we simply cannot afford to thrust someone with high negatives into a final round, even with any of the present field of lousy candidates on the other side. There is simply too much to loose.

While this season and this situation is different, I remember holding my nose and working as hard as humanly possible to get Senator Kerry elected, knowing all along—even while surrounded with 'true believers'—that we had already lost the contest before it began. And, that should have been a relatively easy contest to win, given the character of the opposition. Seriously.

Lesson learned: we picked the wrong candidate for President on that ticket. There are far, far too many 'true believers' in the camps of both Senators Clinton and Obama, and I sense impending disaster. Let's not make the same mistake we did last time…

BlueDog wrote on December 13, 2007 10:18 AM:

Does anyone know where to watch the debate online today?

thanks

LuigiDaMan wrote on December 13, 2007 10:22 AM:

When Hillary wins the general election, I hope all her supporters here remember what they wrote:

"This is fun for me, but when she loses..."

"Personally, I find it encouraging and reassuring that the lame stuff Team Hillary..."

"I don't think HC will win the nomination. . . and I don't think she should."

This stuff is better than the funny pages!

Jeremy wrote on December 13, 2007 10:23 AM:

Hillary made a number of early mistakes. One was failing to put her poor judgment on Iraq behind her by admitting she made a mistake in supporting Bush's blank check. Voters have had enough of politicians that are too proud to even have good judgment in hindsight. The second big mistake was Mark Penn. He should never have been hired in the first place and should have been ditched as soon as his Blackwater advising, union-busting ways were revealed. However, Penn has a history with the Clintons and it looks like loyalty won out over competency. Heckuva job Penny.

Zach wrote on December 13, 2007 10:25 AM:

Does anyone know where to watch the debate online today?

cspan.org has it on their C-SPAN3 stream at 2PM EST: http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp

DRinOH wrote on December 13, 2007 10:27 AM:

You can also watch it on Iowa Public Television's site

www.iptv.org/campaign08/

DRinOH wrote on December 13, 2007 10:29 AM:

Luigi,

IF she wins, I'll vote for her in November. However, when Barack wins, I hope you'll do the same.

Radha wrote on December 13, 2007 10:30 AM:

BlueDog,

CSPAN3 is broadcasting it live, which means you should be able to see it at their site online...(BUT, they seem to have a hearing scheduled before the debate, SO, if the hearing runs late...)

BeAngryAtTheSun wrote on December 13, 2007 10:39 AM:

Has anyone actually read "Microtrends?"

Penn offered some of the most specious logic I've ever seen put to paper. Whether Hillary is the nominee or not, I am thrilled to see cracks in Penn's facade. His success is an accident of history; he is not a true mandarin. He overrelies on self-reported phenomena for behavior and emotions not easily classifiable, and he uses those inferences to jump to conclusions that at the end, upon reflection, are almost entirely unsubstantiated.

Clausewicz once wrote of strategy that it would be possible for him to branch arguments further than he had in "On War." The reason he didn't was that he didn't want to leave a strong core of roots and trunk (the central theme of his argument) and go into deviation after deviation to be left with a willowy branch of an argument incapable of supporting the fruit that is its ultimate product.

It's a convoluted metaphor, but Penn has demonstrated in writing that he can't live up to it. I'm not saying the Democratic bench looks particularly strong by the same standard, but I'm still glad to see the wheat separated from the chaff. We can't suffer fools again in the general.

Bill Camarda wrote on December 13, 2007 10:41 AM:

Assuming for the moment that the Newsday article is true -- I suspect it is, but obviously it could turn out otherwise -- this would be my observation:

Just one month ago (11/5), Mark Penn wrote in his public campaign memo: "As I have consistently predicted, it is time for people to discard this false argument about Hillary's negatives..."

While, quietly, behind the scenes, he is alleged to be so worried about Clinton's negatives that he counsels caution even in the face of attacks and falling poll numbers.

Again, assuming the article is true -- and Greg Sargent's point about the tendency for minor internal debates to be overstated by the press is well taken -- one would conclude that Mark Penn can be trusted about as far as Robert Novak can.

Penn's interest is in getting Hillary Clinton elected, because he will be enormously influential if this were to occur. If Clinton fails to be elected, Penn and Burson-Marsteller will do just fine under a Republican administration, just as they have for the past seven years. (They can always pursue more Blackwater contracts!) For Penn, the 2008 election is a win-win situation: granted, a bigger win if Hillary succeeds, but a win either way.

The same cannot be said for the rest of us. For us, a Republican victory would be nothing short of catastrophic.

This has nothing to do with the virtues or flaws of Senator Clinton: it is just a comment on how we read Penn. When he writes, we need to be especially careful to view what he has to say from our standpoint, not his.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 10:43 AM:

To be fair to the Clinton campaign, there is an even bigger box they have always had to worry about, namely that optimizing their chances of winning the primary may have led to them losing the general election. Senator Clinton has actually implied as much whenever she has said she doesn't want to answer certain questions during the primary campaign because it would give the Republicans ammunition to use against her in the general election.

And again, this may just be one of those problems without a solution. Other candidates have broader appeal than Clinton, and therefore face less of a tradeoff between their primary campaign and the general election. So, there just may be no way for Clinton to both beat those people in the primaries and then win the general election.

And that is really just as much about the mood of the country as anything else: particularly after the 2006 election, fear of the Republicans just may not be high enough among Democrats to make her sort of candidacy the right one for 2008. And that may be what we are watching unfold.

anon wrote on December 13, 2007 10:48 AM:

What a marvelous Christmas present for the entire Democratic Party: the implosion of Hillary's quest for ego gratification. I gotta say I'm just lovin every minute of it.

Where are all the obnoxious, arrogant Hillary shills now? LMAO!!!!!!!!

DRinOH wrote on December 13, 2007 10:54 AM:

Can anyone tell me why TPMEC hasn't put the Strategic Vision Iowa poll up on the poll tracker? They've taken the link off the front page without adding it to the tracker. This despite the fact that they still have the Str. Vis. Georgia poll up there (not that anyone gives a shit about Georgia). Is Eric Kleefeld at the controls today?

CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 10:59 AM:

FWIW, I think Penn was probably right. Both the MSM and the liberal blogosphere have shown a marked tendency to all but ignore attacks on Clinton by Obama and Edwards or give them a wink and a nod at most, then treat Clinton's responses as an unprovoked attacks, hyperventilating furiously about her apparent "shifts in strategy" and "signs of desparation" or even in one case (you can't make this stuff up) "playing the gender card." So it's been a tough one for her to try and finesse.

I really think she had little choice as a result except to save a full frontal push-back until the last possible minute. She basically needs to inflict maximum possible damage and have the first elections before the voting public soaks up enough of the MSM's inevitable histrionics about her daring to defend herself to create significant blowback.

For the record, the timing of a push-back now seems about right to me and I'll be surprised if it doesn't turn out to be effective. Of course I have been surprised before. But if it does work then there should be an opportunity for her to regain control of the narrative after she wins her first couple of primaries and maybe shine a little more light on what the other campaigns have been up to this whole time. Then maybe she could go back to doing the above-the-fray thing.

Jeremy wrote on December 13, 2007 11:05 AM:

CalD. I haven't seen any "attacks" from Obama that haven't been about policy, judgment, or track record. Hillary's problem is that she hasn't answered these arguments. She has said that she's the most experienced. Obama countered that experience is not an end in itself. It must inform judgment and yield accomplishment. Obama pointed to his stronger track record of judgment and achievement. The Hillary reply has been terrible, argumentum ad nauseum. They simply have not seen the shape of the narrative at all and just keep repeating themselves.

Bill Camarda wrote on December 13, 2007 11:09 AM:

CalD, while Clinton's absolutely not my preference, and I am VERY worried about her electability, I think your points are correct. She does still have time, she has been held to a higher standard, and if she can rebound from a month of mistakes and slipping polls, she will be a stronger candidate for it.

Again, all this is separate from what kind of President she might be, and only one of the factors in how she would ultimately stack up against the Republican (and, now, maybe Bloomberg?)

Bupalos wrote on December 13, 2007 11:15 AM:

DTM I have to say you are one of the shrewdest and most levelheaded commentators I have read. Your 10:15 is absolutely spot on.

The most revered weapon of the Clinton camp is strategic fexibility. You hear it in her language, her positions, and ultimately in the two-headed ticket that is HillBill. They are so totally wedded to this idea of middle of the road flexibility, I don't think they can see it is, in this election, a loser.

It's those two definitions of "is" coming back to haunt us.

Desider wrote on December 13, 2007 11:17 AM:

Well, so it's a real contest, no need to panic, just to get things sorted out and try to do a better job over the next 3 weeks.

The Iowa caucus is a different kind of contest than primaries, and a different strategy and way of organizing is needed, as pointed out elsewhere. In practicality, Iowa shouldn't be a big deal, but it's the first in the horse race, so has taken on undeserved luster. New Hampshire and South Carolina as real primary states with meaningful turnouts are much more interesting. Historically, it hasn't meant much for who gets the party nomination. New Hampshire is unlikely to care much who wins Iowa, but Hillary still needs to run a more polished performance, including today's debate, to get back her lead. Nationwide she's still strong, but a few setbacks could change that quickly, so better to stanch the flow before it happens.

Of course it's nice to have Mr. Hope become Mr. Inevitability as well. Enjoy the 5 minutes of fame.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 11:18 AM:

CalD,

With all due respect, Clinton herself announced a change in strategy (that is where her now infamous "fun part" quote came from). Immediately after that came things like Kindergate.

So, I don't think people are going to buy that poor Senator Clinton is getting misconstrued by the "MSM and the liberal blogosphere". Rather, she told them she was going negative, and wants credit for going negative--except when it backfires, of course.

As for whether it will work: we are now into Week Two of the "fun part" phase. So far the results are not promising. But we shall see.

Bupalos wrote on December 13, 2007 11:23 AM:

CaID:
"....She basically needs to inflict maximum possible damage and have the first elections before the voting public soaks up..."

So does that mean Hillary lied when she said the campaign did not authorize the public handwringing over Obama's excessive honesty? Or is it just coincidence that she needs to inflict maximum possible damage and her campaign chair went off the reservation at the same moment?

za wrote on December 13, 2007 11:27 AM:

and looky what Penn said in an article in the Washington Post today (talking about her loss of the lead in Iowa polls):

Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, said she never expected to glide to victory in Iowa; if anything, she was simply pleased that "at some point this became a competitive race."

What a bald-faced liar he is. She needs to dump his sorry ass pronto.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/12/AR2007121202793_2.html?nav=rss_email/components

Keith wrote on December 13, 2007 11:30 AM:

I think the real issue here is that Penn is finding that it wasn't just his brillance that was behind Bill Clinton's success . . . it was Bill Clinton. Whatever you think of him, he (Bill Clinton) is an infinitely more likeable and charismatic person than Hillary. And the more charismatic and likable a person is, the more likely people are willing to give them a pass on certain things.

Unfortunately for Hillary, relative to Bill and several of her competitors (Biden, Edwards and Obama come to mind), she's just lacking in the charisma department. It's what derailed Mondale; it's what derailed Dole; it's what derailed Gore (I know he won, but he didn't); and it's what derailed Kerry. Charisma.

She's worked hard to cultivate an image of a tough, no nonsense person. She wasn't interested in charming people, she was interested in being respected, in some cases feared. It's worked. Unfortunately, the downside is that people tend to believe the worse about someone they don't like. It's not fair, but it is reality.

So she (and her campaign) is stuck. They didn't predict that Obama (the 2007 Bill Clinton) would enter the race. He was the wild card and she's demonstrated (to date) that she's not able to blunt the one thing that he has over her in spades: charisma. She has to attack; she has to smear Obama; to make people not like him. In the process, though, she feeds and reinforces the negative image folks have of her. She's in, essentially, a no win situation. I truly believe that, at this point, she (and her campaign) hates Obama.

Of course that's just my opinion. I could be completely wrong.

anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 11:57 AM:

Those who vote for Obama in the primaries are voting for a Republican president in 2008.

Obama will be crushed in a general election.

Then we'll have some fun (not).

Then, just like Nader supporters, you can pat yourselves on the back that you voted principle over pragmatism.

You can Slime Boat Clinton just like you Slime Boated Gore and Kerry, but in the end you'll end up damaging Clinton for the general or chosing a nominee that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.

LOL with your strahteegery.

Funny how Obama continues to mimic Bush with his drug use revelations and posing their disclosure as a means to teach youth, rather than the revelation of a character flaw.

Once a user always a user is what you said about Bush, but now abandon that when it comes to Obama.

Hypocrisy runs deep in wingers and progressives.

Jeremy wrote on December 13, 2007 12:06 PM:

anonymous at 11:57 AM,

Listen Mr Penn. I know you're under a lot of pressure right now, but that really wasn't necessary.

anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 12:27 PM:

"She has to attack; she has to smear Obama . . ."

So what's Obama's (and supporters') excuse for attacking and smearing Clinton?

Obama is no Bill Clinton.

Clinton won because he was a moderate to conservative white southern male.

Just like 5 of our last 7 presidents (and 6 of the last 7 if you include Reagan who might as well have been a white southern male - and of course he was conservative).

People vote safe when they don't feel safe and the GOP and terrorists have, essentially acting together, ensured that Americans don't feel safe.

Clinton doesn't have a great chance, although Bill will help ease American's minds through the transition that HRC represents.

Obama will have no such luck, unless possibly he chooses a VP candidate that is anathema to progressives and thus betrays them.

LOL with your hero-worship and Hillary Hatred, though.

An Outhouse wrote on December 13, 2007 12:41 PM:

If Hitlery doesn't get the Dem nomination, can she run as a Republican? They're a bit deficient in the possible candidate area. She would be a fine Thug politician.

CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 1:24 PM:

Bupalos wrote:

So does that mean Hillary lied when she said the campaign did not authorize the public handwringing over Obama's excessive honesty? Or is it just coincidence that she needs to inflict maximum possible damage and her campaign chair went off the reservation at the same moment?

All I know about that is what I read in the newspaper's, same as you. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if they were in cahoots on that, they'll never tell. That strikes me as a little like accusing Ward Cleaver of some dark conspiracy though. I heard Jean Shaheen say once that she doesn't use ketchup because she doesn't like spicy food.

Clinton herself however has definitely started taking the battle to Obama more with her own speeches other and campaign communications that are unquestionably official and duly authorized. Still a little too early tell if it's paying off yet. There is inertia to public opinion. But early signs seem to point to yes and logic would tell you it should -- up to a point at least.

hahahahaha wrote on December 13, 2007 1:36 PM:

anonymous at 11:57 wrote:

"You can Slime Boat Clinton just like you Slime Boated Gore and Kerry, but in the end you'll end up damaging Clinton for the general or chosing a nominee that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected."

Nobody is swift-boating Hillary. It's just that nobody really likes her ya see and the more they get to know her the less they like her even more. That's the problem when you start out with half the electorate disliking you and why she shouldn't be nominated: she can't win.

That bears repeating: she can't win!

Then anonymous goes on to foam at the mouth about Obama's drug use. Who cares? That isn't what will defeat Obama, though I agree he might well lose the election if nominated.

But we all know who is the most electable and that's John Edwards. He's been through a national race before with no scandal and he's stronger, more seasoned and more in touch with the people than Hillary and Obama combined.

It's time the media and voters started to focus on the one candidate who is the strongest Democrat next November and who is promising to take action against the corruption and raw deals for average people that characterize the Washington that Hillary and Obama love so much. If they didn't love it, they wouldn't be "positioning themselves" as centrists. They would position themselves as liberal Democrats. But only Edwards is a liberal. He deserves the nomination and will reward the people with a victory of landslide proportions and long coattails for candidates up and down the line.

anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 1:43 PM:

"If Hitlery doesn't get the Dem nomination, can she run as a Republican? They're a bit deficient in the possible candidate area. She would be a fine Thug politician."

If the Obamanader bin Laden doesn't get the Dem nomination, can he run as a terroristic Green Candidate?

anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 1:46 PM:

heeheeheehee: "That bears repeating: she can't win!"

Bush couldn't win either.

But he did.

hohohoho: "But we all know who is the most electable and that's John Edwards."

True enough and why I support him.

But he's unlikely to win the nomination and Clinton is far more electable than Obama.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 2:25 PM:

As always, I am baffled by people who suggest supporting someone besides the establishment candidate in the primaries is like supporting Nader in 2000. Actually, the closest analogy is that it would be like supporting Bradley over Gore in 2000. Or for that matter supporting Edwards over Kerry in 2004, Simon over Dukakis in 1988, and Hart over Mondale in 1984.

So is the idea that history has shown that all those Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, and Mondale supporters were right? I am seriously puzzled.

Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 2:27 PM:

No Kevin Drum has it right about why media coverage of political races is the way it is. Reporters are herded around following the candidate from stop to stop listening to the same speech over and over again. Very rarely does the candidate make any news and if he or she does it's usually because of a gaffe.

Team Hillary was lauded for months for being a tight ship, on schedule etc. I think part of that probably has to do with her handler Huma Abedin who rules Hillary's time with an iron fist.
The flip side is that Bill is never on time so old hands might be impressed by the difference.

But combine the rigid schedule and lack of access reporters have to the candidate because of that and her handlers desire to minimize possible gaffes and you wind up with stories about minutiae and dissension in the ranks that may or may not be serious. You also wind up with a candidate who isn't viewed sympathetically by the press because she's making their jobs harder.

Bush never had that problem as he likes campaigning, nicknaming reporters and casual conversation. It also helps explain why McCain is still popular with the press. He's forever chit chatting on the bus with them.

votenic wrote on December 13, 2007 5:08 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

votenic wrote on December 13, 2007 5:09 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)