The reports of Penn’s ouster may have been greatly exaggerated
Dems everywhere, most notably at Clinton campaign headquarters, breathed a sigh of relief late Sunday when the campaign announced that Mark Penn was no longer Clinton’s top campaign strategist. There was some talk that Penn would maintain some kind of role with the team, but no one took that seriously — when the campaign replaced Patti Solis Doyle as Clinton’s campaign manager, they said the same thing, but it was just a courtesy to lessen the blow of being fired.
Indeed, consider how Sunday night’s news was perceived. The political world learned that Penn was “forced out.” He’d been “replaced.” It’s the latest campaign “staff shake-up.” Penn “stepped down,” involuntarily.
But yesterday, after the news surfaced, we started to get the sense that Penn may have lost his title, but he hasn’t actually gone anywhere.
Mr. Penn took part on the campaign’s morning message call [yesterday] morning, as usual.
This afternoon, he is also scheduled to be on a call with Clinton and other aides to begin to prepare for Saturday’s presidential debate in Philadelphia.
Mr. Penn “is still going to be very much involved,” a senior campaign official said.
So, if Penn is still “very much involved,” he’s still part of the team, he’s still on the conference calls shaping the campaign’s message, and he’ll still responsible for preparing Clinton for upcoming debates, it starts to look as though Penn lost his title, but very little else.
The New York Daily News reported that Penn will maintain his “role as an adviser and pollster” for the Clinton campaign, and quoted a Penn confidant saying, “Reports of Mark’s death are greatly exaggerated.” A senior Clinton adviser added, “You don’t break a circle like that easily and quickly.”
This certainly doesn’t sound like a guy who has “stepped down.”
The Huffington Post added that Penn hosted a conference call with Burson Marsteller’s managing directors to “persuade them that the fallout from his resignation was both overblown and would soon pass.”
[H]e confirmed that while his title with the campaign had changed — and his work load would undoubtedly decrease — he still would play a direct advisory role for Clinton.
“I think you’ve heard that I made the decision to step down as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign. Penn Schoen and Berland is going to continue to poll for it and I’ll continue to play a role advising Senator Clinton and former President Clinton as well as the rest of the leadership of the campaign,” he said.
Later, he added: “The title, the position of chief strategist tended to be one that drew a tremendous amount of attention. And, number two, yes, I will have more time. We will continue – Penn and Schoen will continue to do the polling and I will be advising, but the net of it will still be that I will have more time than I otherwise would have had so that definitely is going to be the case.”
The interesting angle to watch, then, moving forward is whether the same voices urging Penn’s ouster late last week pick up again in response to reports that Penn didn’t actually step down. Most notably, Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union and one of Clinton’s most prominent supporters, reportedly pushed aggressively for Penn’s dismissal, which contributed to Sunday’s announcement.
If McEntee sees reports that Penn is still a key figure in the Clinton campaign, will he start working the phones again? I suspect he will.
On CNN yesterday, Paul Begala added, “I’m not going to lie to you, there’s a lot of pressure among pro-Clinton labor leaders, but also non-labor leaders who’ve been unsatisfied with Penn’s strategy, who’ve been disappointed in Penn’s conflict of interest and there’s still a clamor to eliminate him entirely from that campaign. And, and I don’t think the Clinton campaign has done that yet. I think Penn is still very much involved.”
Meanwhile, the Change To Win labor federation, which supports Barack Obama, has posted a blog item that argues, “Mark Penn Still Has To Go.”
Looks like the campaign’s headache has not yet gone away.
As an Obama supporter, I’m thrilled to hear Penn’s still active in the Clinton campaign.
God forbid they get someone smart in there.
I think this says more about how tone deaf Hillary is than anything. She apparently values his political skills more than she values an honest labor policy for her campaign.
Like TR, I am glad she’s showing us all now how she would manage as a president. No accountability for the chosen.
There is a concept in triangulation theory known as “diversionary pinpointing.” It’s really a simple theory—if something “was” in a specific location, you merely take it out of the “pinpoint” (in this case, the glare of public scrutiny) by moving it over a little bit. It’s similar to decentralization, but it’s actually the exact opposite of decentralization, and is used purely for consolidation that you don’t want “exposed” as consolidation.
Diversionary pinpointing can be presented as a demotion of an individual/group, a reassignment of goals and objectives, or even a termination of a project—when it is, in actuality, anything but. I would have figured more people would have understood the concept by now, given that Bu$h has been using it for years….
She apparently values his political skills more than she values an honest labor policy for her campaign.
Which is baffling, given the fact that he’s shown he has no demonstrable political skills.
Unless we count blowing all her money and rapidly losing a seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls.
Steve:
We are all used to it by now. The triangulation doesn’t have the effect it once did. That’s why keeping Penn around is so spectacularly stupid. If she loses PA, she’ll start getting into Rudy territory. People will be pointing to her campaign and wondering how someone with name and $$ advantage could lose so badly. Not to mention she was up 20 points just three weeks ago.
A Potemkin firing.
TR:
He has political skills. He’s convinced Hillary to part with how much money to fatten his pockets? I’ll give him an “A” for chutzpah.
I, too, am an Obama supporter who is glad Penn is still there. And I hope he stays, right up through the Pennsylvania primary. That way, we can tie him around Hillary’s neck like the giant albatross that he is. It’s tit for tat– the Clinton campaign pulled the Goolsbee-Canadian meeting as a tactic to scare working-class Ohioans away from Obama. Now we can turn around and point to the Penn-Colombia meeting as a bigger problem– and if Hillary is still keeping Penn around, what does that say about her priorities on the issue of trade?
Think of it this way: if Hillary keeps (Mark) Penn, she loses Penn (the state!)
Penn-Colombia is a messy situation . . . and I’m not talking about Ivy League football!!!!
I’m completely shocked. Penn has a confidant? I wonder how much that costs him? Probably in the millions, I know it would take more than that before I would pretend to like him.
I am firmly in the TR/RacerX camp – this is an example of Hillary’s inflexibility, and is a harbinger of her potential governance. She doesn’t like to be told what to do, and continues to rely on favourites even when they prove and reprove they are hurting her campaign. Eugene Robinson did a nice column in the Post today, devoutly hoping John McCain would choose Condi Rice as his running mate, because it would be like driving around with a Limpet Mine attached to your car. Penn has the same radioactive effect on the Clinton campaign, but of course Hillary (and Bill, who supposedly approved the judgment that Penn “must go”) know better than those who are trying to get her (them) elected.
he’s shown he has no demonstrable political skills.
Unless we count blowing all her money and rapidly losing a seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls.
He isn’t that good, I’ll agree. But I think that their “inetivability” plan came close to succeeding, except they totally underestimated Obama’s political skills. As good as Obama is, I can’t really blame them.
As far as I’m concerned, he hasn’t even lost his title; he didn’t have it in the first place. I’m certain I read — a while back, probably around Solis Doyle “went” — that it was Penn himself who insisted on being called “chief strategist” but that it hadn’t been his official title (even if it had been his de facto position). So, he’s keeping his position — though he’ll be spending less time at it (will he be getting paid at the same rate as before?) — and is shorn of the title he’s never had.
Excellent news for Obama, vis Pennsylvania, if only someone manages to keep that particular slimy butterball up in the news till April 22.
Hillary is looking more and more like Bush every day. I don’t believe a thing she says anymore, and that certainly includes her “campaign promises.”
You’ve got to question how serious Hillary is when it comes to the Colombia deal. I mean, think about it. This guy is running her campaign. She’s paying him millions. Yet at the same time, he’s getting paid to push through a trade deal she – at least ostensibly – is strongly against. True, the Colombians fired him, so that conflict of interest is no longer there.
But how do you keep someone who obviously stabbed you in the back on your team – unless you knew the whole time and didn’t care because you agreed with them?
Hillary Clinton is a strong woman who is not going to blow with the winds of the mainstream media and all the men who hate her strength. By keeping Penn and his valuable strategizing, which you mock because it has shown America that she is a strong woman, which you hate, she is demonstrating that she is stronger than Mr. Building Bridges, who was so happy to fire Samantha Powers. I was not impressed by Powers calling another strong woman a “monster,” as I am more than familiar with women who hate other women who succeed, but the fact remains that Obama would never have fired Powers if she had been a man. Perhaps the rules of loyalty are different for African Americans, as seemed apparent to me during my time in Chicago.
Another lie from the Clinton campaign? I’m shocked, shocked I tells ya!
Obviously she couldn’t really fire Penn because he didn’t have insurance and was under heavy sniper fire.
This is the kind of accountability we can expect from a third Clinton administration? No thanks. Glad they’ve already lost the primary.
Well, you have the insane part right.
Hillary says “I got rid of Penn” with all the sincerity that Bill said “I never had sex with that woman”. Both of them are sniveling, parsing, legalistic liars and that will never, never change. Period.
Obama is the only way out of a thoroughly repulsive choice: Bush III vs. Clinton III.
Obama is the only way out of a thoroughly repulsive choice: Bush III vs. Clinton III.
What was Clinton II?
Rick (#17) – go read Insane Fake Professor’s other posts and read the posts by Mary. Satire is a beautiful thing.
Rick (#17) – go read Insane Fake Professor’s other posts and read the posts by Mary. Satire is a beautiful thing.
Again, for those just joining us:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15053.html
I don’t understand the lack of Union leadership outrage over this situation with Mark Penn in the Clinton campaign. All she did was “shuffle the deck” so to speak. This guy is still gonna do polling and provide “advice”. Mark Penn needs to be GONE! I cannot put any trust in Clinton that she has the best interests of American union members at heart as long as she refuses to part with this guy. And neither should the leadership of any union. I don’t understand all the wailing about Obama’s unpaid advisor’s comments to some Canadian official, while the leader of Clinton’s campaign is holding strategy meetings to get this onerous Columbian legislation passed? She is basically spitting in the eye of the unions by moving this guy to the back room for a while till the heat (what little of it that has been generated) dies down. Is union leadership so in love with (or in fear of) the Clintons that they accept this with nary a whimper? WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? The AFL-CIO ought to be hounding Clinton night and day to make a complete break with this guy.
Can someone explain to me why that is not happening?
A man speaks his mind and he’s called bold, brave and ballsy, whatever that last one means. A woman speaks her mind and she’s called a “satire.” The double standard stinks.
I don’t understand the lack of Union leadership outrage over this situation with Mark Penn in the Clinton campaign.
Here you go.
Looks like the main message the Clintons learned from the 90’s is that we’re all a bunch of dumb hicks who will believe anything they tell us. I can’t believe they’re still pulling this kind of shit, especially when people have such serious doubts about Hillary’s credibility. But she knows that her supporters will continue to support her no matter what she says. She plays them like chumps every day, yet they keep asking for more. One more sign of how Republican Hillary really is.
Tom (@21), are we suggesting that IFP and Mary are merely two sides of the same three-sided coin?
I haven’t seen mary post for a while 🙁
She’ll get Penn out eventually.
When she sees a problem, she’ll fix it.
You just need to calm down.
No timetables. Nothing rash. See if there’s something better than just pulling him out.
She’s got management skills like no other executive. Trust her.