Ickes: Blame Penn
Harold Ickes definitely doesn’t buy the argument that Mark Penn isn’t responsible for everything that has happened to the Hillary Clinton campaign.
“Mark Penn has run this campaign,” said Ickes in a brief phone interview this morning. “Besides Hillary Clinton, he is the single most responsible person for this campaign.
“Now, he has been circumscribed to some extent by Maggie Williams,” said Ickes, who then pointed out that that was only a recent development.
When asked about the assertion by one senior Clinton official the campaign was effectively run by committee, diluting Penn’s authority, Ickes was incredulous.
“I don’t know what campaign you’re talking about,” said Ickes. “I have been at meetings where he introduces himself as the campaign’s chief strategist. I’ve heard him call himself that many times, say, ‘I am the chief strategist.’”
Asked if Penn preferred the title of chief strategist to pollster, Ickes said, “Prefer it? He insists on it!”
When asked if Penn was therefore responsible for the campaign’s strategy, Ickes said, “It’s pretty plain for anyone to see that he has shaped the strategy of the campaign. He has called the shots.”
“Mark Penn,” he said, “has dominated the message in this campaign. Dominated it.”
Ickes also took umbrage at the suggestion of one Clinton campaign official that he had mismanaged the campaign’s money and deprived Clinton the resources to compete in states after February 5.
“We invested a huge amount of money in February 5 states,” said Ickes, arguing that anyone who suggested he had wasted the campaign’s money was “talking with no knowledge.”
“I don’t know what they’re basing this statement on but they have not one fact to stand on,” he said.
The chief responsibility entrusted to Ickes now is wrangling superdelegates for Clinton, or at least persuading them not to commit until after the March 4 contests in Texas and Ohio.
Here’s the case he’s been making: “Mr. Obama has just become the frontrunner. He has not been subjected to any real degree of scrutiny by the press.”
Then, he says, he tells superdelegates that “we have an obligation” to wait and pick the best candidate for the Democratic Party. “We can’t nominate a candidate who can’t withstand the withering attacks of the Republicans.”
Asked about the defection of superdelegate and civil rights icon John Lewis to Obama, Ickes said, “You never like to lose a supporter. John Lewis is a great American hero.”
But, he added, “He is one vote. He doesn’t have many votes.”
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Jesus Christ could have been her campaign director and Hillary still would have lost; if not in the primary, certainly in the general election.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!
That's what happens when you hire a multi-millionaire corporate union-buster as your "campaign strategist." Why the Clintons were ever enamored of a charlatan like Penn (whose refusal to release his data reveals his incompetence as a pollster, much less as a message-maven) is beyond me. Why they allowed Penn to remain as chairman of Burson-Marsteller (when Bush, by contrast, insisted that Karl Rove sell out his interest in his firm in 2000) is equally beyond me.
I would call Penn the Bob Shrum of the 2008 campaign, except that does an injustice to Shrum, who could at least write a good speech and at least was a real progressive. But in terms of their competence as strategists, their won-loss record, and their toxic impact on campaign morale, Penn and Shrum are two peas in the same pod.
Still, it all comes down to Hillary. She decides whom to hire and whom to fire.
How does making a statement like this help Ickes persuade the superdelegates to hang tough for Clinton?
Well, at least Penn and Ickes have provided us with the definitive Reference on how NOT to run a campaign. Remember though, Penn still has his hotshot Charlie Black calling the shots over at MCain's, so there's still hope for the prostitutes in all of us!
Moose49 has the main point: what does this say about Hillary's ability to pick the best advisors? Especially now with the public sniping.
What would her WH be like? Basically, you get Hillary, you get Penn.
I blame his tie.
By definition Hillary Clinton is responsible for everything that her campaign has done.
I guess this shows that she was not ready to run a political campaign on Day One.
"Basically, you get HIllary, you get Penn."
and if you get McCain, you get Black (who works for Penn). Thus, you're back to Penn.
Anyone else see a problem with this?
Penn is a REFLECTION of the Clintons and their standards/values. All of this discussion blaming HER team is ridiculous. SHE went out and assumed the mantle of the front runner and WINNER before one vote was cast. Does anyone remember all of 2007, when Hillary constantly said "WHEN I AM PRESIDENT?" The media, who she now decries, spent an entire year calling her front runner and everyone around her -- including her team -- functioned as if she ALREADY WAS THE WINNER. Consequently, Mr. Penn kept his day job, Ms. Solis was selected to "manage" the Campaign as a loyalist and NOT for her experience (I belive that's the world Hillary uses to define whether someone should get a job?)...and, surrogates-in-waiting clearly unfamiliar with the need to raise money on the Internet...preferring easy dollars from fat cats to small donors...NEVER PLANNED FOR AN EXTENDED CAMPAIGN. This was a Clinton creation from the get-go and every decision made throughout has their hallmark of desperate ("until the last dog dies") gutter politics. Perhaps it is time for Hillary Clinton to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY and stop sending her spouse and other surrogates out to fight her battles and take the fall for decisions she made, and the consequences. The media didn't mismanage her Campaign. She did. Her judgement should be called into question by the media...and VOTERS. The Nation cannot afford this kind of lack of planning and execution. Our Presidency is NOT an entitlement. Turn the page.
Hah, Clinton, Penn, and Ickes will show you all when she wins big in Texas and Ohio and then goes on to sweep the rest of the states, gets the delegates in Florida and Michigan seated, and then goes on to rout McCain in the general. These people are sly like Foxes playing possum.
Now if you excuse me I have to finish my electroshock therapy to cleanse me of the dangerous theta waves.
I like the photo. Arianna is practically sexually assaulting Ickes with her breasts.
I have to say, I'm really liking that shirt/tie combo. Wolfson and the sweater need to bring their A game on March 4.
The trouble with Penn and his ilk is that they don't really believe in anything. Carville is another good example (else how could he have ever married the loathsome and vile Mary Matalin?). These political operators are in it for the money, power, and attention. They truly have no core values. I believe that the Clintons do have a few core values, but these values are obscured by their own massive flaws and bad judgement. Judging from how Hillary Clinton has run her campaign, I believe she is unfit to be president. Obama will definitely be learning on the job, and will have his share of stumbles, but he has a decency about him that is absent from the Clintons and the DLC crowd they run with. Democrats need to take back their party from these people.
Arianna is practically sexually assaulting Ickes with her breasts. They do look firm and meaty, whereas Hillary's seem sagging and misshapen.
Arianna's breasts do indeed look firm and meaty
"Jesus Christ could have been her campaign manager and Hillary still would have lost."
Jesus Christ is George Bush's advisor/friend and I guess they have daily chats. Thanks Jesus for giving us eight wonderful years.
Ickes is right. Mark Penn is no different than a Karl Rove or an M. Thomas Eisenstadt. That's what happens when you employ Republican tactics in a Democrat primary.
That photograph makes me a bit dizzy. Feels like the picture's about to fall off the wall as the room lists to one side. Kind of like Ickes is standing on the deck of the Titanic, making small talk with Ariana. Putting knives in Penn's back. Meanwhile, Penn's on deck 2 putting knives in Ickes' back.
Two consummate professionals, paying attention to details and priorities.
I will not vote for Hillary in this election even if she wins the Primary (and that'd be the first time in 40 years I didn't vote for the Dem).
Translation: the Clinton machine will leak malicious gossip about Obama to the press to try and defeat him.
Penn, Ickes, who cares?
Blame Hillary. Not enough people want her. It's as simple as that. We don't like you Hillary. We don't want you to be President.
I've felt sick ever since she announced her candidacy that I might actually end up having to vote for her, and my disgust for her has only grown in magnitude.
Renatam totally nailed this issue with one of the most cogent analyses I've seen. Let us also not forget Clinton's vaunted "35 years of experience" (beginning I suppose on the day she graduated law school?) If this pathetic campaign is the result of all that "experience" then it is a poor argument in favor of making her the most powerful person in the world.
Does anyone see the similarity in GW's preparation for the Iraq war and HRC's preparation for this campaign. I'll try and point out the similarities:
1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.
2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.
3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.
4. Both are adament that their strategy was sound.
5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.
6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men'.
7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place.
The list can go on and on. The bottom line is that HRC should be confined to the senate alone. She has the potential to be a good party leader (senate majority leader...anyone) but I dont think that she is ready to 'lead on day one'. She has very similar characteristics as GW.
Did I mention, she had the tendency to take loyality over qualifications?
"Ickes also took umbrage at the suggestion of one Clinton campaign official that he had mismanaged the campaign’s money and deprived Clinton the resources to compete in states after February 5."
Are you kidding me? The campaign manager she just fired (Patti Solis Doyle) and replaced with Maggie Williams, was a complete screw up. She blew through 30 million dollars in Hillary's uncontested senate race. UNCONTESTED 30 MILLION. So what does Hillary do? She makes her campaign manager for her PRESIDENTIAL campaign. Why? Because she is LOYAL. Haven't we had enough with presidents who appoint incompetence to important roles? What will she do as president?
Read the whole sorrid Hillary Campaign Soap Opera from campaign operatives themselves.
Article in The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle
Obama has repeatedly proven himself cool under fire, Clinton the opposite ... she can't even withstand being asked the first question.
Ariana is a beard.
I, on the other hand, can suck a 2 inch marble through a 1 inch steel pipe.
You are right on the mark! The similarities between Hillary's campaign and Bush's Iraq war that you have illuminated so well are scary. And they hardly give one confidence in her ability to be an effective, much less competent, president. Both done in by arrogance and by hiring and listening to the advice of incompetent aides.
As a longtime Clinton supporter, with a heavy heart, I have to say I am switching to Barack O. He has all the appeal that the leaden Hillary lacks. Reluctantly, I have come to this conclusion and will work tirelessly to help his campaign succeed, beginning tomorrow in Ohio.
I also want to add that the above comments, with a few exceptions like the comparison of Bush and HRC, is one of the most godawful displays of ignorance and denial and irresponsibility that I have seen in all my years as a lobbyist for the subprime mortgage industry. I met the Clintons at our last annual meeting, and enjoyed that, but alas, they are for yesterday, not today.
...and, the inability to take personal responsibility, make concessions, accomodate other points of view not one's own -- or ADMIT MISTAKES. Annonymous is correct. Spoiled BRATS running America into the ground...and commoditizing out interests out of Office and for their entourage. Turn the page.