Comments on: Mark Penn: Wrong Again

By: SKY1

SKY1 — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:06:55 +0000

Jane, I was really surprised to learn at Taylor Marsh that you thought HIllary should have had a smile on her face when she shot off her zingers into Edwards and Obama during the debate. Perhaps she should have rolled her eyes and whispered sweet nothings as well. Interesting that it took the TWO of them to gang up on the ONE of her. I would have thought you might have been more outraged by the patronizing attitude John Edwards showed towards her of, “Little lady, now don’t get yourself in a sweat. You made good points, but darlin’, you’re gettin’ yourself all riled.” But frankly, I thought John Edwards, was too busy sucking up to Obama for the VP slot. I thought for sure he was gonna hump his leg for a minute and say, “Pick me, pick me, PLEASE pick me.” I hope that’s not how he’s gonna fight Republicans and big corporations. And by the way, Obama got his pick-up from Oprah. That will fade, given time. But by then we’ll be stuck, and McCain or Rudy will have won from “experience”. —Because that’s who I intend to vote for if Hillary doesn’t make it.

By: bobh

bobh — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:24:31 +0000

Nevertheless, I am wary of the bandwagon/clusterfuck/gang bang mentality that is developing here. I wish there were more time to let it dissipate. Because of 2004, when we nominated a dud who had early momentum.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:14:14 +0000

Three strategic mistakes with this….

1) I’m not sure they took Obama seriously enough until it was too late. …

2) When they did realize Obama was going to be a problem, they didn’t wait to get into the race in August or September. Instead of letting Obama get vetted all summer by himself, they got scared and jumped into the race in the spring, and ended up spending all summer and fall being compared to Obama and defending themselves. …

I think if you look at the polls during the last several months and then again for the last few days before the Iowa caucuses you’ll notice several interesting things.

Hillary’s numbers began to drop and Obama’s increase at the same time. There was some kind of consensus arrived at by voters that Hillary wasn’t the choice and they (some percent of Hillary’s support) moved to the next big-name candidate. That didn’t go on forever. It leveled off.

Near the end of the campaign I seem to remember a poll which showed 1-Clinton, 2-Edwards, 3-Obama in a tight race with a lot of volatility and some movement within a narrow range. Then, suddenly, Obama’s numbers moved about 9 freakin’ percentage points as reported in the Des Moines Register paper.

What caused the change? The paper said they just asked people and that was the result. People talked about an increase of new voters coming into the process.

I think everyone was surprised and we still don’t know what happened. Nobody is to fault, Penn or anybody else.

Still, the Clinton & McAuliffe strategy to take the early states and be inevitable was tossed out the window. Now she pays a heavy price.

Unfortunately, Edwards is paying a price for that strategy too.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:04:23 +0000

Obama has consistently funded the war…And he stated that if he had been in the Senate at the time, he might have voted for authorization as well.

… don’t employ empty talking points fed to you by the campaign…BE LOGICAL. Obama’s voting record indicates he funded the war repeatedly.

Further,Obama voted yes on an Energy Bills that was full of pork and tax breaks to oil companies.

Obama’s co chair in New Hampshire is a registered lobbyist.

Fantastic post!

By: leftdcin72

leftdcin72 — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:53:16 +0000

the problem is not strategy. It is the Clintons. Phoney baloney.

By: radlib1

radlib1 — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:23:48 +0000

Obama’s smooth, cool, and soothing — and maybe that’s what America wants. But he is not a great agent of “change”. That’s John Edwards and his truly populist message. Edwards is the only one of the Democratic leaders (not including Kucinich) who is really fighting for “change” for the poor and the middle class in America.

By: Julia

Julia — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:12:57 +0000

but, that said -

if you’re a regular read of this site, I’m not sure how you managed to miss anyone taking issue with Mark Penn before this week

By: Julia

Julia — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:08:59 +0000

It’s possible. Considering the advisors all of the frontrunners have hired, if I were a partisan of theirs, I’d very much like to believe it was true.

By: jongold

jongold — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:52:28 +0000

He stood up when it counted before the war and said it was a bad idea. Few Democrats had the courage to do so. Funding the war now is a different story. Troops are in harm’s way. If defunding them makes them any less safe than they already are its inadvisable. Provide proof we could maintain their “relative” safety after defunding and I’ll change my mind. The info I’ve had is that, without funding, other appropriations could be diverted to get some, but not all, of the troops home. The time to stop the war was beforehand. HRC’s judgment was flawed and, in my opinon, politically motivated because she’s smart enough to realize what Bush planned to do.

By: jongold

jongold — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:47:50 +0000

Isn’t it possible that people just don’t like the candidate and that it has nothing to do with the advisors. Nobody was bitchin’ about Penn last week. The voters remember that Hillary’s experience includes failing at health care in the early 90’s and that her husband’s agenda was stalled by impeachment. Obama will got a bigger victory then she ever could so the possibility of reform is much greater anyway.