Firing a chief campaign strategist during a critical junction in a race is rare and risky – especially if you owe that strategist millions of dollars. Mark Penn, Clinton’s chief strategist, and his firm have, so far, charged Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., more than $10 million worth of services – an amount unaffiliated Democratic strategists find “stunning,” according to a Feb. 22 article by The New York Times. Unfortunately for Clinton, she has not received any bang for her buck. Penn has mismanaged Clinton’s one-time “coronation” campaign so badly that now she may not last through the end of the week. To be fair, campaigns are complex entities to run, and often a candidate’s ultimate fate is determined by factors far outside of his or her control. This is particularly true for Clinton’s campaign. Clinton is running against an opponent who has a messianic image, can fill entire arenas with supporters, deliver faint-inducing speeches and rally more than one million supporters to donate to his campaign. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., appears to have inspired a legitimate and historical movement. And as wife of a former president and outspoken advocate of the ’90s, combating the “change” candidate is a daunting task for Clinton. It is also possible that Clinton has a well-run campaign, but Obama is simply better – or that he has just received some lucky breaks along the way. But given the state of Clinton’s campaign coming out of Super Tuesday, Penn’s botched performance seems obvious. After Clinton’s first loss in the Iowa caucus, her campaign – though startled – insisted the “national race” in the following weeks would help her seal up the nomination. The anticipation for Super Tuesday was pressed throughout all the early contests, even when facing a double digit loss in South Carolina’s primary. But Super Tuesday came and went with both candidates essentially tied. Obama’s campaign prepared for this outcome – having laid the groundwork in the post-Super Tuesday states early in their campaign. Clinton, however, was stunned – and Clinton’s campaign, strapped for cash, had no choice but to pass on the approaching contests. And this is where the wheels really came off. First, her campaign began crying foul about how caucus states are undemocratic and unfair to her campaign. But when Obama began winning primaries too, her campaign began barfing up various reasons why those states were too small or too demographically favorable to Obama to be considered “significant,” to use the words of Penn. Eleven losses later, her campaign began to go even more negative by having Clinton deliver one-liners like “change you can Xerox” at the Feb. 21 Democratic debate – accusing Obama of plagiarism and mocking his speeches. These divisive tactics were the work of Penn. Leon Panetta, former White House chief of staff for Bill Clinton, has compared Penn to Karl Rove, a Machiavellian strategist more interested in achieving a 51 percent majority than uniting the country, according to The New York Observer. Clinton, however, is a likable person. She is on the receiving end of an unjustified hate exemplified by the Republican Party, and she has dealt with that hate graciously for many years. But she let Penn run her campaign into the ground without ever holding him responsible – and when the going really got tough, she opted instead to fire her campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle. If your strategy is not working, why not fire your chief campaign strategist? The most illustrative example of Penn’s negative influence took place during one of Clinton’s debate preps. An aide suggested to Clinton that she “show a little bit of humanity” to help boost her likability and appeal, according to a Feb. 26 article by The New York Observer. Penn, however, was not happy with this aide’s suggestion. “Oh, come on,” Penn rebutted. “Being human is overrated.”
—-Contact Nate Monroe at [email protected]