Clinton Campaign Insiders Question Top Aide's Poll-Driven Approach

Newsday:

On the eve of the final Iowa debate before the Jan. 3 caucuses, Clinton campaign insiders are increasingly questioning the cautious, poll-driven approach taken by Mark Penn, Hillary Rodham Clinton's top political aide, sources familiar with the situation say.

With Clinton barely holding her own against Barack Obama and John Edwards in Iowa, dissatisfaction is growing with Penn, who some say has mistakenly run Clinton as a de facto incumbent.

Read the whole story: Newsday

Comments

[mommadona]

02:07 PM on 12/13/2007

""The top officials on the campaign have never had a real understanding of Iowa," said a Clinton operative."

What a DLC moment.
And how utterly true.
HillBill Purple Cow
Not Red White and Blue.

"Polls? That's what you do to young cattle"
they say.

"Welcome to Iowa. Now, go away."

[Researchguy66]

11:45 AM on 12/13/2007

Um...they're just now questionning? Way to be proactive...

[xcrunner77]

09:21 AM on 12/13/2007

Two key sentences from this article: 1. "Clinton's aides insist that no shake-up is imminent." That means a shake-up is imminent. Maybe this weekend? Sometime before Iowa definitely, and it will be spun as a positive thing, something like "*Now* we're back on track and we are going forward stronger than ever." All it lacks is Ricardo Montalban saying "smiles, everyone.... smiles."

2. "For months, tension has been building between the "Hillary" and "Bill" parts of the team". The sort of job they're doing now tells you exactly what they would be like back in the White House. Those who think they are getting "two for one" or that putting hillary back is really like giving Bill a third term will be sorely disappointed. If they can't work together now and agree on what to do when they both agree on the goal, what will things be like when they disagree on policy goals? Will Bill go out and make speeches to undermine here, or do the same inside the White House, or both?

It's better to see how poorly they work together now while the only damage is to her campaign. The entire country does not need to (again) be caught in the crossfire of Clintonian battles.

[kdjoins]

08:56 AM on 12/13/2007

Have you heard people using this new term lezident?
Like at http://www.lezident.com

It seems to be catching on.

[MPeter]

08:05 AM on 12/13/2007

Whatever happened to an error-free text book campaign? As recently as two weeks ago, the pundits and taking heads were gushing about the presumptive, inevitable nominee. Many of us saw her for what she is, an empty skirt milking her relationship with a sleek, slippery former president. We knew that in time, the American people would catch up with her.

[OETKB]

06:06 AM on 12/13/2007

So now the cat is out of the bag. Senator Clinton as a candidate is a construct. People are questioning their support for someone whose achievements have been gussied up by a marketing expert, Mark Penn. With all the varnish of the sartorial stances and clever dismissing reposts removed, what you see is what you get from Senator Clinton. And in increasing numbers the voters are not buying it.

We have someone who has not governed or effectively led on any issue with defined RECENT widespread accomplishments. This does not make you a rotten person or even someone who has not had significant deeds in their life. It just doesn't add up to the best choice for president of this country and there is no way to package the Senator to make it so.

If her campaign has to reconfigure her image this often, it means there is nothing to demonstrate to the American people that she will show leadership on War and Peace, the Economy, Health Care, or the Environment.

There is a last debate before the Iowa Caucus today in Iowa and I'm betting in this format that only allows you be straightforward on issues and give some sense of governance, Governor Bill Richardson, will be able to demonstrate that his bona fides have a proven track record that this country presently needs.

No other candidate has his foreign policy experience, his executive ability, or the general attitude to take in the collective concerns of the American people. He among all these choices holds the most promise to move this country in a direction that will make us able to hold our heads high as a nation of laws and respecter of human rights and survival. It deserves a tune in.

We are voting for Commander in Chief, not Photo Op in chief.

[nomobull]

05:07 AM on 12/13/2007

issues,voting records and what are you going to do about this war

[Ranta]

03:30 AM on 12/13/2007

What approach? Don't say anything about policy. One point lead in New Hampshire.
I can't wait to see what her consultants come up with now.
Hopefully, progressives will realize that Hillary is just a Republican in sheep's clothing.( DLC, Foreign Relations Committee, Young Republican).

[strengththruslack]

03:17 AM on 12/13/2007

The question people are asking now is: does Hillary want to win the nomination just so she can be Madam President?

[humblediplomat]

02:45 AM on 12/13/2007

I can't think of a major "war on terror" vote where she didn't vote with Bush
She's running as if it's still 2004 and thinks that talking tough regarding the "war on terror" is what will win it.
Whereas, the electorate has long grown tired of that rhetoric, and the military and our financial system cannot take much more strain from it either.

[MRb1000]

02:30 AM on 12/13/2007

Well this is why most people are turn off. She has not lead anything. She acts like she has accomplished something. We the American people are not stupid. Yeah we all can talk a good game, but can you back it up. I have not seen one record to show what she is telling us. Hey, Bill and Hill let us see the records and you will beat everybody hands down. This will make your number go up.