Thursday, May 08, 2008

Almost hard to believe

I recently made a vow to be pleasant and nice to Sen. Clinton… seeing as how her or Sen. Obama are going to be the Democratic nominee and I continue to pimp my post that we all get along and vote the ticket in November.

That vow does NOT cover her former chief strategist Mark Penn… whom I blame for the colossal clusterfuck her campaign has e devolved into.

Seems I’m not the only one…

[I]n a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there[,] [a]s aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. . . . Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?"

Wow… I find it very hard to believe, but it appears that Clinton's chief strategist (whom she still owes millions of contractual dollars to), thought the Democratic primaries/caucuses were winner-take-all and not proportionally allocated… now correct me if I’m wrong, but almost every high school civics student now knows that Democrats, unlike republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all.

Penn didn’t know this.

Again… wow.

Rather than scuttle the original campaign calendar he had created and re-do it from scratch because he’s an over-rated putz, her campaign stayed the course and started to insist that big states were the only states that mattered in the campaign.

How’d that strategy work out for ya Ms. Clinton?

Oh wait, that’s right, we already know.

Not well… in fact, I would argue that that strategy, more than anything else, cost Clinton the nomination.

Put another way; Penn cost her the nomination.

Think about this; at this moment we are facing some of the most trying times in our history… and there is no such thing as sufficient experience to lead… that’s why I don’t count experience as a major factor in this election. We’re experiencing things we’ve never experienced or seen before, making it totally new for everyone.

Our next president, more than ever before, has to surround himself/herself with the best and brightest and, this is where Bush failed miserably at; LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.

But in the meantime, I think it’s fair to lay a majority (99.8%) of the blame on Ms. Clinton’s collapse on the hiring of Mark Penn.

No comments: