Don't Ask the Yankees to Wear Diamonds, or Tell the Red Sox to Wear Pearls, Mr. Penn

[CorpGovActivist]

Please look thru this round-up of DU threads discussing Mark Penn, the current chief campaign "strategist" (for lack of a better term) for Senator Clinton's campaign.

Interestingly, Penn's name is popping up in multiple DU threads as a suspect in the Obama whisper campaign flap.

I think Novak is a shrewd, heartless, and - after the Scooter Libby debacle - extra cautious raconteur. I wouldn't share a beer with this man.

But the DU threads about Mark Penn are revealing. The comparisons to Karl Rove are insulting to Rove: Rove has had a consistent client list over the years (adhering to a core set of principles, of sorts), and Rove never predicted 360 Electoral College votes were in the bag for Bush, like Penn has for Clinton. It's sort of hard to insult Karl Rove, but I'll be damned if these comparisons in the DU threads don't manage to do it.

Those who are unswervingly mindless in their support of "all things Hillary" will say:

1. Novak made the whole thing up, to cause dissent in the ranks.

2. OK, maybe Novak does have high-ranking sources, but they're not campaign surrogates.

3. OK, maybe they're campaign surrogates, but they were freelancing when they said this.

4. OK, maybe they were acting with the campaign's knowledge, but not the inner sanctum's.

5. OK, maybe it was the inner sanctum, but it wasn't Mark Penn.

6. OK, so what if it was Mark Penn?

7. Why are you anti-Hillary?

I'm not. Questioning Mark Penn's tactics, his datasets, his history with other Democratic candidates (including his firing by Vice President Gore), and his "stategeric thinking" on how to find 270 Electoral College votes (let alone 360) is not anti-Hillary.

It's no less "pro-Hillary" to be asking these tough questions during the intramurals of the primaries than it was "pro-Bill" to ask tough questions about Dick Morris during the '96 re-election.

In 1996, facing the feeble token candidacy of Bob Dole, Bill Clinton could afford a late-game change to his inner sanctum line-up two months before the general.

In 2008, neither we as a country, nor Hillary as a nominee, can afford that luxury or run that risk.

For a candidate who likes to have it both ways, this should not be the time for her to choose either/or. This should be the *one* time when she really does demand to have it both ways: a brilliant AND principled chief campaign strategist is the ticket for the ticket.

After all, having it both ways is what we've come to expect from the candidate whose motto could be: "Don't ask the Yankees to wear diamonds, or tell the Red Sox to wear pearls," thanks to the poll-driven mechanics and machinations of the illustrious Mr. Penn.

- Dave