You have to include Patti Solis-Doyle the profligate spender on this list too since she was the one who pissed away all that money and then LIED about the campaign's flushness.
I nearly broke my jaw from it hitting the floor when the reports about her started to come out.
Read that Penn and the head of McCain's campaign are all from the same company. One wonders if there is a conflict of interest. Anyway,may just show that as long as the money flows, does not matter who they advise. Someone at the Big Orange said Gore had the sense to fire Penn early during his 2000 campaign.
And in 4 to 8 years some other loser will hire him.
Either way, he wins.
And someone from his firm does work for McCain.
A reminder, Hillary loaned Wolfson to Ned Lamont for his campaign in CT.
Such a mensch.
"Whether you're for her or not—it's painfully clear that this duo of "do-nothing" have basically reached into her wallet and stolen money in return for not doing chore the first worth a damn."
If you've ever seen what happens when a consulting firm like McKinsey or Bain is brought in to "help" a company that isn't in dire distress in the first place, you'll find this situation very familiar.
Meanwhile, the otherwise prickly Hillary has canned other dog loyal, true believer staffers for their comparatively minor screwups without a moment's hesitation. That's the big-corporate mentality at work with this candidate.
Policy issues aside, one of the major things we need to change in the White House is the management approach. Otherwise, we're in for 4 more years of incompetence when we need it least.
A fish rots from the head down. I think that the Clinton campaign was doomed from the beginning because of old fashioned thinking, hubris and a lack of connection to real Democrats. It is that Beltway thinking problem writ large when you blow through that much money and that secure of a lead. It doesn't help when your opponent is a brilliant orator who is very charming while you come off often as petulant as that idiot presently in the White House.
LM/ that's the sharpest assessment of what has happened to Clinton that I've seen yet.
I'm not sure she's hung onto them out of loyalty. I think she's a lot more politically stupid that people give her credit for. :o)
Remember when she was spun as the "tough cop" of Team Clinton? I guess rule #1 is not to believe your own self serving bullshit. The glaring lack of campaign discipline suggests strongly she iswas as much to blame as the Big Dog for them repeatedly running off the rails.
hey what eveer happened to gray?
Well, all you need to do is observe how many establishment Democrats have with runny-oatmeal campaigns lost elections to fight-dirty-fight-hard Republicans, and this should come as no surprise. Many observers have remarked that too many Dems campaign as if they don't really want to win, and I think here you've pegged the sort of thing that perpetuates this dynamic.
if I were a Clinton donor I'd want my money back.
Overpriced consultants, especially at that level, do more to screw up campaigns than they do to save them. Most of my friends and I have slaved away in the bowels of local, state and national campaigns and seen this over and over again.
Hell, most of us here could have given better advice than those scumbags did, and for a fraction of the price. And we'd have been happy to share the credit with everybody. It's too bad that the first formidable female presidential candidate is going down in flames because she lacked either the brains or the balls to fire these turds.
Amy Sullivan in Washington Monthly, on the vicious spiral of the "successful moron" class. See also the Great Orange Satan's book Crashing the Gate for an evisceration of these money-sponging lead weights which hang around the neck of political campaigns. Mark Penn is the spiritual heir of seven-time loser Bob Shrum.
When we ask for "better Democrats, please," it couldn't hurt to demand better consultants too.
D
For movie fans, I'll put it this way: I have more respect for these two guys than I do for Penn and Wolfson.
And you know which character that makes Hillary. 
Tanbark's right. This isn't Wolfson's fault, or Penn's fault; it's Hillary's, and it points out again what a tin ear she has for politics. And always has had.
I don't know if Obama is going to prove that he can handle the Republican campaign, or worse the Republican noise machine if he's elected. But I know for damn sure that Hillary has demonstrated almost ZERO aptitude for actually campaigning or governing. And her choice in advisors is telling.
Wolfson, Penn, Ickes, Berger and McAuliffe.......... just reminders that the country is ruled by factions, who change chairs once in a while. The Parties hardly exist really. Late Republican Rome reads much the same, with various 'strongmen' and followers.
That Hillary/Billary chose the same old, same old for yet another run doesn't say much for her thinking. Certainly, 'Change' ain't part of it. And it shows.
*adjusts tinfoil hat*
Not for the first time, I wonder how many of the bigwig Democratic consultants take money from the Elephascists to sabotage their employers?
Not for the first time, I wonder how many of the bigwig Democratic consultants take money from the Elephascists to sabotage their employers?
I've wondered the same thing, particularly given Penn's backdoor connections to McCain... it would certainly be a sweet deal for them, collecting millions in consulting fees from the Democratic candidates, win or lose, while accepting under-the-table payola to throw the game.
D
Bill, it would be hard for them to sabotage her, unless she was stupid enough to BE sabotaged.
At this point, it's been a long campaign for her. She's been running for years. By now she ought to know who's got a good head for reading what's going on; and who could fuck up a two-car funeral. :o)
Great post, as always LM.
I was never a Hillary supporter. In fact, I've said all along that I was an anybody but Hillary supporter during the primary.
First supporting Dodd, and then wavering between Edwards and Barack before voting for Obama on Super Tuesday.
To me, her campaign was the perfect counter-argument to one of the early, nearly weekly change of themes, that she was ready for Day One.
I'm feeling very vindicated right now. Effectively, she's come off in this campaign as the left-wing counterpoint to how Dumbya has been in the White House:
1. An inability to admit, and learn from mistakes.
If Hillary Clinton had done what John Edwards had done, and simply said in hindsight that it was a mistake to have voted for the Iraq war resolution, knowing what she knew now, I'd have been a lot more sympathetic to her.
Then she turns around and votes for the Iran resolution, not only showing me she's too small-minded to admit an error in judgment, but additionally verifying that she hasn't learned one god-damned thing in 4 years.
2. An over-loyalty to obviously inept subordinates.
I'm not a campaign manager, nor do I play one on TV, but I've been a close-follower of Presidential races since 1976.
Here's a note to aspiring Presidential campaign managers everywhere. Keeping your powder dry to only fight heavily in large states NEVER works, and NEVER WILL work.
The moment Penn, Wolfson, et al, suggested this as a strategy after New Hampshire should have been the moment she showed them all the door.
The fact that she didn't speaks volumes about her likely skills managing a cabinet and a vast Federal bureaucracy.
3. An inability to change political tactics or strategy in response to reality.
Frankly, this campaign went into Iowa with one edge, and one edge only: name recognition.
By Iowa, it was clear that Barack Obama was outraising her campaign in funds. It was clear he was going to be able to fight her to at least super Tuesday if only because he had the war chest.
It's not exactly shocking to Democrats that Barack Obama is a charismatic, dynamic speaker, with a compelling story to tell, and an ability to tell it the likes of which we haven't seen since JFK or FDR.
What the hell made her primary victory inevitable in the first place? For all the misogyny, and all vacuousness of the Corporate Media about her campaign, they were right about the state of her campaign very quickly on one level. She wasn't inevitable.
Iowa burst that bubble, and her campaign has done nothing but flail since. As was certain. Inevitability was a very thin reed to base a campaign on in the first place, particularly with what is the most pissed off, charged up electorate on the Democratic side I've ever seen.
She blew it, and blew it badly. Yes, she got bad advice from Penn and Wolfson, but I'd also suggest she got bad advice from Bill, and Carville, and Begala, and the rest of the Clintonites from the 90's as well.
4. Clinging too much to the experience myth.
I hate to say this, but the GOP got this one right. Like her or hate her, the vast majority of Hillary Clinton's political life has been the role of a political wife.
I know this is going to raise some anger among female readers, but if my wife were President, I wouldn't presume that my 8 years as "First Husband" would qualify me to run for President.
Did Eleanor's 13 years as First Lady make her a natural to run in 1948 to replace FDR?
Now I'm not knocking Hillary. She's well-educated. She's smart. She has a strong record of accomplishment on a lot of things outside of politics. She honestly has some policy ideas I like as well or better than some of Obama's.
But to pretend that her years as a wife to a governor in Arkansas, and her 8 years in the White House as first lady are some form of preparation for the Presidency, in the manner that she did, just never flew for me.
So what are you left with? A two term Senator who never faced a serious political race in her life, and on the two biggest issues she had to make a decision on (war with Iraq and Iran), she was dead wrong.
Then she has the ill fortune to run against a guy with more charisma and charm than any Presidential candidate in nearly 50 years.
It wasn't a fair fight, but let's face it, Hillary's campaign brought a knife into No Man's Land, the Somme, 1916. If this was how she was going to fight it, it's amazing she did this well.
Smart post Desert... and a very accurate appraisal of what we just witnessed.
As a feminist, I've been appalled at the media's treatment of Senator Clinton, as well as the "commertariat."
But that said, running for president on the legacy of playing the wife of a successful pol makes my skin crawl. I also object to her running as "Hiliary" and as not Senator Clinton. (Too many professional women get called by our first names, while our male colleagues get called "Mr." or "Dr." It really pisses me off). Running as "Hiliary" just sends out too mnay conflicting signals. "Hiliary" can't be presidential, just like "Bob" won't work.
I think Senator Clinton's odd political pedigree is what is stoking the generational divide among feminists, where our elders are backing Senator Clinton, whilst the under 45 crowd tilts sharply for Obama.
Clinton is the wrong candidate, running on the wrong platform (wife of successful pol), at the wrong time.
Okay, I have a nasty thought that I MUST get out of my head as it's been living there for a few days:
Maybe the ex-Clinton campaign managers can get a job more suited to their skills after the election.
I was thinking "fluffer" at the distinguished "Barnyard Gangbang" porn studios. I hear that Mssrs. "Muffgrubber" the pig and "Yeeha" the stallion need new staff, along with several yet-to-be-named chickens and the odd hamster or three.
Okay, sorry. Yes, I promise to leave work early today and go seek some professional help.
brat its good to hear form a feminist (and one that is reactign ratioanal from this situation...tyler marsh is not rational).
I would think that feminists would be appaled that Ms. Clinton is being called the first strong women canadate for president. She isn't the frist, and the ones that came before her where not riding their husbands coat tails.
I think the country is ready for a femal presidnt, and I think its soemthign that needs to happen. but the first one ought to be a women who has achived greatness in her own right and not based their craeeer on being someones wife.
$4.3 mil for being a complete and utter fuckup? Wow, that's almost half-way to fuck-you-money for a year or so of failure to perform. I want in on that racket!
It just occurred to me that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic answer to Mitt Romney -- both are the candidates of the corporate establishment, and both of them ran their campaigns the same way modern American corporations are run... and both of them squandered what were commanding leads a year ago into defeat. Sounds like the story of American corporate life over the past several decades.
sad thing is romny had the good sense to cut bait when it wasn't workign for the good of his party.
hillary isn't even on par with romney, that is low...
Commenting by HaloScan
