by AC4508, Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:41:29 PM EST
For weeks now, the spin coming out of the Clinton camp has been to downplay the success Sen. Obama has had in any states. They've all just lined up for him, be it because they had a high African-American population, educated and affluent Democrats, independents you name it. Still, I was stunned by Mark Penn's comments today to reporters; in dismissing Obama's achievements, Penn claimed, "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama"
Are you kidding me?!?
First of all, if you live in in any of the 21 non-Illinois states Obama won, then Mark Penn just said it plainly enough: you dont matter. Thats all there is too it, you're not "significant."
Second of all, a much more appropriate question might be this: Could we possibly have a nominee who lost ten consecutive states? Who's only real strategy is to bank on the biggest states? Who suffers CRUSHING defeats in swing states like Colorado, Washington, and Virginia?
So there you have it. Mark Penn is one of Clinton's closest aides, and will certainly have a top spot in the Clinton Administration if there is one. Do you really want someone like THAT being our next Karl Rove???
by Jr1886, Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:48:51 AM EST
There is a great analysis over at Dailykos that pretty much nails it on how Obama outplay Clinton to make it virtually impossible for her to win the nomination. While early on during the campaign, the obnoxious Mark Penn was puffing about Hillary's glowing poll numbers, the meticulous David Axerold was putting an impressive organization in Iowa for Obama. January 3rd was the first blow to the Clinton Campaign and put in display how incompetent her chief strategist was. Here's an excerpt of the analysis from dloewe:
But there are only 1,277 pledged delegates remaining up for grabs. For Obama to get to the 2,025 threshold without using super delegates, he would have to win 1,013 out of 1,277, or 79% of the remaining delegates. For Hillary to do that, she would have to win 1,076 out of 1,277 or 85% of the remaining delegates. That is virtually (make that actually) impossible.
What does that mean? It means that the super delegates get to decide the race. The problem with that, of course, is how shockingly undemocratic it is - party insiders choosing the nominee when we were led to believe that primaries would do that. But what's worse is that we could have a situation where Obama wins a majority of the pledged delegates and the super delegates decide to hand the nomination to Hillary anyway. This would cause an all out civil war in the party, and would make Hillary one of the weakest nominees in modern Democratic politics, virtually assuring a President John McCain.
Here's the catch: The party understands this, as do the super delegates. Though the above scenario is possible, it's exceptionally unlikely. Elaine Kamarck, a senior DNC official and super delegate herself, told me Thursday that it would never happen. "Super delegates are cowards - we would never do that." This, by the way, from a woman who has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Chuck Todd, political director for NBC News said on Saturday that super delegates are likely to follow the pledged delegate winner, especially if that winner is also ahead of McCain in the polls. And because more than half of the super delegates have yet to pledge, it's likely that this would be more than enough for Obama to maintain his lead, even when super delegates are added to the mix.
This is good news for the Obama crowd!! let's keep working to make it happen. The Clintons won't give their power away so we have to snatch it away from them.
To read the full analysis http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/12/
ahaaa,to see how incompetent Mark Penn is, read his latest trash here http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article
by Beltway Dem, Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:41:57 PM EST
I used my blogger identity to wiggle my way into a conference call with some Clinton campaign officials a little while ago; bloggers do this all the time, and I happened to get wind of the call this afternoon. Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson made certain points to representatives of the media on this eve of Super Tuesday, and I would like to throw out a few observations that impressed about where the race will be on Wednesday and where it will go thereafter. First of all, here is Penn's and Wolfson's very good news for my fellow Hillary supporters:
1. Though clearly we all are aware now that February 5 will not decide the race, Penn and Wolfson are very confident that when we wake up on February 6, Hillary will have a lead in the race for delegates.
More of their thoughts in the extended entry.
by Politico80, Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:11:57 PM EST
Disclaimer: This diary is focused on debating general election (GE) strategy. I hope this thread will not regress into ad hominem attacks on any of our strong liberal candidates for President.
Mark Penn on Hillary Rodham Clinton's electability:
"Republicans are not prepared for the loss of a substantial group of Republican women voters ... even in the South," he said. "I think you're going to see as much as 24% of Republican women defect and make a major difference nationwide in terms of, I think, the emotional element of potentially having the first woman nominee. And that that actually will be a major unexpected factor here that will throw the Republicans for a loop."
Let's consider this statement...
by Paul Hogarth, Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 06:33:03 AM EST
I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron:
"We can't be a new story. There's nothing we can do. I can't make her taller, younger, male. There's a lot of things I can't do." - Bill Clinton yesterday.
Today, Hillary Clinton will lose New Hampshire to Barack Obama - and it will be a wider margin than most polls suggest. The question now is whether the nomination is already over and, if so, how soon will Clinton drop out. I believe it is over, but the Clintons will probably take a while to acknowledge it. While there are many ways that Obama could have overtaken her, progressives should be pleased that: (1) Obama's rise has not been at the expense of John Edwards, and (2) Bill Clinton has become her biggest liability. The Clintons won't give up yet, but they'll keep digging themselves into a hole - while consultants like Mark Penn continue to lose credibility.