Well, Mark Penn wasn't forced on her. It was her choice to hire the s.o.b. and it was her choice to stick by the s.o.b. come hell or high water. Despite the exorbitant fees. Despite the anti-progressive philosophy.
She chose Mark Penn over the SEIU, Teamsters, and others.
At some point, her decision to stick with Penn has to be considered a judgment issue.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at February 26, 2008 03:19 PMNonsense. It's ALWAYS the candidate.
Posted by nerdoff at February 26, 2008 03:30 PMAnother typical Democrat comes out from under his rock and can't wait to criticize the campaign of one of his own party's candidates. If only he had been in charge, everything would have been wonderful.
Democratic politicians are a bunch of backbiting chickenshit assholes. Can't wait to get a quote in the paper, even a retired political hack like Panetta.
Every time one of these creeps does this, I think of how Republicans can keep their mouth shut and win elections.
Makes me proud to be an Independent.
"....winning now would be quite the upset."
And quite the demoralization for Dems watching this clown show and being expected to climb on board the Hillary Coal Wagon, after having read the (unanimous) professional excoriation of HER (no one else's) judgment in running and managing this campaign.
Please end this, OH and TX Dems. It's in your hands. We need to get moving.
Posted by euzoius at February 26, 2008 04:05 PMbut the campaign over-thought and over-managed her...Just like Gore.
Posted by yesyesyes at February 26, 2008 04:53 PMEvery time a candidate does not win, we get these 'they ran a bad campaign' stories. It's never that the public, after seeing the candidate, decided to go with some one else. The assumption is that the candidate could have, maybe even should have, prevailed, but for the bad campaign strategy.
This is bullshit not because it is completely untrue, but because it is always incomplete. Campaigns fail for many reasons and the assumption that any particular candidate, e.g., Kerry in 2004, had a guaranteed win that was squandered is silly.
And I agree that these kind of things coming from insiders are always, always, always a bad idea. Do we see the equivalent coming from Mitt or Rudy?
Posted by James E. Powell at February 26, 2008 05:09 PMTurkana said:
...When Penn said the campaign would end on Super Tuesday, he meant it literally....
Turns out Penn wasn't really wrong, he was just wrong in implying his candidate would come out the winner that day. The race did end then, it's been a slow death for Hillary's campaign since.
Nerdoff is basically right, as is RalphB. At the end of the day, the buck stops at the candidate's desk. This is Hillary's failure, not Penn's, just as Nerdoff says. And Ralph is right on, too. I don't disagree with Panetta's analysis, but now, we need to be coming together as a party or at least just coalescing, together, around beating the Republicans at this point, not pouring salt in wounds.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 26, 2008 05:13 PMI'm sorry, but Panetta is an a--hole. To what is this little Heatherish backbiting in aid of? What in the hell does he think it's going to accomplish by trying to get a soundbite in the press other than trying to make Hillary look bad and making himself looking petty and worse.
Agree totally with Ralph. This is one of the things that kills me about my party. Dissent is a great thing, but most DNC "insiders" seem to only seek to personalize criticisms and throw around meaningless insults usually at a time when it can do no good and think it makes them seem like the smartest guy in the room.
If Panetta has advice for Hillary - tell her himself. I bet he can get her on the phone. If not, keep your mouth shut to the press.
This is the exact kind of horse hooey that is going to go on once all these insiders jump on Obama's bandwagon. If he seems to falter just a little against McCain, make a mistake or their diamond nuggets of "advice" aren't lapped up, they'll go running to the press and either stab him in the back "on background" or in the front with a "I told Barack so, but he and Axelrod, etc, etc. just wouldn't listen to me; so if he loses it's definitely not my fault."
I thought this primary was bad; can't believe another 8 months of this!
Posted by Dawn at February 26, 2008 05:20 PMEvery time a candidate does not win, we get these 'they ran a bad campaign' stories. It's never that the public, after seeing the candidate, decided to go with some one else.
Yes, the public has made a decision.
However, since my candidate, Edwards, didn't make it, I went and investigated everything I could between Hillary and Obama.
The major red flag that stood out to me was Mark Penn.
Everything stunk... from his ties to Blackwater, Union busting and his other cozy republi-con relationships. His 10 state strategy is a slap in the face to the rest of America.
Then watching the losses mount, Hillary fires the wrong people as far as I'm concerned. Since Super-Tuesday she has been flailing badly.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 26, 2008 05:29 PMThere's this from Slate
"Patrick's governorship is the closest thing we have to a preview of the "politics of hope"—and that governorship has been a failure to date. As Joan Vennochi observes in the Boston Globe, "Democrats who control the Legislature ignored virtually every major budget and policy initiative presented by a fellow Democrat." Patrick's record in office, Vennochi concludes, "shows that it can be hard to get beyond being the face of change, to actually changing politics." His stock has sunk so markedly that Hillary Clinton carried the state handily against Obama in the Democratic primary despite, or perhaps because of, Patrick's support for his political doppelgänger."
Seems the Obama model isn't so effective in real life. Well maybe if you want to dumb down schools ...
"In one area, however, Patrick has achieved some of his goals. In thrall to the state’s teachers’ unions, he has partly rolled back the most successful educational reforms in the country. Most states gamed the federal testing requirements that were part of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act. But Massachusetts, thanks to Republican governors William Weld and Mitt Romney, created the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability to ensure that the state’s testing methods conformed closely to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—federal tests that are the gold standard for measuring educational outcomes. In 2007, Massachusetts became the first state to achieve top marks in all four categories of student achievement. One of Patrick’s first efforts as governor was to eliminate the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability.
Patrick hasn’t delivered reform, much less the transformation that both he and Obama promise. This should come as no surprise. Obama’s utopian vision of transcending the interests that make up the fabric of our democracy is unlikely to fare any better than the “politics of hope” did in Emerson’s time. The key question at hand is whether Obama’s Edenic bubble bursts before or after the election."
You still can change your course. Get off the koolaid before the bubble burst. Governor Patrick sure has delivered hasn't he. Followed the unions at his state's kids expense.
Posted by peter at February 26, 2008 05:42 PMYes, the public has made a decision.
Well, maybe blogtopia has made its decision, but certainly the public is still in the process of making theirs; since we've gone this far and the numbers are still close, why shouldn't a portion of the public who rarely gets a voice in these presidential primaries get to have their say? The rumblings from Bill and Carville about Texas being the "decider' seems like a strong signal of how the Clinton campaign is thinking. If Hillary makes a poor showing Tuesday, then, by all means, she should let it go. There won't be much point if she loses any one of the biggies. If we can hang on for just another week, man, we'll be outta this thing!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2008 05:50 PMpeter, don't you think that comparing how another person did another job as proof of how an Obama Administration will be is a little unfair? After all, even though they're both black that doesn't mean that they're necessarily always in step. They aren't the damned Temptations.
Also, I read Slate but I always know that they are coming from the right, so I don't buy what's written there without considerable scrutiny.
Personally, I'm convinced we dodged a bullet by not nominating Hillary Clinton. By no means to I think her evil or incompetent and though I quibble with her on a few substantial issues, I think she'd likely make a fine president. But I never for a moment could envision her picking up even one state that Gore or Kerry didn't. I don't even want to guess at what her strategy would be on that score. To me it seems like her philosophy has always been to follow the twice-failed 50+1 playbook. Americans deserve more than that. I'm tired of elections that come down to whatever Ohio or Florida decide to do. Watching her primary campaign unfold, I am convinced more than ever that we would lose in November in yet another soul crushing 51/49 split. I hope Hillary will re-channel her energy into being a truly progressive Senator.
Posted by bailey at February 26, 2008 06:07 PMThe only thing interesting about pinhead peter's prattle is the (pathetic) waving of Dems off Obama.
I thought the Clinton story was that TX Repubs were being told to go out and kill Hillary for good---yet our RNC-assigned troll-pinhead wants Dems to get off the Obama koolaid now and "change course" before it's too late?
Repubs--who can understand their incomprehensible ways?
Posted by euzoius at February 26, 2008 06:18 PMHey Bob, don't they both use the same speech writer or something. One endorses the other. They both seem to have much in common other than appearance. No, Slate's article seems to be fair and the other article makes plenty of sense.
Posted by peter at February 26, 2008 06:21 PMThere were plenty people on this site lauding Dodd early on..and for good reason. He showed a grasp of reality on the main issues that was great. He's gone Obama. Folks, it's not that Clinton has had a bad Plan, geez, Bill ought to be able to guide her wouldn't you think? No. She's done pretty well actually, Calif, NY, FL. But the truth is simple....she ain't Change, she's more of the same. We'll know in a few days if more of the same is what people want. A week from tomorrow the Dems will either have a big mess, or a candidate. I'll give her the benefit of one last "debate" to sway me.
Posted by T2 at February 26, 2008 06:34 PM"but the campaign over-thought and over-managed her...Just like Gore,"
and just like Kerry. Do Democrats ever learn or do they enjoy making the same mistakes over and over again?
Posted by Judith at February 26, 2008 07:49 PMYes, the public has made a decision.
Yikes! The as to date, voting public, has made a decision.
I will be glad when the Democratic nominee is finalized as well.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 26, 2008 08:07 PMDemocratic politicians are a bunch of backbiting chickenshit assholes.
And that would make republi-con candidates mankey gits who run a country like Gov. Lepetomane ran his state. Paddle balls in lieu of wages for everyone!
Every time a candidate does not win, we get these 'they ran a bad campaign' stories.
That's part of it. They are the "president" of their campaign. They have the reigns regardless of what any adviser says. Hillary could have had a 50 state strategy at her command -as Obama had early on- yet she failed to capitalize on the organization Dean set in place -which Obama has taken full advantage of.
Obama’s utopian vision of transcending the interests that make up the fabric of our democracy is unlikely to fare any better than the “politics of hope” did in Emerson’s time.
Sounds like...oh, I don't know...Jack Kennedy. What made the difference for Jack in getting the policies he wanted? Johnson. Kennedy could never have done it on his own. Johnson made the Kennedy dream of Civil rights real. I see some Dem heavy fucking hitters with the same goals as Obama. You need to keep your eyes downticket to see who you lose during this election. And unlike the Mad King, idiot son of George, who has Cheney's hand up his rump making him take credit for every failure of this current administration, Obama seems to be a pretty good guy for a politician. I don't want to drink a beer with him...although I would like to have a conversation with his spouse over coffee. She seems to have her shit together.
Posted by phidipides at February 26, 2008 08:43 PMwhy isn't pants pissing peter talking about how great it would be to give Dear Leader a third term by voting for McCain? ROLFOL, yeah, we know the reason why
why does Reality have a liberal bias?
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 27, 2008 05:08 AMOnce again James Powell nails it.
This wasn't a badly run race on Clinton's part. Sure mistakes were made but I think she had the misfortune to have a lot of negs that were ready to boil to the surface in dems and she came up against a pol that is quite gifted not unlike her husband.
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at February 27, 2008 07:58 AMCoyote, no, it's over.
It doesn't matter if Hillary actually wins TX or OH. These two races are all about the point spread.
If Hillary wins the race but it's close, she loses.
If Obama loses the races but it's close, he wins.
And these races are going to be very close. Hence, Hillary has already lost. It's really a ridiculous spectacle at this point. She needs to quit splitting the party.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 27, 2008 09:13 AM