Hillary Clinton's former spinmaster-in-chief is now trying to spin his way out of his new designation by the media: Loser.
This is made all the more interesting because Mark Penn is the worldwide CEO of Burson-Marsteller. If anyone should know how to rehabilitate himself, it should be this PR kingpin.
But alas, the spin is not very good and will be demolished in the punditocracy.
Penn is falling back on the classic excuse for losing a national presidential campaign: It wasn't the message, he writes in an op-ed piece for The New York Times, it was the money.
Listen in:
While everyone loves to talk about the message, campaigns are equally about money and organization. Having raised more than $100 million in 2007, the Clinton campaign found itself without adequate money at the beginning of 2008, and without organizations in a lot of states as a result. Given her successes in high-turnout primary elections and defeats in low-turnout caucuses, that simple fact may just have had a lot more to do with who won than anyone imagines.
Sounds good until you consider that Clinton won key states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Indiana---states where she was outspent by Obama by 2 to 1.
Penn may want to try another line of reasoning. There are many of them:.
Clinton lost because voters want someone with a last name other than Bush and Clinton in the White House.
Clinton lost because her husband kept having temper tantrums, distracting the media from her message.
Clinton lost because voters were fed up with her thinly disguised references to race.
The problem with all of the above is that it doesn't serve Penn's purposes; namely, to reclaim his place in the political world as Grand Political Visionary and Maker of the Message.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Coach Purses Outlet... 
RSS
Comments (8)
>
And what were these thinly disguised references to race? Her comment that it took a president to pass the civil right legislation? No racism here. What she said is a fact.
Her comment that she appealed to white voters? Why is it okay for Obama, the news media, etc. to say that he appeals to black voters and needs to figure out a way to appeal to white working-class voters?
And why can't we come to terms with the fact that the primary was filled with thinkly disguised references about the fact that HRC is a woman. Example -- the Hillary Nutcracker, being called a She-Devil by Chris Matthews. Had it been an Obama "noose" people would have rightfully labeled it as "disgusting."
The primary proved that racism trumps sexism which is unfortunate because neither should be tolerated at any level.
Posted by Bruce | June 30, 2008 10:42 AM
Posted on June 30, 2008 10:42
I do not follow the logic that her last name is somehow the fault of her PR spin doctors and that's why it was not mentioned in his NY Times article????? I think that point was off your point. Otherwise....maybe.
Posted by puzzled | June 13, 2008 1:50 PM
Posted on June 13, 2008 13:50
From what I've been reading, Penn blew it even more than through his simple mis-dealings from trying to be Chief Campaign Pooh Bah and Big Agency Rain Maker/Dancer. It's because he had a 1980's view of campaigning--hold the poll numbers close, use them to beat up those who disagree, and focus on broadcast messaging over grassroots organizing.
Personally, I hope Penn is done.
Posted by Mike Klein | June 12, 2008 1:23 AM
Posted on June 12, 2008 01:23
I think it must also be pointed out that Mark Penn himself was an issue well before the 'scandal' happened regarding his ethical lapse.
I read a Rolling Stone article and remember at least two Daily Show bits about his unsavory spin methods. It would seem that not just new media, but younger people (Matt Tiabi specifically)just do not respond well to being told that black is white, up is down and losing is actually winning. This is a good thing.
Posted by Kynnyn | June 11, 2008 2:35 PM
Posted on June 11, 2008 14:35
Perhaps it was that same cluelessness that caused Penn to believe it was ethical to work simultaneously for two opposing clients.
Posted by Robert J Holland, ABC | June 11, 2008 12:17 PM
Posted on June 11, 2008 12:17
So to be clear, after SpaceyG's comments, are you also saying that it's only about "new PR" in today's world and in the future?
Posted by Susan | June 11, 2008 11:52 AM
Posted on June 11, 2008 11:52
Spacey,
Now that you put it that way, yes, that is indeed what I'm trying to say,
Thanks,
Mark
Posted by mark ragan | June 11, 2008 9:13 AM
Posted on June 11, 2008 09:13
Gee Mark, are you saying "traditional" PR just isn't working anymore? That PR gurus who have practiced that good 'ole Top Down approach are no longer relevant? That they've lost their ability to "read the tea leaves"... so to speak? That they're clueless old farts who live in bubbles? That the communications train has left the station, and that all people like Penn can do is chase after the dust in its wake? That the American people simply don't NEED Big PR to spin (the wrong!) jack for them anymore? Is that what you're trying to say here?
Posted by SpaceyG | June 11, 2008 9:10 AM
Posted on June 11, 2008 09:10