![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
Mark Penn on Where Clinton Went WrongPosted on Jun 8, 2008Mark Penn has taken no shortage of blame for the downfall of Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations, but the former campaign chief has a few ideas of his own about what could have been. Penn writes in the New York Times that Team Clinton should have taken on Barack Obama from the beginning and should have courted young voters and women more aggressively, but money “may just have had a lot more to do with who won than anyone imagines.”
Previous item: Iraq Has Iran's Back Next item: Gitmo Lawyer Alleges Torture Evidence Destruction Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By JB in NYC, June 10 at 5:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“We should have taken on Mr. Obama more directly and much earlier...”
Yes, Mr. Penn, you should have taken on Mr. Obama more directly.
Instead, you maliciously launched an indirect, Rove-inspired, whisper campaign attempting to smear your Democratic opponenent by vastly exxagerating his acknowledged experimentation with cocaine in high school and planting rumors throughout the media about him possibly being an inner-city drug dealer.
How much did Hillary pay for your disgraceful advice?
Report thisBy Outraged, June 9 at 10:30 pm #
Mark Penn is obviously directing the attention to Clinton’s campaign instead of his own misdeeds abroad. Of course he had a comment about “the campaign” but I’m curious as to his perspective of the practice of selling the souls of the citizenry of a foreign country to soften the cushion upon which his traitorous backside resides.
Report thisBy Thomas Billis, June 9 at 11:17 am #
Leefeller is on right track.It was her positions that did her in.The vote on the War,the vote for the Bankruptcy bill,the vote to label a part of Itran’s armed forces a terrorist group and on and on.Hillary lost it by running a general campaign before she had the democratic nomination.Hillary it was you who lost it.By the way if she were a man she would have had no chance at the democratic nomination Ms Ferraro.
Report thisBy felicity, June 9 at 9:11 am #
Apparently Iowans aren’t that fond of doughnuts. The Clinton campaign spent $46,000 in Iowa on the lethal little suckers - and to no avail obviously. Pundits suggest that the Iowa campaign was a harbinger of things to come, only the first in a series of bad moves, wrong-headedness, flawed policies and just in general screw-ups.
Report thisBy Louise, June 9 at 8:38 am #
Leefeller:
“It couldnt have been the war stupid! Everyone was impressed with the kitchen sink and the guest room toilet and how about the gathering of bigots?”
~~~
Oh well said!
How dumb does dumb have to be before dumb understands dumb?
Don’t know, and I’ll bet Hillary and company haven’t figured it out yet either. But in case they actually want to try, here’s a clue:
WAR
Report thisBy Blackspeare, June 9 at 6:56 am #
HRC failed to achieve her goal because she surrounded herself in an envelope of experience when she should have put on the mantle of change as had BHO. It was that simple. It is and was pretty well known in political circles that any Democrat is a shoe-in for the presidency. With the economy tanking and gas prices nearing $5/gal by November, a regime change is in order!
Report thisBy Thomas Mc, June 9 at 6:41 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I think TIME put it best. She lost because she ran as a stereotypical man, when the country was ready for a stereotypical woman.
She spent her career in the Senate proving she has more testosterone than any man, ready to nuke any country that even looks crooked at her… then along comes Obama, preaching the feminine message of peace, hope, and reconciliation.
The Democrats made the right choice.
Report thisBy Leefeller, June 9 at 5:07 am #
It couldn’t have been the war stupid! Everyone was impressed with the kitchen sink and the guest room toilet and how about the gathering of bigots?
Report thisBy jackpine savage, June 9 at 1:45 am #
So if you had $100M in 2007 and were already short of cash by early (very early) 2008 what does that say?
I think that it says you’re an idiot, especially if you blew a fair percentage of that $100M on hiring idiots like Mark Penn. You know, the type of guy who says that you don’t really need an organization in those smaller caucus states because they don’t really matter...and the money spent there could be better spent on his salary.
campaigns are equally about money and organization...and we wasted our money and didn’t have any organization. But don’t look at me, i would only have been in charge if we won.
Report this