OK, Hillary admittedly has less need of an auxiliary brain than George W. She does own the ability to synthesize for herself large masses of data and formulate complex policy (not to mention the ability to speak in complete sentences). But her choice of guru and the way she is letting him shape her politics raises some alarms, based on a WaPo article today by Anne Kornblut. While not her official campaign manager, the strategist controlling her run for the White House is longtime DLC pollster Mark Penn, whose previous clients include Joe Lieberman, Tony Blair and rightwing Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
Penn first penetrated the Clintons' circle as part of the team put together by slimy Republican renegade Dick Morris (of whom Hillary reportedly was a great fan) at Bill Clinton's request after the 1994 Republican triumph, and it's clear how much Hillary values him (continued below the break):
Penn . . . has everything that Clinton would want in a senior consultant: undisputed brilliance and experience, according to even his enemies; clear opinions, with data to back them up; unwavering loyalty; and a relentless focus on the endgame: winning the general election. And Clinton clearly adores him. She describes Penn in her autobiography, "Living History," as brilliant, intense, shrewd and insightful.
In fact, he was fired as Gore's pollster in 2000 when it became clear that his first loyalty was to the Clintons rather than to his current candidate.
In addition to his political work, he wears a public relations hat--currently as CEO of Burson-Marsteller public relations firm--and is Microsoft's chief apple polisher in Washington; other clients have included Texaco and pharma giant Eli Lilly.
As a fervently pro-Israel "security hawk" who had been mightily impressed by Begin's bombing of Iraq's Osirik nuclear reactor in 1981, Penn was a forceful proponent of attacking Iraq before the current war began, and still sees the strong stand Hillary took on the issue as one of her political assets:
As her position has evolved, from initial support for President Bush to fierce criticism of the war's management, Clinton has sought a careful balance, one that maintains her image of strength on national security while not antagonizing the staunchly antiwar elements of her party. Asked repeatedly by antiwar Democrats to apologize for her original support for the war, Clinton has refused. Penn has been among her strongest backers on that score, according to Clinton's advisers, agreeing that to apologize would be disastrous both politically and on the merits. . . .
Penn has always believed that strength is critical for running the country, and that people want to have a president who's going to be willing to defend the country -- that's the number one criteria," said Al From, the chief executive of the Democratic Leadership Council, who considers Penn a friend.
Increasingly, he has taken the reigns of the campaign, enforcing his vision for Hillary's run. In the primaries that is based very much on portraying her as a moderate who is the Inevitable Candidate. He claims this assertion is backed by his polling data:
"When you look at this thing nationally -- how is she going to win -- I think it's really important to look at what were the two groups that defected from the Democrats in 2004 to give it to Bush," Penn said. "And those were women and Latino voters. And almost all the change in that election from 2000 was among those two groups, and those are her two strongest groups."
Hillary is the ideal candidate he says because she offers change (she is a woman) but not too much of a change (she's familiar because of her many years in Washington). Unfortunately, somebody just came along and upset the appearance of her inevitability, but that doesn't worry Penn too much:
Penn did not anticipate that another Democrat might come along with a similar ability to fit that bill -- as supporters of Obama, who would be the first black president, believe he can -- but he says Clinton has another advantage in her ability to appeal to the underprivileged. Penn believes, and independent surveys confirm, that she outperforms other Democrats among lower-income voters, especially members of a family of four making less than $75,000 a year.
Penn's strategy appears to be a reaction to the 2004 rather than 2006 election results, though he says the conclusions that he has drawn are backed up by current polling. That refusal of Clinton to apologize for her war vote, which to many of us looks like weaseling equivocation, to him looks like reassuring steadfastness on America's defense. Still I wonder if 2006 didn't uncover an electorate that increasingly is ready for a bolder vision of change than Hillary and her advisor embody.
Clinton's legislative record on domestic issues that appeal to low-income voters is in line with that of Obama's. It's actually somewhat better than Edwards' voting record, but Edwards has evolved considerably to the left since his departure from the Senate four years ago, and today arguably propounds the most comprehensive agenda for economic justice in the current campaign.
Meanwhile, her continued aura of hawkishness may be more of a liability than her DLC-embedded advisor thinks, particularly with the party's base. And the sense of familiarity that he touts as such an advantage may turn out to be more of a liability as other candidates become better known and the simple factor of name recognition that has buoyed much of the early polling becomes less important.