Is Hillary Clinton's Problem Mark Penn?

Last October Mark Penn made a visit to firedoglake, my blog, promoting his book Microtrends. At the time I was pretty stunned that as the political pollster and strategist for the Democratic frontrunner, his book's index listed only one entry for "Iraq," which was one less than the number of entries for Angelina Jolie.

The back cover of the book proudly boasts a quote from the New York Times saying that Penn's ideas "helped transform the Clinton presidency into a service provider for various niche voters," so it was curious to me that Penn would consciously neglect the biggest political niche of all: exit polls in Iowa say 34.9% of Democratic caucus goers identified the war as their most important issue. Penn's editorial choices indicated an overt strategy of avoiding the controversial.

I asked him about it in the comments, and Penn... avoided the question.

Following Clinton's drubbing in Iowa, people inside the campaign are questioning the effectiveness of Penn's guidance:

[N]o sooner had Mrs. Clinton finished her concession speech in Iowa on Thursday than second-guessing set in among her supporters.

One longtime adviser complained that the campaign's senior strategist, Mark Penn, realized too late that "change" was a much more powerful message than "experience." Another adviser said Mr. Penn and Mr. Clinton were consumed with polling data for so long, they did not fully grasp the personality deficit that Mrs. Clinton had with voters.

Bill Clinton had the charisma to run a campaign based on polling that he could then go out and sell to an audience with both charm and passion that made it seem sanguine. Barack Obama has the ability to do much the same. By comparison, when I saw Hillary in Iowa she came off as studied and cautious. Obama's supporters don't seem to be focused on the details of his policies -- they are convinced that he's a man of strong character who has the judgment and the persuasive abilities to do the right thing, and convince others to follow him. Hillary's ability to hit all her marks, make no mistakes, run a "perfect campaign" and engage in wonkish policy arguments with a Penn-like avoidance of controversy seems rather bloodless by comparison.

Roger Simon observes, quite rightly, that Clinton did nothing "wrong" in Iowa. She didn't suffer from poor field staff, and she spent plenty of time and money there. She can't take the "lessons from Iowa" and retool her operation for New Hampshire given all the wind at Obama's back. She can't play an incremental game when she needs a Hail Mary pass.

He also wonders if her current problems come from the campaign's organizational structure:

There is a risk, by the way, in having your pollster also be your top strategist: There is a natural tendency for someone who holds both positions to say the strategy can't be wrong because the polling can't be wrong.

And sometimes you need a strategist who is willing to say, "I don't care what the damn polling says, we need to try something different."

Clinton may very well have to go negative on Obama to survive, but she risks compounding her own negatives in the process. Her decision to run at him from the right, as Matt Stoller says, is just ridiculous. Who's going to back her up in asserting that Obama is too liberal? Because really, he isn't. That just sounds desperate.

Clinton is now trying to chase Obama's young voters. Not going to happen. She's also trying to fear monger about the dangers of irresponsibly withdrawing from Iraq, saying that we don't want the kind of power transition that happened from Blair to Brown, which is so wrong-headed as to be laughable. I'm no pollster but I sat in several of the Iowa caucuses, and much of the anger directed at Clinton -- which fueled many of Obama's supporters -- was a function of anti-war sentiment. They blame her for getting us into Iraq, and don't think she'd do enough to get us out. This kind of absurd, carefully parsed claptrap just compounds her problems.

Clinton needs to do something dramatic. She needs to give people a reason to believe in her, show that she's not just an overly scripted politician who will never do anything that's isn't "safe."

An excellent way to do that would be to leave the campaign trail and go back to Washington with Chris Dodd to filibuster retroactive immunity for the telecoms. The message that "nobody should be above the law," that she'll fight for accountability and won't be held hostage by big money interests would be a powerful one. She'd certainly grab all the media attention by doing so, and force Obama to either follow her lead or stay behind on the campaign trail while she goes to Washington and fights for the constitution -- neither of which have good optics.

It would be decidedly un-Penn like, unsafe and virtually impossible to poll. But it might be just the kind of shaking up that her campaign -- and the race as a whole -- would benefit from.

Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com.

Comments

[Garvagh]

Very perceptive piece! I agree 100%. I see Hillary quoted today in The New York Times, slandering Vladimir Putin! Putin thinks the US should withdraw from Iraq and that Israel should withdraw from the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the piece of occupied Lebanon. Putin's Middle East policy is more in the interests of the US, and Israel, than those put forward by the Bush administration. Hillary evades the entire subject while posing as the candidate with experience.

[mick3]

Give people a reason to believe in her? That's like asking a kid to keep believing in the Easter bunny after having watched her parents (okay, mother) hiding the eggs and baskets.

The Clintons are both unprincipled liars; they may not have started out that way, but they've caught on that the people who actually run things are elitists with too much power ever to successfully resist. And neither has had the character to resist going for that power and its amenities. When H Clinton cozied up to the Right by murmurring that it was probably time to "revisit" Roe v Wade, she showed her true colors, not red, white, and blue, but black (hearted) and yellow. And if you want an imperialist warmonger, if you want the poor to suffer even more under capitalism run amok, she's your girl.

A lifelong--really long--feminist, I wouldn't have Hillary Clinton on a stick. Unless the alternative would be a modern-day Republican. If there were to be another election (there won't), it looks likely to be yet another exercise in voting Against because of no one to vote For.

[dubguru]

Mark Penn himself represents a significant reason why I do not trust Hillary. This is someone who is president of Burson-Marstellar, they typ of PR firm that functions as a privatized version of the old Soviet information ministry. Burson-Marstellar has represented such savory interests as the Argentine millitary junta. Let alone, the fact that Penn is still president of that firm, allows a convenient conduit for bribes to Hillary.

Come to Burson-Marstellar, your friendly neighborhood retailer for presidential access and favors!

If these are the kind of people you suround yourself with during your campaing, what kind of people will you surround yourself with in the Whitehouse?

You can have all the experience in the world, but if you don't have the integrity to stand up to special interests, then your administration will be just like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and all the other Neocons.

[americanwhocares]

Jane, I do not care what her "problem" is in the Media. America does not want "more of the same". She is history and I am so glad for that.

[magen]

Even if Hillary actually DOES something now, (like helping chris Dodd) its already too late, and will be seen as more political calculation.

She's toast.

[Marrob]

HIllary's problem isn't Mr. Penn it's the "So-Called" progessives with a platform who are piling on along with the right-wing and MSM.

[JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin]

This is the order of priorities for the Clintons...

1. The Clintons
2. The Republicans
3. The DLC
4. The War Lobby
5. "Moderate" Democrats
6. Everything and everybody else....

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Penn isn't sHillary's problem; he's a symptom of he problem. Molly Ivins wrote about it two years ago, though it's more relavent today. I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton For President. http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304

[Bettysdad]

Clinton has never given us a reason to vote for her. She has never explained what she wants to do for America if elected.

Hillary just wants to be the first woman president, and that's all. People know that.

Hillary's largest group of voters are older women; women who fought the feminist wars, and are sexist enough to vote for the candidate that has a vagina.

I haven't met a single genuine liberal/progressive that supports Hillary.

[LeftCoastOracle]

The problem isn't her advisers. The problem is herself.

Hillary Clinton can't think like John Edwards or Barak obama, period, full stop.

She doesn't get it. If she did she would see that having your top pollster as your top strategist tells it all.

Winning this campaign isn't about out thinking the opponent. It's about listening to the voters and responding with honest, simple, common sense, heart felt ideas for changing the way we do politics in this country. Changing one's language, demeanor, visuals, etc., won't cut it. It has to come from the heart.

I suspect it could benefit Sen. Clinton to read, "Who Moved My Cheese?" by Ken Blanchard. Perhaps then she might see that she isn't entitled to the nomination much less the Presidency.

The people of this country know the real thing when they see it: someone who brings real heart as well as intellect to the table, listens to others at the table, and thinks outside the box. A person who employs 21st Century thinking and who is willing to speak truth to power.

Clinton can't do that because she is the power to whom Edwards and Obama are speaking the truth.

[kdoug]

Jane ... stop giving Hillary such brilliant ideas. I want Obama to win.

[chafinlw]

Sorry folks, campaigns are generally run not by the candidate, but by the campaign chairs and advisors. With the odd exception, in those forums (fora?) where Hillary has been the one on stage, being Hillary, she has done well. And from what I've heard from folks on the ground in NH, she has been very well received in her appearances there. It's the campaign strategy and failure to react quickly to developments in the campaign that seems to me to be lacking. Just this morning, my wife said that what Hillary seems to need is for Bill to be quiet and for Carville to come in and kick Penn's ass out. She is by no means a political junkie or an ardent supporter of Hillary or anyone else, she just knows what she sees. I'm guessing she may have something there.

[ArchAngel]

NPR is going full out for their gal Hillary this morning.

They had a Hillary interview with fed questions, a story about voters turning away from Obama, and an analysis piece about how Hillary has staying power.

[iral]

As Biden was my 1st choice I realistically knew that eventually I would have to make a decision on Clinton/Obama. I was slightly in favor of Obama but every time Mark Penn appeared on TV I was reminded of how "political" the Clintons have been and it made my support of Obama much stronger.

[ScottGregory]

It doesn't matter what Hillary Clinton does. She's a lousy person and even worse candidate, and another wannabe war President. Nothing about her is what the American people need right now. Bill Clinton was a closet Republican; Hillary would be even worse.