Mark Penn Finally Fired

Late Sunday evening, the Clinton campaign confirmed that Mark Penn was stepping down as chief strategist in the wake of his dust-up with the Colombian government. That his tenure at the helm of the campaign ended because of a connection to a Burson-Marsteller client is not terribly surprising. But there were plenty of reasons, far better than this one, to have fired Penn many months before.

Penn presided over a top-down campaign in which, to the surprise of most observers, he was responsible for both crafting the message and polling its effectiveness. Normally frowned upon, such an approach often leads to self-fulfilling polling that validates the assumptions of the strategist, rather than providing an objective assessment. Perhaps that is the best explanation for a series of horribly misguided message strategies that Penn employed.

There was the now infamous inevitability argument, a message that ramped expectations to heights that Clinton could never have expected to meet. There was the change vs. experience message, one that helped validate Obama's persona as the change candidate. And of course, when times got tough, there was the "Let's get real" message. Showing a clear sign that the campaign did not understand its opponent, this message criticized Obama supporters rather than Obama himself, driving the wedge further between the candidate and the voters she needed to persuade.

But Penn chose not to confine his incompetence strictly to messaging, allowing it to invade all parts of the campaign strategy. His decision to forego caucus states demonstrated a glaring misunderstanding of the delegate allocation process. In a system in which losses must be minimized and wins inflated, Penn surrendered essential turf. It is equally surprising that someone who perceived his candidate as having enormous weaknesses in caucuses would have steered the campaign directly into the Iowa caucus. Had Deputy Campaign Manager Mike Henry's recommendation been adopted -- that Clinton forego Iowa -- she may well have earned the nomination months ago.

As a chief strategist, Penn consistently proved to be a disappointing spokesperson. His mannerisms and tone on television suggest an abiding arrogance; he is often described as unsavory and unpleasant. While on Hardball, he was chastised by Joe Trippi for invoking the word "cocaine" while talking about Senator Obama. When paired with Obama strategist David Axelrod, Penn seemed unable to control his disdain.

Even when he wasn't speaking for the campaign, he too often found himself at the center of the story. Private infighting with staff was often public and unprofessional, with uncomfortable details making front page news on multiple occasions.

Having not taken a leave from being Worldwide CEO of Burson-Marsteller, Penn set himself up for a number of potentially harmful situations for the Clinton campaign. His moonlighting for anti-union companies and other controversial organizations were an issue throughout the campaign, culminating this past week when he met with the Colombian Ambassador. The Colombian Embassy had hired Penn's firm to help pass a trade deal that Clinton opposes. Last night's resignation was the eventual result.

There were a number of reasons to fire Mark Penn, not the least of which was his obvious incompetence. But more than anything else, Mark Penn deserved to be fired because he viewed Hillary Clinton as just another client. Who wouldn't want a chance to elect someone president, a chance to leave a permanent mark and a lasting legacy? But for Penn, the Clinton campaign was just a client who purchased his services, no different than the Colombian government, or Exelon, or Blackwater.

So much of what was wrong with her was him.

Mark Penn should have been fired back in September and again in January. He should have been fired after Super Tuesday, and fired after the 11 contests that followed. He should have been fired before Texas and Ohio, and fired twice after. Instead, he wasn't fired until April 6th, two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary, when no change in strategy could possibly change the outcome.

Comments

[JiminNC]

Penn is not fired, he is only hidden from public view where he can continue to do the exact bidding of Hillary and mostly Bill Clinton ... that is to lobby Columbia for another back breaking trade deal.

[PrdAmerican]

If I were a Clinton supporter, I'd be pissed...especially since he wasn't acutally fired, but demoted. She's still going to be paying him million of dollars...FROM DONORS, and still carry a certain amount of political leverage in his business! Yes, your money..your five dollars is going to help continue finance this anit-union, labor busting jack-ass who gives some of the worst political advice on the planet....the fact that she won't fire him is very telling if not flat out defiant. Is she that involved with him...does he have that much sway with her opinion...or does he have political mud he could unleash if he were to become untethered...much like a certain Dick Morriss.

[TekTami78]

Clinton supporters are somehow able to rationalize her blatant lies...why should they even blink at something like this? Unless it's to accuse Obama supporters of being mean...

[AnninCA]

Penn hasn't been my favorite person in her campaign since Day 1. However, I understood that he's familiar to them. This latest gaffe on his part was just too much, since she opposed that treaty. He needed to step down. The campaign had already brought in new pollsters, so I suspect that this was actually coming for awhile.

I'm not sure she needs to pay that huge fee at this point, anyway.

[jsinclair]

Penn's personal and professional faults--like those of Ickes, Williams, Wolfson, Solis-Doyle, Carville, and Bill Clinton himself--reflect the faults of the candidate herself.

I am tired of seeing people around her blamed for Hillary's failed campaign. These people are not political newcomers. Several of them date back to Bill Clinton's run for the presidency in 1992. Many, like Penn, helped Hillary become Senator in 2000.

If your team is sleazy or unsavory---or divisive or dishonest---it is a reflection of the LEADER, most of all. Hillary could choose ANYONE to run her campaign, and she has chosen these people. I don't care for Penn (and am suspicious that he and business partner-and-top-McCain advisor Charlie Black have been responsible for coordinating strategies between Hillary and McCain's campaigns--something neither side has denied.

But "the buck stops here". I'm really tired of seeing Hillary blame others for her own failures. She had it all--name recognition, debts to call in around the country, a superdelegate advantage before one vote was ever cast, $180 million dollar campaign war chest. She was "inevitable". It was going to be "all over by Super Tuesday".

Well, like a Greek tragedy, both Bill and Hillary are often felled by ambition, ruthlessness, arrogance, and pride. They need to stop blaming others and actually learn from their OWN mistakes. No . More. Excuses. We've all heard too many already.

[ramblingjohnny]

To use an old cliché It like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic! It kind of late for that.

[busybeez]

Hillary needs to be asked, "Did you know Penn was in Columbia before it was found out by the media?" Of course she did. That's the point! What was Clinton's involvement in that meeting? Is she pretending she didn't know until it came out in the media? Why did Columbia criticize Obama so hard after Penn left? Why didn't Columbia also criticize Clinton, who supposedly has the same stance as Obama on the Columbia free trade issue? Was there a "wink wink" given by Penn to Columbia on Hillary's behalf? Questions need to be asked. His title shift doesn't answer the questions of Hillary's prior knowledge and involvement.

[jsinclair]

Great questions. But will anyone ask them?

[pghdem]

If anyone in the MSM does I'll faint from the shock.

[Manx]

Another example of Hillary Clinton's bad judgment. She should not have allowed the bitter infighting among her staff to fester. She should have taken firm action a long time ago but didn't. The examples of Hillary's bad judgment continue to grow...

[FreedomLoverX]

Dear Dylan,

I usually absolutely love your posts. That is why it strikes me as odd, that suddenly you are completely misrepresenting reality. First of all, Penn was NOT fired - ever. Why would you repeat that? He supposedly "resigned". But, why would you even say that? He DID NOT resign! For you to repeat these LIES really shocks me. I didn't take you for EVER being a sucker, or one to deny the facts. You certainly have in this case. The same day he resigned, his company was hired to do the exact same job, and he is the contractor! How could you spread this blatant and obvious fallacy? You have been dead on so far - this one is way off track. I look forward to your next article, where I hope you will correct yourself, so that I can continue to respect your otherwise high caliber of thinking!

Don't you know Hillary is a LIAR? What the heck are you thinking? Or, maybe you didn't do enough of that this time. Please correct your misrepresentations, so I can go back to my usual hero worship of you.

[marthlois]

THANK YOU FREEDOM LoverX

Dylan - What were you thinking buddy?? What a ridiculous slant on Hillary's screwing up her campaign. Who is at the helm? I repeat....WHO is at the helm??? It is Senator Clinton for goodness sakes. Are actually going to stand up and say Hillary is a victim here? I am shocked, truly, that you would not call upon Senator Clinton to be accountable for her associations/staffers/spokespersons!! I know that we try to be a forgiving society (although our patience has been overtested for eight years in that arena), but DYLAN.......I expect that a candidate for President of the United States to be able to make sound judgments and not have someone like you out there in the media scrambling to pick up his or her pieces.
This article was pitiful - REJECT and REPUDIATE. Victim Hillary! And tomorrow, after her appearance on the Ellen show - will you stand up and say "oh, but she's a woman and the boys are being hard on her"? Cause that's where she's taking this thing!

[4wehttam]

Completely agree with you Freedom. Penn stepped down as chief strategist BUT he is essentially part of the campaign as an ONGOIND ADVISOR...........How is that being fired OR resigning??????

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Hillary will not let Penn go, he knows too much about the Clintons and I'm feel almost certain that favors were awarded. Why else after all he's done not only to her campaign, but to her image would she STILL keep him around.

C'mon people. The Clintons are not THAT loyal to their friends.

[UtterDisbelief]

Penn didn't resign.
He was sniper-fired.

[SuiginTou7]

Well, if you're an Obama supporter, you hope hillary is still listening to this idiot.

[Mesaywar]

Absolutely, Penn's a godsend.

[utd]

"So much of what was wrong with her was him."

I'm calling bullshit on that one. There is a thing called personal accountability. It's not as if she gets up on stage and says only what she is told. Hillary is the top in her own campaign and to think Penn is even partly to blame for her "misspoke"s, "outright lies", "vicious personality", or whatever is kind of crazy. She's the boss, ready on day one, yet on day one of her campaign she hired a guy who is 1/10th on the level, and 9/10th full of deceit and crap and from the looks of him 1 too many buckets of fried chicken.

She has to answer for her own mistakes. He has to answer for his. End of story.

[AdultFilmLegend]

He resigned...not fired. Big difference.

[several]

In the rest of reality perhaps. But not in Politics.

Just how many former Bush staffers do you really believe left their jobs to "spend more time with their family"?

[JMorgan]

He doesn't even seem to have resigned as much as given up the job title. He's still working for the Clinton campaign (doing the polls, advising, which was what he did as the Clinton campaign's strategist) and getting paid.

I think the Clintons were hoping for the headlines that he'd been fired and that nobody would read after the jump and learn the truth.

[Lemeritus]

Clinton's failure to jettison Penn earlier did more, in my estimation, to undermine her credibility as a leader than anything else. Her campaign has been a god-awful disaster and Penn missed every basket!

[zull2]

Even though Penn wasn't technically "fired", I can't help but think that the Clinton campaign, running currently on whatever lie they can get people to go along with each week, could have replaced that strategy by having a weekly "Fire Mark Penn" event. Then, they could secretly rehire him over the weekend when no one's paying attention, then fire him again every Friday. Instant 5% hike in the poll numbers, and no need to make up stories about Bosnia, Health Care, Hillary's Iraq war stance, or dozens of other gems.

It would have worked even better if Mark Penn were actually Karl Rove, but the turdblossom would never go along with such a plan.

[ruscle]

Changing a key person's title is not the same as firing him. This is just pretend. The truth is, Mark Penn is who Hillary has been relying on. Monday morning... she's still be relying on him just the same. But he'll have a different title.

The only news here is that the Clinton campaign is try to fool us into thinking this shell game played with titles is meaningful.

[djohn78]

wrong! clinton already hired a new polling strategist. His name is geoff garin

[FreedomLoverX]

Yes, that is a TITLE. The FACT is that Penn is still working for her as "adviser" which is just another TITLE. Do you think he won't be doing the exact same thing? I think you are in the gullible column. Maybe you haven't heard yet: Hillary is a LIAR. She has always been a LIAR. She has never stood by the constitution. She has never cared about rules. She could never be trusted with any confidence. Why, you might ask? Because she is a loathsome LIAR. Anything she says must be doubted:

"Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'"

[JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin]

He's not really gone. He's still "giving advice".