A few days ago, Clinton strategist/pollster Mark Penn raised a few eyebrows when he argued that Barack Obama’s primary and caucus victories weren’t especially impressive, because he “hasn’t won any of the significant states.”
Yesterday, Penn kept it up, with a related point.
“Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries.”
Now, on this one, I think I see Penn’s point. Obama has done well in several “red” states, but that doesn’t mean Obama should expect to win those same states in November, if he’s the nominee. Fair enough.
The problem, however, is that the Clinton campaign was arguing the exact opposite at almost the exact same time.
I’m on a conference call with Clinton operative Harold Ickes, in which he’s floating a new-ish argument about why Hillary would be the stronger Democratic noimnee (this was in the context of the decision facing superdelegates): Hillary has won key general-election swing states like Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and Arkansas, while Obama’s won a lot of states Democrats will have zero chance of carrying in November, like Nebraska, Kansas, and Idaho.
Hmmm. If we’re now talking about potential general-election swing states, it seems pretty clear that Obama’s won as many as, if not more than, Hillary: Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri all come to mind. Moreover, with the exception of Missouri, Obama’s winning these states by large — in many cases overwhelming — margins. Finally, does anyone really think Arizona’s going to be a swing state in a race involving John McCain? This seems hard to believe.
So, for top Clinton aide Harold Ickes, primary and caucus victories are a key indicator of general-election performance. For top Clinton aide Mark Penn, primary and caucus victories have absolutely nothing to do with general-election performance.
This isn’t helpful. Do you ever get the sense that Penn sometimes does more harm than good?
And speaking of Ickes, he’ll need to work on this spin, too.
Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass.
In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised — before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions.
Campaigning in Wisconsin after Ickes’ remarks, Clinton echoed his contention that a suitable arrangement could be worked out to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations.
“The rules provide for a vote at the convention to seat contested delegations,” she said. “This goes back to the 1940s in my memory. There is nothing unusual about this. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination until June. Usually it takes awhile to sort all this out. That’s why there are rules. If there are contested delegations, the convention votes on it.”
Ickes explained that his different position essentially is due to the different hats he wears as both a DNC member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting. Clinton won the primary vote in Michigan and Florida, and now she wants those votes to count.
“There’s been no change,” Ickes said. “I was not acting as an agent of Mrs. Clinton. We had promulgated rules and those rules said the timing provision … provides for certain sanctions, automatic sanctions as a matter of fact, if a state such as Michigan or Florida violates those timing provisions.”
“With respect to the stripping, I voted as a member of the Democratic National Committee. Those were our rules and I felt I had an obligation to enforce them,” he said.
I find this a little confusing. Ickes voted to punish Florida and Michigan, but now wants to undo the punishment he supported because now he’s wearing a different “hat.” Asked about the change of heart, Ickes argues, “There’s been no change.”
Odd.