The NY Observer, yesterday: [1]
The argument that the constant carping about Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been a function of an Obama-friendly, process-obsessed media is well and good. But how, then, to explain the deeply held dissatisfaction of an old Clinton loyalist like Leon Panetta?
[2]In an interview with The Observer, Mr. Panetta compared Mrs. Clinton’s top strategist Mark Penn to Karl Rove, suggested that the Clinton campaign had totally underestimated Barack Obama’s appeal, and complained about the overall lack of planning that he said had characterized the former First Lady’s bid to return to the White House.”I never considered him someone who would run a national campaign for the presidency,” he said.
He asserted that Mr. Penn “comes from an old school, like Karl Rove-it’s all about dividing people into smaller groups rather than taking the broader approach that was needed.”
Arrrrrr. Sorry, wrong answer, Leon.
First of all, as far as a political operative goes, Mark Penn is nowhere near in the same league as Karl Rove. Sorry, completely different pieces of the puzzle. That would seem self-evident, given the success of Karl Rove, versus the abject failure of Mark Penn in the same relative role. I would certainly put Mark Penn in the same class as Patti Solis Doyle, for example. I recognize that’s not very complimentary, but the truth is often painful to liberals. This is one such situation.
Secondly, the problem was not the appeal of Hillary Clinton’s opponent… rather, the problem is the lack of appeal of Hillary Clinton herself.
Those two situations combine to create an unwinable campaign.
Witness; In general, and in particular in the case of Penn and Doyle, both, Hillary Clinton surrounded herself with true believers. These are people who would never in their wildest bad dreams think that their candidate was unappealing to the American people, much less be able to deal with the problem once it was identified. So convinced were they that everyone else saw the same messianic creature they did, they figured all they had to do was stand her up, announce she was taking the White House back, and America would fall in line behind her. The idea that she would actually have to justify herself to the American people, never entered the minds of these true believers.The fact, long touted, of Hillary Clinton’s high negatives, was never addressed because her campaign was in denial that such negatives existed.
Which would seem to explain rather nicely, the look of shock on the Clinton campaign workers this morning. And Panetta’s whining, as well. Notice that even in this, Panetta is disconnected from the reality that no plan on earth could have overcome Hillary Clinton’s own history.
So at this stage of the game, what we are down to is how Hillary Clinton is going to react when she sees someone else sworn in as president of the United States. One gets the impression it’s not going to create a pretty picture.
Rich Lowry [3], last night:
Who would have guessed three months ago that Hillary would be the desperate out-of-sorts underdog nipping at the ankles of the cool, in-control frontrunner, Barack Obama, in what is probably the final Democratic debate?
Funny you should mention that, Rich.
Rove did.
If Penn was of Rove’s quality, he’d have seen it, too.