Oh priceless. Watching Mark Penn is like watching a trainwreck. No, like ATTENDING a train wreck.

The best criticism of Hillary Clinton is that she refuses to fire incompetents. She cannot fire her husband, fair enough, but Trainwreck keeps on billing and spending.

No, and red is not blue. But whoever wins the most delegates gets to be the nominee. And you can jump up and down and yell at the world because you feel entitled, but in the end it doesn't help and you will have to come to terms with the fact that you lost, however unfair it may feel because you thought you were supposed to be the queen-bee. There will be a queen bee someday, maybe in eight years, being part of a sixteen or more years of democratic dominance, but it will not be you. Because you felt entitled and decided that you did not have to work after super tuesday because it would be wrapped up. Well, it was not. You did not forsee it, did not plan for the worst, and that is the reason you should not and will not be president. Barack Obama will and he will be a great president. Not because of his charisma but because of his policies and his ability to get things done. The end of polarized politics is near.

Hillarious. Let's see what other fiction he can Penn next.

I've heard of spinning, but this has to be a joke. I hope. Either he thinks America is stupid or he's really THAT dumb.

If he thinks that theory holds a shred of logic, then how about this... Dear Hilary, having worked in the White House is not a qualification or a sign of who has enough experience to be President. If it were, then Monica Lewinsky should run for President. Or perhaps the housekeeper who was there far longer than you.”

$5.00 to anyone who can correctly identify Penn's logical fallacy. :)

What a maroon!

It's a false dichotomy.

And Mark Penn is truly a moron.

It seems like the Clintons' sole strategy is to play a game of chicken with the Democratic party. Either the party hands the nomination over to Hillary or they'll destroy it by taking the fight to the convention no matter the final delegate count. This can only be construed as a threat. You're either with us or you're against us. Sound familiar?

That settles it. They should forget their pledges and nominate one of those loonies from New Hampshire who get their name on the ballot there every year.

Hell, nominate me! I've never won a Democratic presidential primary. Or any other party's either.

Actually I can see what Penn is building to and it makes perfect sense. He's laying the groundwork for saying that winning the Democratic Nomination is no indication of who will win the general election. Makes perfect sense if you don't think your candidate will win the nomination.

There is something seriously wrong with these people. And such a sense of entitlement!

I think we all understand the urge to fight it out. But fight it out until they've won, never mind if that requires ignoring the rules?

Amazing.

1. I think Mark's confused: Clinton is running for the DEMOCRATIC Party nomination, not the Just-Do-What-We-Say-Or-You'll-Be-Sorry Party.
2. So then losing a bunch of primaries in a row, especially in swing states (Colorado, Virginia, Missouri), and in some cases by large margins, makes one especially qualified for the GE.
3. If we can expect more of this if Clinton becomes the nominee, I'll move to Texas tomorrow and hit phone banks.

One last question from the article reporting on Penn's inanities:
>>>Clinton’s electability argument begins with this premise: She survived the attacks of a tough, take-no-prisoners “Republican machine” and is still standing.

WHEN?? Not in her Senate campaigns, I assure you. So when did this happen?

Reason number 341 not to vote for Hillary: she has enabled this Comic Book Guy blowhard in the worst possible way.

Is there any way he gets a job in national politics after failing this badly?
Posted by ThompsonLives

Is there any evidence that a political consultant's ability to get a job is at all connected to job performance? It really looks like the ones who charge the most, get the jobs.

But hey, I'm the one who's obviously in the wrong profession, so chalk this gripe up to sour grapes.

Say what you want about Mark... but he is always first to offer his hanky.

The RBC (Rules and Bylaws Committee) of the DNC voted to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates. It is comprised of many Clinton supporters. The two co-chairs served in various positions in the Clinton Administration. Harold Ickes is a current campaign advisor. 11 of the 30 members of the RBC are pledged superdelegates of Hillary Clinton (with asteriks below). Most RBC members remain uncommitted. Only 2 are pledged to Obama (Martha Fuller Clark and Everett Ward).

It is pretty obvious that Hillary Clinton supported stripping Michigan and Florida of its delegates. She had a big lead in the polls last fall (the time of the vote) and was happy to have the race shortened by eliminating two of the largest post super-tuesday contests.

Co-Chairs
Alexis Herman (co-chair, Washington , D.C. )
James Roosevelt, Jr. (co-chair, Massachusetts )
Members
**Harold Ickes, Jr. (Washington, D.C.)
Donna Brazille ( Washington , D.C.)
**Donald Fowler (South Carolina)
Allan Katz ( Florida )
**Elizabeth Smith (Washington, D.C.)
Mark Brewer ( Michigan )
Ralph Dawson ( New York )
**Hartina Flournay (Washington, D.C.)
Carol Khare Fowler ( South Carolina )
Alice Germond ( Washington , D.C. )
Jaime Gonzalez, Jr. ( Texas )
Janice Griffin ( Virginia )
**Alice Huffman (California)
Thomas Hynes ( Illinois )
**Ben Johnson (Washington, D.C.)
**Elaine Kamarck (Massachusetts )
**Eric Kleinfeld (Washington, D.C.)
David McDonald (state of Washington )
**Mona Pasquil (California )
**Mame Reiley (Virginia )
Garry Shay ( California )
Michael Steed ( Washington , D.C. )
Sharon Stroschein ( South Dakota )
Everett Ward ( North Carolina )
Jerome Wiley Segovia ( Virginia )
**Sarah Swisher (Iowa)
Yvonne Gates ( Nevada )
Martha Fuller Clark ( New Hampshire )

“Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election.

it's a HELL OF A LOT BETTER than losing the primaries

in fact, if you don't win the primaries, you don't even get to PLAY in the general election

so will somebody ask this putz why he thinks losing the primaries is better than winning the primaries

does this stupid fuck understand how the system works ???

does he think hillary can run as the "silver medalist candidate" or something ???

So,uh, Mark, what about loosing primaries. What is that a qualification for?

file this under: say anything. change nothing.

vote obama.

Of course, what if Billary win the primary delegate count and then (somehow) screw the pooch and lose to McCain. Will we call him a visionary?

Obama has a delegate lead because of well-organized ground operations in states that Hillary barely contested. This was both shrewd on his part and shortsighted on hers. It reflects favorably on Obama in many ways. However, I am not sure it will amount to a hill of beans in the GE as most of the states where he racked up these impressive victories were either solidly red or solidly blue states. It might be argued that his victories in CO and KS would allow him to flip those states. That might have been true against another candidate, but less likely against McCain, IMO. The states that are potentially flippable and will make the difference are TX and OH. Whoever wins those states is the candidate mostly likely to win the GE. TX is probably more likely to go with McCain than Obama because he is better liked amongst latinos, who will decide that race. I really think that if the superdelegates put Hillary over the top, it is not theft, but a calculation of her chances of victory over his. If he wins TX and OH or comes close (and if he wins the popular vote of the entire country), he definitely deserves the support of the superdelegates. But if that is not the case, then he does not have a mandate (except amongst those who made up their minds long ago and cannot listen to reason or wrap their minds around strategy vs. idealism).

BTW, good points that the only Dems ever elected have been the ones who won the most primaries. I think Penn's point is that this does not guarantee electability and if no one get a clear majority of delegates and the numbers are very close, the public is obviously divided. That is why the role of the superdelegates is to step in and use their judgment, not parrot the supposed will of the people when that will is not clear at all. Small percentages of registered voters vote in caucuses; they do not at all reflect the will of the entire citizenry. And only tiny numbers of people vote in Dem contests in states that are overwhelmingly red like UT and ID. So this is hardly a black-and-white issue this time. The person who ends up with 50 more pledged delegates because of massive red state victories is not the clear choice. He just had a better game plan than his opponent. Maybe that should be enough. I am just not sure that what he did on the ground in the primaries will translate to the GE. But if he gets nominated, I damn sure hope so.

VA may well go Democratic this Fall -- it's probably Obama's best exhibit.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this: Penn's argument would seem to me to be a better argument against Clinton than for her. The most likely reason that a candidate would win the Democratic nomination and lose the general election would be that the candidate appeals to the Democratic base but not to independents and Republicans. Yet of the two candidates, it's Obama who has crossover appeal and Clinton who appeals more to the base.

Heretic, what on earth makes you think Texas is flippable? The last Dem to win there was Carter in 1976.

Nindid: I hear you, but what I did was look up, via Google, statments made by the Obama campaign director to judge for myself.

It's not my fault that I can so easily find statement by David Plouffe that can easily be snarked. And his profile is not that low, he speaks to the media all the time and gives extended on camera interviews.

I just have the same perception that many observers have: the Clintons, for some reason, receive an inordinate amount of hostile fire from the media. If you work for them, put on extra armor.

You assert (and repeat) that Penn has brought this upon himself. I simply notice that his statements, including the subject of this post by Josh Marshall, are hardly surprising for a campaign official. (Actually, Mark Penn is not officially Clinton's campaign director, just a senior consultant. Maggie Williams is the director.)

Sorry, Hillary, but your coronation has been postPWNED, indefinitely.

Thank god I learned about this before the early voting starts here in Texas! This is going to make me change my vote from Hillary to Obama. The ravings of her resident math geek totally outweigh my concerns that Obama has done nothing but give speeches. This proves beyond a doubt that she has a sense of entitlement and a lack of respect for the intricately designed and totally fair nominating process (except, of course, for the part about superdelegates) that we all love so deeply.

Like Obama says, words matter. They matter much more than actions. He has given speeches on Iraq. All she has done is pass several bills helping the troops, attempted to build consensus around her bill to stop permanent bases in Iraq, worked across the aisle with republicans (even the ones that tried to impeach Bill). All that is nothing compared to his speech because it is words that matter, not actions.

I no longer care about all the actual stuff she has done to improve people's lives! I have seen the light!! Somebody get me an Obama t-shirt and teach me the chants. I'm ready to join the movement!

(By the way...this is how silly the Obama hero worship and nitpicking sounds to those of us who are not on the Obama train. Enjoy the obsession with Penn's silly statements--he is giving you plenty of fodder.)

Nindid

I'm sorry, but your reply makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that the Dems won't have to fight for any "significant" state? That we can just assume Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and California (among others) are in the bag? I don't get it.

And ozu, stranger things may have happened, but that's hardly an argument that Penn is not only wrong, but so wrong that he should be heaped with derision on this particular issue. I don't see how anyone who follows politics can argue against the idea that winnning primaries and winning the general are two different things. If you think OBama's better positioned to win the general, fine. But racking up wins in a bunch of states that are solidly red does nothing to advance that argument.

As an example, one of the reasons Obama won South Carolina so convincingly is that the Dem voters were more than 50 percent black. I haven't been able to find voter data, but the general racial makeup of South Carolina is 68 percent white and 29 percent black. Assuming the voting population generally reflects that, Obama's huge win in the primary is in no way indicative of how he'll do in the general.

Winning primaries generally means that Dem voters prefer you over other Dems. It's silly to just extrapolate that to the general voting population especially in red states.

All this talk of sense of entitlement by Clinton gets tiresome. On this particular thread, several people seem to want her to say, right now, ahead of time, that she will not accept the support of superdelegates under certain conditions. No candidate is going to do that. It is those individuals who want to change the rules.

Many of us don't like the idea of superdelegates period. Is it too late to change the rules now? Yes. Regardless of whom the superdelegate rules may work for or against.

Some of us don't like the idea of caucuses. Same problem.

Some of us don't like the idea that the DNC can be manipulated by the Republican dominated Florida state legislature. When they moved the date of the Florida primary forward, the DNC saw fit to disenfranchize huge numbers of democratic voters. Of course, I still have seen any documentation that the candidates agreed not to seat Florida delegates, so there may still be a fight there.

So,uh, Mark, what about loosing primaries. What is that a qualification for?

A profitable career as a DC-based Democratic political consultant?