Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

The bad news to come out of yesterday's debate for Hillary Clinton was that there wasn't more news, since it allowed post-debate coverage and spinning to focus further on the latest Clinton camp gaffe, NH co-chair Bill Shaheen's contention that Obama's drug use as a teenager would be a problem for Obama in the general.

Yesterday on Hardball, the post-debate spin room included the top strategists from the top 3 campaigns: Joe Trippi for Edwards, David Axelrod for Obama and Mark Penn for Clinton and was an absolute disaster for Clinton thanks to Penn who, in my view, made things worse for her as he tried, so I would have thought, to right the ship.

When Chris Matthews asked Penn if he thought the story about Bill Shaheen's remarks had legs, he said what I figured he'd say, and did a fine job, fairly standard for post-debate spin: accentuate the positive, get in the talking points, etc.

Mark Penn: I think this story's over, I think we made it very clear yesterday that we didn't condone it, we weren't a part of the story that he went on with and we absolutely apologized, the senator went on the tarmac and apologized personally because this is not part of this campaign. She has been running a year long positive campaign in which she's out there talking about ending the Iraq war and healthcare for all...

Matthews then asked if Penn considered the Clinton campaign's use of Obama's past indiscretions and a reference to what he said in kindergarten as the basis for attacks on Obama out of line. This is where Penn actually escalated the attack first advanced by Shaheen as opposed to quashing it.

Mark Penn: Well, I think we've made clear that the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising and I think that's been made clear...

This is when Joe Trippi jumped in and called Penn out.

Joe Trippi: I think he just did it again. He just did it again. Unbelievable. This guy's been filibustering on this, he just said 'cocaine' again.

Mark Penn: I think you're saying 'cocaine.' I think you're saying it.

Joe Trippi: Look the person that won today was John Edwards, Why because he's speaking to the frustration of Americans about something that's going on, how greed's taken over Washington...he's talking about real stuff that's really affecting working people here in Iowa who are frustrated about their jobs while we listen to this garbage that's been going on for a couple of days now and I agree with David on that.

Penn then went on to try to clear the air on the kindergarten attack, whining that Obama started it, sounding like he's in kindergarten, which gave Trippi another opening.

Joe Trippi: I can't believe we're doing this again, this is amazing, every day they go out and prove they're a status quo candidacy and it's not about change.

Axelrod got a good shot in as well.

David Axelrod: He said that Sen Obama said that Sen Clinton was disingenuous on some points. I think that's a lot different than suggesting someone's a drug dealer. Look I think people are not interested in what Senator Obama said to his kindergarten teacher or his indiscretions as a teenager, they're interested in their own kids, the future of their kids, what's gonna happen to this country, and that's what we're trying to address. This isn't the situation where two campaigns are fighting, this is the sound of one hand clapping and that hand is the Clinton campaign.

My assumption was that Penn had two jobs going into this appearance: to try to convince people of the hard to believe claim that Shaheen's comments were in fact not sanctioned by the campaign and to refocus the conversation away from the attacks and on the rationale for Clinton's candidacy. He ended up accomplishing neither.

First of all, by extraneously slipping the word "cocaine" into the conversation, which Shaheen didn't even say in his comments, he made it clear that this drug attack is absolutely something the Clinton campaign is advancing, despite their claims to the contrary. Secondly, Penn's slimy demeanor and his ineptitude at handling the message singlehandedly undermined the entire "experience to bring about change" formulation. When Clinton talks about her experience, she's not only talking about her work as a lawyer, as first lady or as senator, she's boasting about her experience fighting back against Republicans and winning. The fact that she put Mark Penn out there as her spokesman to pushback against her political rivals calls that seriously into question. In addition, this whole episode, especially Penn's continued advancement of the drug attack, reinforces the idea that Clinton is, as Trippi said, the status quo, or exactly what Obama has been fighting against since his campaign began: "politics as usual." In other words, Penn ended up proving Obama's and Edwards's points about her. I mean, this appearance by Penn really was about as stupid as it gets and if this guy appears on TV ever again on Clinton's behalf, she deserves to lose.

The fire in the belly that Trippi exhibited on Hardball yesterday reflected perfectly Edwards's populist fighter persona, just as Axelrod's mellow above the fray style echoed Obama. What does Penn's slimy shiftiness say about his candidate?

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

66 Comments

Penn is a huge liability for Clinton's campaign.

But it should have been obvious that a union buster isn't the best choice to be top political aide to a Democratic presidential candidate.

The fact that it wasn't obvious to her says an awful lot.

by MeanBoneII 2007-12-14 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

This story is great for Obama! And God Bless Edwards and Trippi as well.

by wahoopaul 2007-12-14 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

I dont think linking Oboma and cocaine use is a positive story in Iowa. It maybe worsr for Clinton but definatly not great for Obama. this may play well with the young crowd but most older Iowa voters wont thing drug use of any kind is a positive story

by marketingman 2007-12-14 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

Yeah, I think you are getting the subtle message from all this. While the front burner may be talking about Hillary the back burner is simmering with the drug story. It'll be interesting to see how the polls shake out in the next few weeks. There was already large doubts about Obama's experience etc. so this could make some soft supporters abandon ship.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-14 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

Absolutely. This is going to -work-. The Clinton campaign knows exactly what they're doing. Penn knows exactly what he's doing. And it's going to work.

What the the possible headlines?

CLINTON CAMPAIGN APOLOGIZES FOR RAISING OBAMA'S DRUG PAST

CLINTON ADVISOR: OBAMA'S COCAINE USE NOT AN ISSUE

Clinton knows if she takes Iowa, she wins. She knows that, at the moment at least, Obama is the only obstacle. Without him tearing down the inevitability mystique, Edwards will slow down, too. So she's gonna take Obama down.

I'm no Clinton supporter, but this isn't an example of a campaign screwup, it's an example of a fully functional campaign under threat, doing what's necessary. It's ugly, but it's also one of her main selling points. She's not above the fray. She's, well, in it to win it.

by BingoL 2007-12-14 11:14AM | 0 recs
I see different headlines

Clinton campaign rattled by missteps

Is Hillary Clinton's Presidential Bid Headed For A Great Fall?

Bill Clinton Outraged Over Obama Poll Surge

by Bill White 2007-12-14 03:05PM | 0 recs
All sides need to get over stuff

The hypersensitivity on all sides is getting out of hand. Obama took coke in the past. While I had a problem with the drug dealing reference by the other person, I think the Clintonites have ever right to mention the word cocaine when it comes to Obama.

by Pravin 2007-12-14 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: All sides need to get over stuff

You are absolutely right.  I have always wondered if the reason Bill didn't inhale was "don't get high on your own supply".  Or even more so, don't get high on your wife's supply.  I agree, let's not get too hypersensitive.

by Piuma 2007-12-14 09:29AM | 0 recs
the women of bill clinton tee shirt

If Trippi and Axelrod showed to a press conference wearing a "women of bill clinton" tee shirt that would be OK with you too?


 

by JoeCoaster 2007-12-14 09:32AM | 0 recs
I guess

that would be okay if there was a "men of michelle" t shirt to go with perhaps. If you want to start on spouses then all the spouses are going to get dragged into it. Personally, I think that spouses should get left out it.

Of course, this would really endear Obama to lots of Dems wouldn't it? I find it amazing that some supporters want to be the new Rush Limbaugh.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-14 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess

"I find it amazing that some supporters want to be the new Rush Limbaugh."

Thats exactly the mode that the Hillary's campaign is working in right now. Rush Limbaugh. They weren't even smart enough to have surrogates do the dirty work.

spouses? So Bill Clinton , 42nd President of the United States, is just another spouse? That's funny.  

by JoeCoaster 2007-12-14 12:11PM | 0 recs
Do you

think this kind of stuff helps Obama with primary voters? No, it hurts.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-15 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

you failed to ask the most important question: what is the true significance of Chris Matthews's negative coverage of Hillary?  Somehow you failed to lift the hood and observe the actual machinery behind the interview.  Instead, you sat idly in your chair and marveled at the gleaming surface served to you in Chris Matthew's debased political commercial.

So much for online criticality.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-14 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

I tried to make the point you bring up in your comment in on a diary I wrote a while back. Unfortunately, I'm not as a good a writer as some around here. See MSNBC and Chris Matthews have been working hard AGANIST HRC from the day she announced her candidacy. The only blogger BRAVE enough to cover this has been Taylor Marsh. I'm suprised Jerome hasn't covered it. There is an extreme bias in the MSM and Hillary has gotten the full brunt of it. MSNBC and Chris Matthews is milking the story and Barry is benefiting. Why? Because MSNBC and Matthews literally hate HRC. Why? Matthews is a male chauvinist pig so-called journalist and MSNBC is mad at HRC becasue she has shunned them and has refused to give them many interviews or access to her campaign (i.e. Tim Russert-another sexist pig).

If she pulls off an upset in IA, which I doubt but wins NH and NV and finishes a close second is SC, MSNBC and Matthews will be crapping their pants. For them its about defeating HRC and not what is best for America. I find it funny that this shit continues to go on and no one calls these bastards on it.

by lonnette33 2007-12-14 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

Additional question, why in the hell would HRC send Mark Penn out to discuss this issue? Another dumb as gaffe in my opinion.

by lonnette33 2007-12-14 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

I wouldn't be so sure that Obama is benefitting just yet. Wait a few days and see what shakes out. If you go by the debates yesterday, Clinton seemed confident while Obama seemed shaken.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-14 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

heh. ok. well, I'll grant you that Matthews started out antagonistic toward Penn but did give him a chance to address the issue. And I think he's been sexist in some of his coverage of her, but I don't buy that Matthews is monumentally anti-Hillary.  He's praised her plenty, including on this very episode when he beamed at the ad featuring Hillary's mother.

by Todd Beeton 2007-12-14 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

again, you fail to look under the hood.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-14 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

and remember to put on your tinfoil hat before "looking under the hood"?

by JoeCoaster 2007-12-14 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

the philistine responds.  thank you for injecting vacuity into the discussion.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-14 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

ooohhhhh nice vocab. .... somebody found a thesaurus   on the internets.

by JoeCoaster 2007-12-14 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

People have very short memories.  Matthews began by buying in completely to the Hillary is inevitable meme.  His interest in Obama is simply good television, he wants a horse race.  He is not against Clinton.  His biggest concern in yesterday's show was actually how the Des Moines Register was trying to kill television by not inciting a fight.  Absent any real fireworks from the debate itself, he went after the campaign advisors hoping he could goad them into it.  Penn and Trippi went for it, Axelrod figuratively and logistically chose to stay outside.

by Piuma 2007-12-14 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

   "I don't buy that Matthews is monumentally anti-Hillary."

You have got to be kinding me Todd. I respect you, but this comment is bull. It is well know through media circles that Chris Matthews and Tim Russert for that matter hates the Clintons. That bastard Tim asked HRC about Monica L. during the NY Senatorial debate. So come on and let's be fair about this. It was a gaffe in my opinon on HRC's campaign, but the fact that Matthews is pushing the story has to do with him wanting to destory HRC.

Regarding Matthews praises, I don't buy them for one minute. I bet his producer advised him to tone it down and not go after her so much and make it less obvious. However, Matthews doesn't care, he's out for blood.

by lonnette33 2007-12-14 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

Todd: I think you make too much out of this interview. First off, few real voters are watching Hardballs; mostly it's political junkies. Secondly, what Penn was refering to was Obama's comment about "maybe some blow." It doesn't take Harvard degree to figure out that means cocaine, and no one cares about pot anyway. So I wouldn't say it was planned on Penn's part. It's about the same as Biden saying clean istead of fresh. Lastly, I raised my eyebrows at the way you describe Penn. "What does Penn's slimy shiftiness..." Let me point out that Penn is Jewish, and I'd hope you'd use the same words describing Alexrod and Trippi.

by JFK464 2007-12-14 09:55AM | 0 recs
Same as his war on Gore, no different.

Just wait till the GOP pick Rudy or McCain.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-14 09:44AM | 0 recs
Horrible decision

Just dumb.

1) Why would they send Penn and not Wolfson?

2) Why would they agree to go on air all three at a time.  Add in Matthews and you have a 4 on 1.

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-14 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Horrible decision

I agree. The only reason I can think of is akin to all of the other questionable decisions that they are making: their internals are really really bad and they are afraid.

by aiko 2007-12-14 09:58AM | 0 recs
Oh and Trippi is the POS who cost Dean

He sucked the money out of Dean's campaign like a vacume cleaner.  Dean was broke as Iowa approached.

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-14 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh and Trippi is the POS who cost Dean

Guilty as charged -- you are right -- I single handedly cost Dean the whole enchilada.

Thanks for the kind words.

We each have to continue to try to make a difference in our own way.  I work for people I believe in, those people tend to bbe those who are progressive and are willing to challenge the establishment in our party who really BTW suck.

They tend to have more power and money and are tough to defeat, but I am proud that I keep trying.

Sorry I let you down.

Sincerely
Joe Trippi

by Joe Trippi 2007-12-14 03:07PM | 0 recs
Whats it cost an hour?

For high level campaign folk to be wasting their time - with 3 weeks to go - responding to my posts here?

Too funny!

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-16 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

It's called making lemonade out of a lemon. It's called playing good defense.

Hillary thought she could win on this issue not Obama.

by JoeCoaster 2007-12-14 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

It got me to donate $25 and sign up for the national phone bank.  

by aiko 2007-12-14 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

Penn is starting to look like a liability both in front of the camera and behind the scenes.

Hillary should dump him and get someone better.

by Bush Bites 2007-12-14 09:25AM | 0 recs
Hillary is scum

that's what is says. And anyone who thinks this whole thing wasn't planned is a sucker.

by nevadadem 2007-12-14 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

this is exactly what im talking about! Where is your outrage Mr. Beeton to Obama's gay bashing? Where is you outrage to Obama's "Bush-Cheney lite" comment? Oh but because a guy in Hillary's campaign says something about Obama and drugs, Hillary is to blame? But if Obama does a concert fundraiser for a gay bashing hyporite, it is ok? This is exactly what I was talking about in my diay! You guys are wrong! Where are your articles about Obama voting "present" on hot bottom issues? Or missing important votes to campaign? Or sponsoring a bill on Iran that goes a lot farther than the non-binding bill that Hill voted for? No NO but Hillary has just gone too far!

Where is your praise for Hillary and her healthcare plan? Where is your praise for Hillary's "I will end this war!"? SILENCE! NOTHING FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY!!

Your a hack and so are everyone else who have made this race ugly!

by boxer4hrc 2007-12-14 09:27AM | 0 recs
didn't you leave already?

..that didn't last long.

by JoeCoaster 2007-12-14 09:35AM | 0 recs
Off-Topic

This is off-topic, but Mark Halperin is reporting that "the magical Michael Whouley" is apparently now working for Hillary Clinton in Iowa.

by blueflorida 2007-12-14 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Off-Topic

heh

by souvarine 2007-12-14 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Off-Topic

Oops, bad news for both Obama and Edwards.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-14 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Off-Topic

DSG does not come cheap. Clinton's spending shoots up again. I'm convinced that the as-yet unreported story of the year is going to be what happened to her $80m?

by desmoulins 2007-12-14 09:23PM | 0 recs
Mark Penn

is a disaster for all kinds of reasons.  The inevitability campaign was always dumb because it was always going to tighten.

On a larger note, I think the Clinton folks really don't know how to negatively attack a fellow Democrat.  They're used to using bazookas instead of stilletos against Republicans.  And they have repeatedly embarrassed themselves with trying to slice Obama.  Hillary herself has done a pretty good job, but the campaign overall has been terrible.

Looks like the Obama campaign is much better at it.  They're smart enough to get people who aren't officially part of the campaign to spread their smears.  See http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/ob ama_backer_questions_hillarys_electabili ty_because_of_bill.php.  They are also smart enough to take the shot, denounce it, and then shut up about it (see D-Punjab).

Whether the Obama camp's tactics will work with the GOP is another issue.  It depends on the media being willing to move on.  The media have been only too happy to pile on Clinton and leave Obama alone.  If they'll do that in the general, then that might be a reason for me to consider voting for him.  We haven't done to well with nominees the media hate.  

The problem is that part of me just does not believe that Obama will get the same kind treatment once he's the nominee.  And part of me hates voting driven by media preference.  Hate it.  It's almost like the more the media loves Obama, the more I want the nominee to be anyone but him.  

by BDB 2007-12-14 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Penn

I meant to add that while I don't believe all of the rumors about dischord in the Clinton campaign, let's face it the Clintons have seen worse, I do think there's probably some truth of anger at Penn among some of her advisors.  Putting him on television is only a good idea if your goal is to get him shuttered off somewhere as a result of his terrible performance.  

Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist or anything.  Heh.

by BDB 2007-12-14 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

It's beyond ridiculous. They've had so many opportunities to right the course and rethink things, but they keep digging themselves deeper.

I'm beginning to fear that if Hillary does get the nomination, the incompetence of these people will let the election slip through our hands.

by animated 2007-12-14 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball


Seems like every week there's another bonehead decision coming out of that campaign.

Hillary has to hold someone responsible and give him/her the boot.

Time to step up and show some leadership.

by Bush Bites 2007-12-14 09:36AM | 0 recs
Against the GOP

I actually think they'd do much better against the GOP.  I know Hillary is supposed to be some evil, awful bitch, but I honestly think she and the people around her don't know how to go after Democrats.  When she says she's spent decades trying to fight the GOP machine, she isn't kidding and I think that's made her a very partisan person.  Unlike Obama, who attacks politics, or Edwards, who attacks the system, Clinton's natural position is to attack Republicans.  And, as a result, I think they're uncomfortable doing it and I think that's why it's been such a disaster.  

Oddly, I think Obama's anti-politics attacks work great against Clinton, especially in a media climate that seems more favorable to him, but won't work as well against the GOP.  Because the media climate will change.  But also because the GOP will work much harder at smearing him.  The Muslim emails will look like child's play by the time the GOP is through.  

Which isn't a reason to vote against Obama.  I tend to fall into the camp that believes whoever the Dem nominee is they are going to get smeared.  I do think that what they'll smear Clinton with might be less effective because it's already out there and so folks have already taken that into account when they say they'll vote for her.  But whoever the nominee is - it is going to be ugly.  If it's Clinton, it's going to get even more sexist.  If it's Obama, it's going to be incredibly racist.  That's just who the GOP are.

by BDB 2007-12-14 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Against the GOP

You may be right, but I'm worried that you've just described the conventional wisdom, not what may actually be true. How many times did we hear the press tell us that this was the most disciplined, on-message campaign ever? And that, as you said, she had lived through the attacks of the 90s and could crush her opponents without breaking a sweat.

But the fact is, this isn't Bill Clinton circa 92 or 96. The candidate is different, the experience is different, and the team is different. What I see is someone who is trying to figure out how to run an effective campaign against a strong challenger. If she is the nominee, let's hope she figures it out before the general.

by animated 2007-12-14 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Against the GOP

bill Clinton 1992 wasn't that disciplined. He screwed up lots but it didn't hurt him in the end. It only looks great in hindsight because he won and winners look like champions in hindsight.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-14 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

Its too both sides advantage to move on about this. Not that I care, but what can either side hope to gain with this story?

by bruh21 2007-12-14 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

She should lock Mark Penn up in the basement and just go down there every few hours to deliver some food and get the latest poll results. The more the public sees of this guy, the better for Obama and Edwards.

by dmc2 2007-12-14 09:36AM | 0 recs
Ridiculous

I can agree that Penn came off as mighty clumsy, but to pretend that it is outrageous for him to use the word "cocaine" in discussing a flap about    "cocaine" use by Obama is truly laughable.

What should he have called it the "C word"?

Is that how Obama described it in his published book.  In the audio book version - is that offensive word bleeped out?

Do you think the GOP will be so squeamish when they bring up that word if obama is our nominee?  Do you think that Matthews and the other members of the political media will refuse to utter it?

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-14 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous

I can see why Axelrod went crazy over the use of cocaine.  Clearly, it makes Penn look less apologetic.  

At the same time, it does make me wonder if Obama isn't more worried about this than his campaign seems.  Is Axelrod's ire simply manufactured to score points about how "negative" the Clinton people are or are the Obama people truly worried?

by BDB 2007-12-14 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous

Except it was Trippi that went crazy, not Axelrod. I think Obama's campaign handled it right. Call Hillary out on it then let it go (after a quick fundraiser).

by JoeCoaster 2007-12-14 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

Mark Penn was grinning when he mentioned the drugs, getting some perverse pleasure from it.  He is so fat and sweaty, he reminds me of those perverts they catch on "To Catch A Predator."  Maybe that is why being on MSNBC made him nervous.

Joe Trippi is authentic.  He clearly does not like the negativity and came across very well.  

by Javier Doval 2007-12-14 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

It's fine to write as a partisan for a particular candidate, but still, can't you find a slightly more balanced tone?  This diary reads like straight-up yellow journalism.

by Trickster 2007-12-14 09:50AM | 0 recs
Now that's more like it.

Hillary herself seems to be very good with a stilleto.  Now she just needs a few spokesmen who are just as good and not the clumsy oafs that's been carrying her water.

From the Politico -

Clinton didn't mention specifics in the taping of an interview on "Iowa Press" this morning, but drew a contrast with unnamed rivals that echoes Bill Shaheen's now-notorious claim that unexplored elements of Obama's candidacy will make him an easy Republican target.

"I've been tested, I've been vetted," she said. "There are no surprises. There's not going to be anybody saying, 'I didn't think of that, my goodness, what's that going to mean?'"

This appears to be the emerging core of the electability case against Obama: that elements of his public record and -- unspoken -- his private past, could scuttle what should be a Democratic sure thing, and that he is untested by real partisan combat.

"Whoever we nominate will be subjected to the full force of the Republican attack machine, and I know that they know I know that and I have no illusions about what this race will entail," she said.

UPDATE: Asked to elaborate on what she's suggesting about Obama, Clinton has an answer ready: "I'm only talking about myself."

by BDB 2007-12-14 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Now that's more like it.

Except Hillary cannot claim to be tested. Bill has been tested but Hillary has really only won a blue state senate seat (same as Obama).

Knowing everything about Hillary is not the same as surviving being attacked with that information. We don't know if Hillary can take a punch.

Kerry thought his war record had be well vetted also. He still got killed with it.

by JoeCoaster 2007-12-14 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Now that's more like it.

In fact, this process has vetted her and she's failed.  Edwards and Obama decided to go after her.  They did so in the most mild of ways, nothing near close to what the Republicans and 527s will throw at her.  How did she handle it?  She became completely unhinged and her campaign has fallen apart.  She hasn't even been able to handle going negative against Obama in a way that hasn't blown up in her face.  And think about it, during Bill's tenure she may have been a fighter, but that doesn't make her a good one. She lost health care, she fought the vast right-wing conspiracy and they brought impeachment proceedings on her husband.  Name me an instance where she fought them and actually won?

by Piuma 2007-12-14 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Now that's more like it.

Yeah she won a bluestate seat and against a opponent who had little visibility and was unknown to anyone outside of Long Island.....if Rudy had run against her, he woudl have beaten her...

by adbct 2007-12-14 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

Todd, you missed a great quote from that back and forth.  Mark Penn said the kindergarten thing was a bad joke that didn't go over well and it was a mistake.  Then Axelrod responded by saying, well if it was a bad joke and a mistake, why is it still posted under the news section of your website?

It was a nice big dig.  

by SixthElement 2007-12-14 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball
I saw the whole exchange and couldn't believe it.
Both Trippi and Axelrod came off as regular, salt of the earth folks. Penn, attired for an Iowa winter in bespoke suit, designer  silk tie and what must have been a $500 combover looked like an effete poseur. As he smirked, winked and nodded his way through the drug charge, my opinion of Clintonsank like a stone. She hired this guy? She actually put him on TV?  He seemed like a fool, and she a worse one for paying him good money. I actually pity the people who contributed to Clinton and fronted this guy's monstrous fees. (And don't get me started on the racia stuff!!)
by NYWoman 2007-12-14 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

The reporters today should have asked Clinton whether she was inviting the press to fully vet her - and Bill.  They could have asked whether she was saying that it was fair to go back as far as 30 years to examine a candidate.  It seems to me this is the door she is opening.  The idea that we know everything is ridiculous.  I still don't know why Susan McDougal went to prison rather than talk (and I am completely serious).

by Javier Doval 2007-12-14 10:30AM | 0 recs
Hey look! Ken Starr's joined us!

She did talk, she had no dirt on the Clintons.

by souvarine 2007-12-14 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey look! Ken Starr's joined us!

If only they knew the things Rush Limbaugh has said about Obama they wouldn't be quoting him so much.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-14 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

Why is anyoen surprise that the Clinton are attempting to sliem and smear people.....they did it to their political enemies during the administration...see their use of the FBI in investigating political enemies....slandering folsk in the travel office to force them out, and so on...it never ends. These people will do and say anything to get what they want. She is pure evil.....and if you are unhappy with GW, wait til you see what goes down when this witch gets in if she does...

by adbct 2007-12-14 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball
Adbct is right! That's not something new, and it's not a surprise! They are those kind of person who would do anything ( and I really mean ANYTHING) to get what they wish for! OH! And I have no words to describe how "ruined" Bill Clinton was. Lets remember: There was a lot about Clinton to hate. He was routinely dishonest, personally corrupt and treated political opponents (e.g., gun owners, small-business people) as class enemies. He had a history of abusing individuals, both to advance his political goals and to avoid responsibility for his reckless personal behavior, and he showed indifference toward civil liberties. His intellectual MO was to avoid open discussion of issues and instead to make personal attacks on his critics. And most of all he appeared to value his personal interests over the good of the country. Now his wife wants exactly the same. It's obvious!
---------------------------------------- ------------
Ada drug rehab facility
by timada 2008-03-16 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Trippi Slams Mark Penn on Hardball

Check out this article, it outlines a strategy on how the Edwards campaign could defeat Hillary Clinton.  Check it out at http://thirdrailradio.blogspot.com/

by ThirdRail 2008-01-21 12:40PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads