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.Now, Times readers are an educated bunch, but only a fraction will fully comprehend the subtext here. Penn, of course, was the head of the Clinton campaign until April, but in his telling, he was just an "outside message advisor" all along. So when he writes that the message wasn't the problem, he's exonerating himself, and when he points to the money and organization people, he's blaming Patti Solis Doyle and Harold Ickes. Self-serving as it is, this is an entirely predictable view for him to hold -- all the more so because Penn previewed this strategy months ago, when he told the Observer pretty much the exact same stuff. (Penn, always on message, even used some of the same turns of phrase. Then: "[E]very schoolchild knows that she is 'ready on day one.'" Now: "Even schoolchildren got the message that Mrs. Clinton was ready to be president on Day One.") But it's also clearly wrong, since all of these parts of the campaign are intertwined: The money and the organizing were clearly problems (as was the record), but you have to have money to organize, and you have to have a compelling message to raise money.
It's no surprise that Penn, having presided over the implosion of a campaign that was supposed to be a lock a year ago, would point fingers. His reputation is in tatters, and quite apart from any personal umbrage he may take, his reputation is his key business asset. I'm also not surprised that Penn would be less than forthright about his interests in an op-ed. My question is why the Times is playing along.
Crossposted
