Don't Blame Penn For Everything

Mark Halperin has a baker's dozen of reasons why Hillary Clinton should have ousted Mark Penn before now. Many center on Penn's contentious, ego-dystonic personality.

Many Clinton allies blame Penn for the parlous state of Clinton's chances. But consider:

(1) The major strategic error -- not planning for and contesting the caucuses -- can be placed on the shoulders of President and Senator Clinton, even though Penn agreed with it and nurtured the belief that Clinton did not need to worry as much about the ordinary pledged delegates.

(2) That this election hinges on voters' desire for "change," is clear. Whether Penn or anyone in Clinton's world could have realistically turned Hillary Clinton into the candidate of change is very much an open question.

(3) There is nothing mutually exclusive about running a campaign based on "strength" and "experience" and "change." Indeed, were Clinton to pull off the miracle and win this thing, her "strength" and "experience" would be an asset to her in the general election. Balancing the three is the challenge.

(4) Penn is not responsible for Clinton's losing Iowa. Barack Obama is.

(5) Even if you accept that Penn's strategic advice was bad -- and my contention here is that it wasn't really that bad -- Hillary Clinton was the one to actualize it and follow it. I do think Penn and others were wrong to simply assume that Barack Obama could never build a viable primary coalition from the types of voters who were attracted to him. The assumption was based in an historical fallacy: just because these voters had never turned out before or exceeded the turn-out of "beer track" Democrats doesn't mean that, with the right candidate in the right year, they wouldn't. (And they did.)

(6) Clinton will lose this primary narrowly. About half of Democratic voters will have chosen her over Obama, a fact that will be lost in the final delegate tally. Clinton is responsible for increasing the turnout of white working class voters and women.

There's plenty of blame to go around, and history will probably accord Penn his fair share, but tempting as it will be for Clinton allies to throw Penn under the bus, they probably shouldn't.

NB: Penn's mistake notwithstanding, he still retains the confidence of the Clintons and will still play a major role in the campaign. What does that tell you about the quality of advice the Clintons believe him to impart?

Comments

If you are to believe the hype that Obama is the second coming of Jesus and Bobby Kennedy, I'd say Hillary and Penn did an unbelievable job splitting half of this vote. Or, half of the party just prefers Hillary.

Posted by Mark Simmons | April 7, 2008 11:46 AM

Barack Obama is not responsible for Clinton losing Iowa. The person in her campaign who convinced Clinton to go ahead and contest Iowa is. If Clinton had skipped Iowa, as Henry suggested in that leaked memo late last spring, the winner of Iowa would not have been seen as such a threat to Clinton's inevitability. Clinton could have just sat back and waited to win her first contested state in New Hampshire, moving forward unwounded.

Furthermore, if she had skipped Iowa, Edwards and not Obama would have likely been the winner there. Obama's campaign would have been over. And Clinton would have found Edwards much easier to dispatch, since they both draw heavily from the same demographic base. It was Obama's reliance on people outside Hillary's base that allowed him to run up his insurmountable lead in January and February. It's unlikely Edwards would have ever overcome Clinton's initial advantages.

Posted by 24play | April 7, 2008 11:52 AM

I don't disagree that Penn is not entirely responsible for the sinking ship, but he was hardly much help in keeping it afloat, either. And the fact that Hillary would A.) Hire him in the first place and, B.) keep him around far longer than she should have, only confirmed what a really lousy manager she really is.

Posted by Howard B. | April 7, 2008 11:54 AM

It's not just the caucuses. Had Hillary deigned to put up the slightest defense in the 2/5 states that she lost by huge margins (like, say, appear in those states at public events) the popular vote and delegate totals right now would be far closer, and she wouldn't have lost as many superdelegates in elected office as Obama, who, to some extent, feel bound to their constituents' preferences.

I've seen it pointed out in a couple places that Obama's popular vote margin is roughly equal to his margin of victory in Cook County. After Obama began to pull away in IL, Hillary took everything out of the state... I recall that she didn't even have any Illinois-specific content on her website despite having a number of big name supporters in the state.

It was the strategy of the Clinton campaign until well after February 5th to project confidence and refuse to compete seriously in states that they were guaranteed a loss in. If you look at Wyoming, Mississippi, etc where the Clinton's have since learned that putting up a serious defense can at least stem the bleeding, they've lost much fewer delegates. Somehow they missed this lesson as well in Texas and didn't see fit to spend more than a pittance organizing the caucuses.

This is the major strategic failure of the Clinton campaign. It has a lot to do with Penn's focus on a constant, reinforced, overarching narrative framing the campaign over serious on-the-ground campaigning (money going to focus-grouping the daily talking points could've been better spent replicating their California organizing success in the 2/12 states, as an obvious example), but the majority of the blame falls on Clinton's entire organization's inability to acknowledge and thus actively minimize the impact of minor defeats along the way to the nomination.

If Obama had abandoned NY the way Clinton abandoned any number of states, the popular vote would be tied right now.

Posted by Zach | April 7, 2008 11:55 AM

depends how you define "narrowly". 52-48 may be narrow to some, but if was the other way around Hillary would be calling it a landslide.

The biggest mistake, and this is to be laid directly at the feet of Clinton, was assuming Super Tuesday would wrap the whole thing up and not planning for anything beyond that.

Sure, Penn may have been complicit with that, but even if it originated with Penn, Clinton went along with it.

I have heard many times that she doesn't like to be disagreed with or to hear bad news.

Sounds an awful lot like our current President.

Mark, I don't know who is spreading that hype, certainly not Obama supporters. When you have someone with the largest money backing, the highest name recognition, the wife of the most popular Democratic President in over a generation, the support of much of the party's apparatus, not winning the nomination is nothing short of disasterous.

Posted by john m | April 7, 2008 11:56 AM

Mark, thanks for pointing out that Obama is responsible for her losing Iowa. It seems that we get to wrapped up in advisors, what matters is the candidates. It might just be that Obama won, not that Clinton lost.

Posted by Jay | April 7, 2008 11:59 AM

"What does that tell you about the quality of advice the Clintons believe him to impart?"

A lot.

What does it tell us about the actual quality of his advice?

Not much.

The fact that the Clintons trust his advice so unconditionally is an indication of how flawed their managerial capacities are, not of how strong Penn's qualities are.

His enduring prominence in the campaign was an everyday reminder of how the Clintons value clannish loyalty over honest criticism, and spin over substance. At long last they have realised that it's better to take this reminder off the radar; but the continuing role he will have in the campaign means that they haven't actually learned anything. They see it purely as a PR problem, rather than an indication of their campaign's core flaws.

Posted by nimh | April 7, 2008 12:00 PM

@john m

I have heard many times that she doesn't like to be disagreed with or to hear bad news.

I've never heard that, but it's the only reason I can possibly think of for her including the Bosnia sniper remarks in her various appearances and speeches after Sinbad called her on her bullshit. In any campaign I've ever seen, that sort of thing would trickle up to the top instantly... within minutes of Sinbad's remark hitting the news her Blackberry would light up, "Yo - don't use your Bosnian landing as proof of badassery anymore - we'll talk later."

Much more minor anecdotes get much more scrutiny from campaign research and press staffs generally... unless someone doesn't want to hear that they're saying something stupid and no one's there to tell them what they don't want to hear.

Posted by Zach | April 7, 2008 12:04 PM

Absolutely amazing, maybe the media can keep licking Hillary's feet a little longer. Here you have a senior campaign strategist meeting with Colombians on a trade deal and Hillary knows nothing about it. Kind of shows her judgement about the people she hires. This is not like someone who didn't know what he was doing. We are talking about negotiations with the Colombians. So this is good for Clinton? She didn't distance herself from him,just gave him a demotion. Instead of 1 million dollars a month, he now only receives 500,000 per month. So you really think that this is good for Hillary ?
This biased media will never cease to amaze me especially comments from the right. Well Major,
you just don't have a clue. If Obama lost Ohio based on the possibility of someone just talking about NAFTA with the Canadians, this is actively campaigning for the Colombians to get a free trade agreement. Please Pennsylvania end this nightmare once and for all and vote for Obama.

Posted by ron | April 7, 2008 12:32 PM

It's mostly Clinton's fault. But we shouldn't rain on the parade of partying Clinton staffers--let them burn him in effigy a few more times.

I want to quibble with 24play about skipping Iowa--John McCain managed to pull it off, but it was at least with a background of previously running weak in Iowa for reasons people understood (ethanol) and strong in New Hampshire. Rudy Giuliani's habit of skipping unfavorable states played out very poorly--Iowa had never rejected him. It would be harder for Clinton to skip Iowa, especially as the problem seems to be "caucuses are tough" rather than "my long history of opposing ethanol subsidies led to my losses there in previous elections." That pre-emptive quitting narrative could have hurt her in NH. And there would have been no emotional moment to resonate with voters for that narrow win.

Even if you assume she swiped Edwards voters in IA, coming out of IA with an Edwards win and Obama second would give a stronger Edwards to keep splitting those votes with Clinton while Obama's coalition kicked into gear. And of course all this assumes we know who people's second choices were.

Posted by Deborah | April 7, 2008 12:40 PM

The 'liberal' comedy never ends. With neither candidate able to get enough pledged delegates needed to secure the nom and more than 10 state/territories left Hillary is about 1% behind. How does that happen? How does the obama camp explain the fact they can’t close the deal when according to ‘liberals’ Hillary has been running a terrible campaign? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by hadenough | April 7, 2008 12:40 PM

I don't blame Penn for everything.

Just like I don't blame Rumsfeld for things that were GWB's fault.

HRC and GWB are looking more and more alike every day.

Neither one will take advice. Both have undue belief in their own righteousness. Both of them got where they are because of family connections.

Posted by Erik in Maine | April 7, 2008 12:52 PM

Name/brand-recognition is a huge factor.

In a low information environment (like elections!) voters will go with the mature well-trusted brand over other alternatives (like shoppers with Heinz, Kellog's etc).

Clinton is as mature and well-established a political brand as exists.

Name/brand-recognition should have seen Hilary through.

Posted by pregethwr | April 7, 2008 12:56 PM

So they put the "for Azazel" sign around Penn's neck. Yet they don't have the guts to drive him off the cliff.

And yes, this was a disaster for the Clintons. To suggest they were successful by "keeping it close" is complete hogwash. The deck was stacked in their favor. Next you'll be talking about what a wonderful campaign George Allen ran.

Posted by Seth | April 7, 2008 1:02 PM

hadenough - liar. Hillary isn't 1% behind in any legitimate margin, much or less the pledged delegates you refer to.

Hillary has run a terrible campaign because the media narrative made her the presumptive nominee before a single ballot was cast. The huge network laid out by her husband was only to her benefit, and she had the name recognition to go with. She was ahead 20 laps with 100 laps to go, and she's now behind 2 laps with 10 to go.

Posted by socctty | April 7, 2008 1:07 PM

In a reasonable world you reach reasonable conclusions about how bad Mark Penn is or is not. But in a Mark Penn world, he has told everyone forever that whatever Hillary thinks, says, does, or wears is only what Mark Penn tells her to think, say, do or wear. He has happily embraced his image as her puppeteer. Today, this very day, he is telling people that the campaign is officially over (because he has been demoted). I know because I heard him say it, just as I have heard him say he has had total control over Hillary. (Of course, I have also heard him say that others are to blame when things have gone bad.)

The pig may have been demoted, but his snout is still in the trough, and money is the only thing that matters to him.

The campaign ought to take a hard look at his bills. I can promise you there is more padding than in all the Posturepedic mattresses ever made.

Posted by Pastor | April 7, 2008 1:08 PM

A Captain, according to the Navy, is responsible for everything that happens on his/her ship. So it is with Commander-in-Chief wannabes. This was her 3 AM phone call, which went on for 9 years and she flunked it. Penn stayed on because he was Clinton's brain. Chew on that. Next!

Posted by John Shreffler | April 7, 2008 1:10 PM

I think the decision to run on years and years of experience and then come up short was a big mistake. She could have made the argument that she has more experience without counting all the 1st lady years. That just rang hollow and made her look foolish.
Maybe that was Penn's idea but it sure sounds like something Bill and Hillary brought to the table.

Posted by linda | April 7, 2008 1:15 PM

Maybe Penn just wanted to get off the ship before it went under?

http://www.gopcatholics.blogspot.com

Posted by Peter | April 7, 2008 1:16 PM

Certainly, Halperin is doing his bit to shove the Penn story off the front "page," as it were.

Look at Halperin's site. We're barely into Monday, and he's already burying this as a couple of small, must-scroll-down-to-see-it items in fourth and fifth place. Instead of leading with Penn and the dysfunctional Clinton campaign, his top story now is "Clinton Calls on Bush to Boycott Olympics," followed by a story relaying the shocking news that "McCain Challenges Obama, Clinton on Iraq."

These stories are already more important and significant than Penn's belated forced departure?

People already have stopped talking about what this means for Clinton's campaign?

Really? Really?!!

Interference-running media protectors like Mark Halperin are the reason why Hillary Clinton still is in this campaign.

What a shill.

Posted by horizonr | April 7, 2008 1:18 PM

About half of Democratic voters will have chosen her over Obama, a fact that will be lost in the final delegate tally.

Over half--probably well over half--of Democratic voters will have chosen her over Obama. Obama is winning in the popular vote because of independents and Republicans participating in primaries.

I don't think Clinton could have done any better had she contested caucuses. The only reason she did well in Nevada was because of the huge publicity and support given to the working class.

I do think Penn and others were wrong to simply assume that Barack Obama could never build a viable primary coalition from the types of voters who were attracted to him.

This is where someone in the Clinton campaign screwed up. I don't know if it's because they didn't realize he would win 90% of the black vote, or if they simply didn't run the numbers. (and no, he didn't win the black vote because of Bill Clinton in South Carolina; both Nevada and Michigan show huge margins for Obama in the black vote.)

But if anyone had looked very closely at the numbers, they probably would have decided not to run at all. Arguably, the Democratic primaries with proportional delegates give an overwhelming edge to the candidate who can win liberals and black votes in huge numbers (caucuses and the states with huge black majorities).

Posted by Cal | April 7, 2008 1:22 PM

'Indeed, were Clinton to pull off the miracle and win this thing, her "strength" and "experience" would be an asset to her in the general election.'

And if Ralph Nader is elected president, his outsider persona will be the reason why.

Give me a break.

Why is it that, even though Clinton has no realistic shot at the nomination anymore, this blog spends more time looking at her as a general election candidate than at Obama? Move on to reality, dude, and make the blog relevant!

With whom does Ambinder have his a morning breakfast call: Penn or Ickes?

Posted by John Z. | April 7, 2008 1:23 PM

I think "pregethwr"'s answer should be enough for "hadenough",else this link about Hillary might just be useful: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/07/opinion/main3998506.shtml Hillary had the name but failed to capitalized on it!

Posted by Clintonfatigue | April 7, 2008 1:23 PM

Either this campaign is not over, or the vast majority of Obama supporters are obsessing over absolutely meaningless. What supporter gives a crap about MSM coverage on someone they can't stand anyway if the quest for the nomination is over?

Posted by Mark Simmons | April 7, 2008 1:33 PM

Indeed, were Clinton to pull off the miracle and win this thing, her "strength" and "experience" would be an asset to her in the general election.

What experience...

Her test under fire in Bosnia?

Her bringing peace to Northern Ireland?

How she reformed our health care system?

How her stubbornness led to whitewater?

We do know she slept with Bill Clinton at least once 29 years ago.

Is Laura Bush qualified to be a US senator?

Could someone who actually buys this line of experience bull please catalog what Hillary has ever done?

Obama too is thin on specific experience, but that's not what his campaign is based on. If HRC tries to match experience with McCain she'll get shredded.

Posted by Erik in Maine | April 7, 2008 1:50 PM

The problem with not contesting Iowa is that she was inevitable. And if you are inevitable, then you have to win. And if you have to win, then you can't lose.

The problem is that Penn created a narrative that simply wasn't true, and it was so powerfully done, that it became the albatross around the campaign's neck. It was never a coronation, and always an election.

Iowa became Rocky's first punch that hurt Ivan Drago.

Posted by Curtis | April 7, 2008 1:54 PM

if Mark Penn is OUT - and just a pollster -- why is there anyother pollster hired and why is he still on the conference calls

this doesn't change the conflict of interest -

it is easy to try and blame Mark Penn since he is eminently dislikeable = for all the problems with the Clinton campaign

But ultimately - as it is Hillary Clinton's campaign the problem is with the candidate

Hindsight is great - but to say now that if they ran on Barack Obama's platform they would have done better further emphasizes why Sen Clinton will be out of this very soon

To quote Bush 41 "It's the vision thing"

Posted by alison | April 7, 2008 2:56 PM

Marc writes, " The assumption was based in an historical fallacy: just because these voters had never turned out before or exceeded the turn-out of "beer track" Democrats doesn't mean that, with the right candidate in the right year, they wouldn't. (And they did.)"

This reflects some thinking I've been doing about the idea of late adoption exemplified by late adopters of technology of which I'm one. I came to personal computers late but became a big fan. In my early computer days I read tech pundits talking about what a big thing this "World Wide Web" was going to be and I wondered what the hell they were talking about. Why the hell were they so excited about this new thing. Now we all know they were talking about. I read a study today showing that 90 percent of all concert tickets are now sold online. Could we have imagined that twenty years ago? Could the average person in 1880 have imagined that the landscape of this country would be transformed into a network of roads and freeways travelled by millions of people in motorized vehicles? Could we have envisioned people walking around apparently talking into the air (thanks to cellular phones) and not have reached the conclusion that the speakers had mental problems? The people who couldn't see these things weren't stupid. They just lacked the requisite imagination. If told of these things they probably would have said things like, "It'll NEVER happen," "Are you crazy?," and more.

Now we have Clinton and old school thinkers saying things like "Democrats don't stand a chance of winning Kansas anyway" or "Conciliation won't work. That's just not how things have ever been done in Washington." Some of these same people were saying in public and private that Obama would NEVER get large numbers of white voters to support him which was first disproved in Iowa and has since been disproved in other states as well. The thinking of Clinton and others is similar to the thinking of people who didn't see how the Apple IIe, or http:/www, or cell phones would change the world in major and unforeseen ways. They are not stupid. They are not experiencing a failure of intelligence. They are experiencing a failure of imagination. The same was true of black people who found themselves SHOCKED, SHOCKED, SHOCKED by Obama's win in Iowa. Because of history, circumstance, culture and more black people still live in an insular world separate from the white world. Many still believed that the much of white America was the America of Bull Connor and KKK mentality. Obama's Iowa win disabused them of that notion and gave them reason to hope again. They, too, had a failure of imagination. That is no longer true. Now they are starting to imagine what had been deemed impossible.

I, personally, have always been a late adopter. As mentioned, I came to computers late. I got internet service after everyone else and I still have dial-up service at home. I got my first cell phone a year ago. I was never a Clinton fan (I can't forgive the Iraq vote) but early on I was leaning toward Edwards or Richardson (although my favorite was sure loser Kucinich). The I started paying more attention to Obama. I read both of his books. I studied each and everyone of the positions on his web site.

I believe he's a world changer. I believe when the next election rolls around in 2012 that a healthy majority of Americans will be late adopters and reelect President Barack Obama for another four years.

Posted by Keith Hood | April 7, 2008 3:08 PM

Penn is a blowhard, but everything is not his fault.

(1)Caucuses – Right from the beginning HILLARY said caucus states weren’t important because her husband didn’t do well in them or need them to win the presidency when he ran. In other words, since her husband hadn’t done it, she didn’t need to figure it out for herself.

(2)Money – The Patty Solis-Doyle episode revealed that before a single vote was cast, her campaign was in financial trouble in IOWA! Aside from Obama, she raised the most money of any democrat – over $100 Million in 2007 – and her campaign spent itself into a hole before the first contest? She was too busy using the campaign’s cash to line the pockets of the Clinton loyalists rather than spending it on building a caucus ground game across the country. They did this before – blew $30 million on a NY senate campaign in which she essentially ran against no one.

(3)Message – They ran her as the experienced “incumbent” because she seriously thought of herself as the “real” VP in the Clinton presidency, so why wouldn’t she choose that platform? - even though she WAS NOT the VP and didn’t play a major role in international or domestic policy, beyond her failed healthcare plan that cost democrats congress, and disastrous attempts to select the attorney general? Do people not remember that she threw a fit when she unsuccessfully tried to take over Gore’s VP office? Hillary has always been unbelievably arrogant. An unelected first lady trying to toss the VP into the broom closet while she takes over his office! She is the wife of an important man who thought she could Eva Peron her way into the presidency. When her “experience” message wasn’t working, she’d try to roll out another slogan every other week, only to repeatedly return back to the experience message, which has now been proven to be a farce.

Penn and the entire Clinton campaign is a reflection of HILLARY, so stop absolving her of all guilt and trying to paint her as a good candidate undone by bad campaign staff. Give me a break. Sure, if she hadn’t run her campaign into the ground financially and decided, quite arrogantly, to basically run as an incumbent VP she’d have been amazing!

Poor Hillary.

Posted by Sue | April 7, 2008 3:19 PM

Cal said... Arguably, the Democratic primaries with proportional delegates give an overwhelming edge to the candidate who can win liberals and black votes in huge numbers (caucuses and the states with huge black majorities).

You mean like Jessie Jackson?

I like the slices you define; "liberals" and "blacks". How about women? Men? Working class? Educated? Hispanic? Gays? Should women be sliced into young, soccer moms, with grown kids, and retired? How about working class gay men who dress like soccer moms?

Obama is winning because he's won a lot of all kinds of votes, despite Clinton starting out with advantages that would have been insurmountable if given to any half decent candidate. You can make all the demographic excuses you want, but it doesn't change that fact.

Yes, Obama's been stronger with some demographic groups than others, but so is Hillary. How about young voters? How about first-time voters? Isn't it "conventional wisdom" that the youth vote won't turn out? There will never be an even split across all demographics between two candidates, and playing up the importance of one over all the others is a fool's errand.

Posted by LFC | April 7, 2008 4:56 PM

I think you can't overlook the importance of Hillary Clinton's insecurity, which makes her much more prone to manipulation.

Bottom Line: Clinton bought into the strategy of selling her worthiness to be commander in chief due to her "35 Years of Experience", because that is precisely how she likes to see herself. Her disdain for Barack Obama is due entirely to the fact that she (and the entire staff that she surrounds herself with) wrote Barack as "unworthy"... a very dangerous opinion to hold of your opponent in any head-to-head competition.

She got beat because she was buying what she was selling.

Posted by Nick Stone | April 7, 2008 5:23 PM

When is the heroine of Bosnia, the vanquisher of NAFTA, and the health care raconteusse going to really fire Mark Penn? Remove him from any and all contact with her, Bill, her campaign, and her campaign staff? He is still anti union, and he is still advising.

Posted by Pete from Boston | April 7, 2008 6:26 PM

"Either this campaign is not over, or the vast majority of Obama supporters are obsessing over absolutely meaningless. What supporter gives a crap about MSM coverage on someone they can't stand anyway if the quest for the nomination is over?"

Here's why it matters to me: Tens of millions of Democratic dollars that should be going to beat Republicans are being used to attack the likely Democratic presidential nominee and lots of Democratic activists loyal to the Clintons are not yet putting their heads into how to help Obama beat McCain.

So while Clinton's continuing campaign and coverage of it are meaningless as far as the nomination, they're far from meaningless as far as the McCain-vs.-Obama general election.

Posted by John Z. | April 7, 2008 10:13 PM

When Hillary looks into the mirror the day
after her loss of the nomination, she will see
the reason for the inevitable "upset".
A sense of entitlement breeds the hubris this
dame wallowed in...off and on, following NH,
and certainly after TX and OH. She "found her
voice" and demonstrated to the electorate that
there is no "there", there. Being Bill"s side-
kick and enabler -in -chief does not "entitle"
one for the role of CinC.

Posted by hombre | April 8, 2008 12:20 AM

In May of 2007 I was betting my friends and colleagues that Hillary Clinton could not win the primaries. It was like this...I have never voted republican for any major office yet would not vote for her in a primary. At least 2/3 of my democratic friends agreed with me. I kind of figured if so many of us openly confessed our dislike of Hillary and her sense that somehow she was owed the presidency, that sentiment had to be more pervasive than the media was letting on. In our discussions, we didn't even know for sure who would be running against her. That Barack Obama turned out to be the first real leader our country has seen in my lifetime only added to her demise. Hillary Clinton, should she lose the nomination, is the reason she will lose it. She had the media, the money, the name, the strings to pull. It was hers to lose, and she seems to have managed to pull that off.

Posted by whybother? | April 8, 2008 3:05 AM

wOW!! Mr. Penn still getting paid by the blue-collar donations given to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. What a spit on the face that must be...paying the guy who was trying to outsource your job. It seems Mr. Wolfson is on the same boat.

WAIT!! Look over there, in Beijing!!

Posted by Fred | April 8, 2008 1:33 PM

If Senator Clinton is so awful, please tell me why she has as much support if not more than Obama? The fact is, Obama has outspent Clinton by huge margins and still Obama can't win any big states. The fact that Clinton is still in the race says a lot about the mixed feelings many have about Obama. Obama is just another politician, nothing more-no different than Clinton or McCain. Sadly, if he gets the nomination, he will not win against McCain. His refusal to do a re-vote in Mich and Florida for fear he would lose basically cost the dems at least Florida in the general. Many of the swing states will go to McCain. Yes, give the man his nomination, be done with it, but don't whine to the rest of us when President McCain is sworn in.

Posted by ben | April 16, 2008 3:32 PM