Mark Penn, Designated Scapegoat?

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

Could the recent firing (or, more accurately, recent demotion) of Mark Penn, architect of Hillary Clinton's campaign, save the party's chances in the general election? Has he, in other words, been designated at the official scapegoat for the campaign's viciousness? And will he serve this position well, becoming the lightning rod for Democratic voters to vent their anger and frustration on, rather than the eventual nominee?

Call him a scapegoat, lightning rod, whipping boy, or even sacrificial lamb (choose your own metaphor, in other words), but no matter who the nominee is, will he give sufficient cover so this eventual nominee can unite Democratic voters to produce a win in November?

I personally prefer the term "scapegoat," which we get from a mistranslation of the Bible. The "escape goat" or "scapegoat" comes from a sacrifice made in Leviticus 16. All of the sins of the people were placed on the goat's head, and it was driven out into the wilderness in atonement. The question becomes: can Mark Penn be an adequate scapegoat for the Democratic Party this fall?

The storyline so far (for those not paying attention) is that Mark Penn had been running Clinton's campaign until last week, which gave him veto power over all aspects of "the message" they put out. This gave him enormous influence and also built up serious resentment against him by others in the campaign. But Clinton stuck with him, up until the revelation that he had been working for the nation of Columbia to help them get a free trade agreement through the U.S. Congress -- a free trade agreement that (inconveniently) Clinton is publicly against. This normally wouldn't have been that big a deal (things like this happen all the time inside the Beltway), except for two problems. The next state to vote is Pennsylvania -- with a large percentage of union voters who might be turned off by this story. And Clinton has been hammering Obama over (as she tells it) one of his aides meeting with the Canadian government to reassure them that Obama didn't really mean what he was saying about changing NAFTA.

Because of these unfortunate problems confronting Clinton, she decided to get rid of Penn. Kind of. He's now just "one among many" top advisors to her campaign, and no longer has veto power over the message. In clear terms he wasn't fired, he was demoted.

Penn's role will now be taken over by Howard Wolfson, and the newly-acquired Geoff Garin. It's interesting to see the spin already being put on Penn's ouster. From a recent New York Times article:

Mr. Garin, 54, joined the Clinton campaign several weeks ago to augment strategy. His elevation could herald a less negative tone as the candidate tries to catch Mr. Obama.

Inside the Clinton team, Mr. Penn advocated increasingly sharp attacks on Mr. Obama as Mrs. Clinton's best option. Long before he joined the campaign, Mr. Garin argued that her route to success lay more in presenting her strengths than in assailing her opponent.

Translated, this means that Penn may be held up as the reason Clinton's campaign went so negative in the past few months. "Penn made us do it" in other words, thus reinventing Hillary as above such nasty campaigning, laying it all at his feet instead.

This is an interesting move for Clinton, and one which may mean she is looking further ahead than just this campaign, to her own political future. Or it could truly be an effort to reunite the party by distancing herself from the mudslinging -- which will help the party whether she's the nominee or not. Again, from the New York Times article:

An ardent fan of the Washington Nationals, Mr. Garin cast his campaign role as that of "the seventh-inning guy, instead of the starter." But his genial relationships throughout the party may offer some reassurance that the endgame of the nomination fight will not prove as damaging to Democratic hopes in the fall as some have feared.

"I don't want there to be a thermonuclear climax," he said. "Senator Clinton is committed to having a united Democratic Party at the end of this process. Senator Obama is committed to having a united Democratic Party at the end of this process. And we will have a united Democratic Party at the end of this process."

There are only two possible outcomes at the convention: Hillary wins, or Obama wins. Without examining the relative probability of either of these outcomes actually occurring, it's easy to see that this sort of talk will help the party either way.

Because it will offer a gentle way out of the corner Hillary and Obama are jointly painting themselves in with the voters. It's not an exaggeration to say that as of right now, there are Hillary-haters in the Democratic Party, and there are Barack-haters. Something like 20 percent of Clinton voters say they will vote for McCain if Obama is chosen, and 20 percent of Obama voters say the same thing if Clinton wins the nomination. This is extremely worrisome for the party's chances, no matter who the eventual nominee.

But Penn's story, and Garin's statements, present a new scenario instead. If what Garin says is true, and Hillary (from this point forward) starts running a campaign that is not interested in attacking Obama, but rather is striving to show she is the best possible candidate -- an eminently respectful campaign, in other words -- this could go a long way toward ending the animosity in the party rank and file.

Let's say Hillary gets the nomination. She can throw herself on the mercy of the Obama voters, say "all that negative stuff was Penn's fault, which is why I removed him as campaign leader," and hope that the Obamamaniacs will give her the benefit of the doubt in November, rather than staying home or voting for McCain.

If Barack wins the nomination, Hillary can say, "the last weeks of the campaign showed my true feelings and party loyalty, after we got rid of the negative influence of Mark Penn, and I urge my supporters to vote for Barack Obama." Clintonistas, hearing such words from her mouth, may also be much more inclined to bury the hatchet and vote for Barack in November.

Of course, this is all sheer speculation on my part. The grudges (on both sides) may be too deeply held at this point to shove off onto Mark Penn -- whom most voters have never even heard of. Hillary's refusal to flat-out fire him instead of demoting him may hinder the chances of this happening, too. And the loyalties voters feel for both candidates at this point may be too overwhelming and create such an enormous amount of resentment that a large number of them may indeed stay home in November. I don't believe that many of them will actually vote for McCain (once they calm down and start thinking about Supreme Court appointments), but I can see many of them dispirited enough that they just won't bother to vote.

But maybe, just maybe, Mark Penn's ouster at the top of the Clinton campaign could be the silver lining to the cloud of divisiveness which has been steadily growing over the Democratic Party. Maybe the sins of the campaign can be laid on his head effectively enough to divert resentment of the Clinton campaign's tactics so far.

Then again, maybe Penn needs to be driven a little further out into the wilderness for this to actually happen.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[efranklin]

Hope springs eternal. Clinton has already got an attack ad out today in Pennsylvania concerning campaign funds. The kitchen sink redoubles. You see, Mark Penn might have been the campaign chief, but the ultimate veto power has always been with Hillary. At the end of the day, it's her who decides whether the campaign goes negative or positive.

[standforpeace]

It's one thing for a private to blame his actions on orders he received from his general. But does it make any sense for the general to argue that he was forced to do what he did by the private?

I could be wrong but I thought that Penn worked for Hillary and not the other way around?

[CannaWupass]

Penn = Rove ...that's the formula. I think most will accept that and take a political shower after that flirtation with the darkside, during which they realized that "burning the village to save it" was doing the Conservatives work for them and the unfortunate ironies of the Clintons were becoming alarmingly tragic.

If absolving oneself from the spirit of Penn works for some Dems and allows for some face-saving...TOO THE WOODS WITH YOU Billy Penn Gruff!

[Sanjong Thapa]

http://kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com/

Free-Trade Schadenfreude
I feel sorry for Mark Penn. Really, I do. As everyone knows by now, Hillary"s chief strategist was demoted following news that he was working with Colombian officials to promote that nation"s free-trade deal. But, as the old saying goes, misery loves company.

With that thought in mind, can"t we all agree that Bill Clinton should immediately resign from Hillary"s campaign? Or at least be demoted?

After all " and to his credit " Bill"s been a big supporter of this trade deal for quite some time. Almost a decade, actually. In fact, a Colombian development firm based in Bogota paid him $800,000 for various appearances a few years ago. Nice chunk of change! Moreover, the ex-president has met repeatedly with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. One of those meetings actually took place at the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York.

Let me get this straight: Bill"s been out and about, actively working on, supporting, throwing his weight around, and getting paid (handsomely) for his support on this Colombian trade deal. Just like Mark Penn.

Where"s Hillary"s outrage? And where"s Teamster James Hoffa now that we need him?

[unsolved999]

I just don't see it. The recent Lanny Davis op ed, the new radio ad, and the argument to the PLEDGED delegates.... I just don't see Hillary playing nice. I think that may be the real story behind the demotion and all of the stories about his being marginalized. I see yet another round of kitchen sinks coming.

[Justtellthetruth]

Penn is a souless reprobate. Hillary hired him to run her campaign BECAUSE that is the type of judgment she posesses.

[mesuki]

Hillary was a nasty person even before Penn came into the picture,but together they took her nasty personality to a higher level. The two of them are just alike,they feed off each other,so she would never completly get rid of him... I can't imagine Hillary playing nice for the rest of this campaign....it's not in her nature. Some people are just angry and nasty from day one!

[Thatcher]

Chris - I am normally with you on things, but I have to part ways with you on this one. Mark Penn resigned his title of "Chief Strategist". And that's about it. Yeah, instead of being one with veto power, but he's still on the daily conference calls making his opinions know. He's not a chief, but he's still one of the "elders" of the Clinton tribe. Mark Penn is just being palmed in the Clinton's hand instead of being played. (crossposted on www.chrisweigant.com)

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Thatcher -

I respect your political analysis in general too much to disagree. Plus, you plugged my blog! :-)

I liked the card-playing analogy, too. But we'll see whether Garin can delever or not in the next few weeks. Will the kitchen sink stay in the holster (so to speak)? We'll see, we'll see....

-CW

[ldvisavis]

HuffPost's Pick

I hope you are right. We can look forward to the exclamation that Hillary has now really, REALLY found her voice. Seriously. This time she means it.

[PioneerKing]

It won't wash because Sen. Clinton's camp will continue with the "kitchen sink strategy."

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

PioneerKing -

We'll see... I think Howard Dean knocked a few heads in both campaigns about a week ago, and they've been a little more restrained since then. But, again, we'll see if this holds as the next primaries approach....

-CW

[Daly]

Penn had nothing to do with HRC's rude commits today she had her own spin on the Iraq exit and still she took some time to slam BHO saying he is all talk while we are to believe that she is a person of action. Thus far the only action I've seen her do is lie, praise McCain, oh and dodge sniper fire.

[Moose49]

First, let's get away from using the "f" word. Penn wasn't fired. His title was changed. That's all. This is the Clinton campaign giving the middle finger to the dwindling number of trade unionists still supporting her campaign.

Second, making Penn the scapegoat for Hillary's sleaze is no different that making Michael Brown the scapegoat for the Katrina catastrophe. Yes, they are both mid-bogglingly incompetent. Yes, they have questionable ethical standards (though Penn has gone far beyond Brownie on this front). But in both cases, the real cause of failure lies at the top. Both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush hired these bozos and kept them far too long after their incompetence was clear. However, this goes far beyond mismanagement -- it's a failure of leadership. Ultimately, Hillary's inability to come up with a defining rationale for her candidacy and Bush's systematic dismantling of the federal government and malignant neglect of the public sector are the real culprits.

I don't mean to put the two situations on even terms -- Katrina was a preventable human horror in which people died and suffered needlessly; the only victims of Hillary's failed campaign are bruised egos. But my larger point is, in the only time I'll ever quote Michael Dukakis, "a fish rots from the head."

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Moose49 -

From the two articles I cited, it's obvious that the union leaders were the ones who prompted this move, you're right. Whether demoting him was enough to mollify them remains to be seen. I don't know how much play this story is getting in PA right now, but any movement in the polls in the next week or so can probably be attributed to the Penn fiasco.

When did Dukakis come up with that particular pearl of wisdom?

-CW

[Moose49]

Wow -- an author who replies to comments. You're a rarity!

You wrote: "Whether demoting him was enough to mollify them remains to be seen."

If it mollifies them, they're fools or phonies. IMHO. Their members ought to be demanding a withdrawl of the endorsement.

You wrote: "When did Dukakis come up with that particular pearl of wisdom?"

If I remember correctly (hard to believe that was 20 years ago!) he said it of Reagan and Bush's dad in reference to Iran/Contra and other ethical problems of that administration. And he didn't actually make it up -- he attributed it to an old Greek proverb.

[PragmaticProgressive]

She's not off the hook.

Ultimate responsibility resides at the top of the campaign.

[grendl]

It was Hillary who endorsed Senator John McCain, citing his and her 35 years of service over a speech Barack made seven years ago.

It doesn't matter who the brainchild was behind the remark, the attempted kill shot was fired from her mouth. And if he told her to say it, we don't need another Charlie McCarthy , Edgar Bergan ventriloquist act in the White House, so that dooms her too.

Words can't be unsaid. Bosnian tarmacs can't have snipers digitally added by Industrial Light and Magic. It's over. Okay? Got that Clinton people.

It was a nice run, and a pleasure to watch you grapple with racial innuendos you knew at the core of your souls were wrong, but its over. Irene good night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfIBYEkAp0A