The professional demise of Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s pollster and top campaign strategist, has been predicted, expected, and demanded for several months now, but to no avail. Despite having lost the support of key Clinton supporters and staffers, despite questionable advice and tactics, and despite fairly obvious conflicts of interest, Penn maintained the confidence of the one person who mattered: the candidate.
It took longer than expected, but lobbying to pass a Colombian trade deal that Clinton opposes turned out to be the one controversy Penn couldn’t spin out of. A day after the Colombian government fired Penn, Clinton decided to make a change, too.
Mark Penn, the pollster who has advised Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1996, stepped down under pressure on Sunday as the chief political strategist for Mrs. Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign after his private business arrangements again clashed with her campaign positions. […]
Mr. Penn’s shift — he will continue to do some polling — is the latest upheaval in a campaign that has seen its manager replaced, faced critical money shortages and has often lagged behind Senator Barack Obama of Illinois in a cohesive message and ground strategy. The move comes at a crucial juncture, just two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, which Mrs. Clinton needs to win to keep hope of her nomination alive.
Mr. Penn’s work on the trade treaty with Colombia threatened to undercut Mrs. Clinton’s support among the blue-collar voters who are a crucial part of her base, as well as call into question the sincerity of her populist economic message.
A statement from Maggie Williams, the campaign manager, and comments from aides suggested that Mr. Penn voluntarily stepped aside, but other knowledgeable aides said that Mrs. Clinton was furious when she learned of the Colombia talks and insisted on Mr. Penn’s demotion. Mr. Clinton concurred in that judgment, aides said.
That last point is of particular interest, in that there’s some question as to whether Penn jumped or was pushed. All evidence points to the latter.
This isn’t a situation in which Clinton detractors celebrate her campaign’s internal disarray, while Clinton supporters dismiss the shake-up as trivia. If anything, it’s largely the opposite.
By all appearances, Penn had little or no support among top Clinton aides, many of whom have been pushing for his ouster since early January. With Penn out as the campaign’s top strategist, there’s already talk of improved morale at campaign headquarters.
The WSJ talked to one Clinton advisor last night who recalled that the team was saddened by the departure of Patti Solis Doyle, the senator’s former campaign manager, who was forced out several weeks ago, but Penn’s “demotion” was welcome news. “[T]here won’t be a tear shed here, I can assure you,” the advisor said.
The word “demotion” is also of interest, since it appears that Penn wasn’t actually fired — he’ll still reportedly be responsible for doing polling work for Clinton. It’s not at all clear how this is going to work, nor is it likely to “mollify influential labor groups” who don’t want Penn to be associated with the Clinton campaign at all.
Nevertheless, it’s a major development for the Clinton team, and raises a few questions:
* Will Penn still linger in the background, quietly feeding advice to the Clintons, or has he really stepped aside?
* Will the campaign now try to shift to messages and themes that haven’t been shaped by Penn?
* Is Penn’s demotion too late to really help?
* Two days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, Penn tried to argue that he had no real authority in the campaign. How quickly will he make the same argument again?
* Will any major presidential campaign ever again make the mistake of putting one person in charge of strategy and polling? (The conflict is absurd — Penn crafted a plan, and then provided his own data to show how right he was.)
* How soon will Penn actually collect the $2.5 million the campaign still owes him?
Inquiring minds want to know.