What a cop-out! Hillary and her hangers-on have blamed Bill Clinton, Mark Penn, Solis Doyle, the youth, caucuses, blacks, liberals, college educated, Republicans, Independants, Mike Henry, donors etc...At what point do they face the fact that Hillary just isn't a very good candidate. Blame Hillary.

The choice of Clinton campaign chief strategist may matter to some, but I am hard pressed to think of many TNR bloggers to whom it will make a significant difference. For them, Clinton can never make the right move, no matter what she chooses to do.

jkolic, no I disagree, if she had people who advised her to campaign hard in the caucus states, and had someone who used the money more wisely Obama would already be out by now. Obama winning by 50 percentage points in Idaho has absolutely no basis in reality, to allow that to happen is the fault of the campaign staff (indirectly the fault of Hillary I agree for choosing the wrong person, but the primary fault does belong with whoever it was who said ignore the caucus states, we don't need them, my understanding was that it was Penn).

I don't think she is a terrible candidate, just that at key points they made some terrible choices, and compounded those mistakes by trying to justify those mistakes as having something to do with principles (like losing caucus states and then saying caucus states are undemocratic and not important). Mark Penn seemed to have been behind this theme as well under the bizarre assumption that these two wrongs make a right.

“Geoff Garin is the straightest shooter,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, one of many Democratic senators Mr. Garin has advised. “He doesn’t try to shift the numbers or slant the numbers to buttress his argument.”

I honestly believe if he had been in charge from the beginning, Hillary would be the nominee.

Winning the nomination hasn't been a realistic possibility for some time now, but that's beside the point.  The less Mark Penn is involved in the campaign, the better for Clinton and her staff (and, as you point out, the better for Obama).  It's too late to undo all of the harm he's caused, but replacing somebody who is divisive within the campaign and incompetent to boot is still a good thing.  I was ecstatic when the Sixers finally fired Billy King, even though I knew that much of the damage had already been done.

blackton,

I actually kind of doubt that Penn was responsible for the lack of organization in caucus states.  His shameless "caucus states don't matter" argument was probably generated after the fact.  My impression is that Penn was heavily involved in the air war (messaging, advertising, etc.), but not the ground war (voter mobilization efforts), and the latter is what really failed Clinton in the caucus states.  Penn hurt the campaign in many ways, but I don't think the lack of an organized ground game is really attributable to him.

This is like pulling your starting pitcher in the seventh inning after he's given up 11 runs.

Alan, thanks. As I said I am not sure who does what there, anyway, whoever said ignore places like Idaho should also be fired. Unless it was Solis, who already has been.

Blackton, perhaps it was the candidate herself.

I have always liked HIllary more than her campaign/staff. Indeed, had it not been for some of the campaign behavior, I'd still like her a great deal.

Is there actually a "void" to fill? As I understand it, Penn is still effectively with the campaign.

I second miceelf. But when it really went down hill for Hillary (in my opinion) was when it became apparent that she didn't just tolerate these jackasses., she actually listened to them. It really says something about someone if they're willing to go along with these awful tactics.

Her dice were tossed or shot or rolled or thrown.  Her die was cast.  Maybe if she reinvents herself but then fails to escape her reality, 'her dies were cast,' but that's a stretch.

Thanks for linking me to this great piece, Noam, but you should have highlighted the humiliating first passage:

***************************************************

On a conference call among high-level Clinton staffers on the morning of April 7, longtime adviser Mark Penn was arguing about a proposed advertisement for Hillary Clinton.

“Mark, Mark, Mark,” said Geoff Garin, a pollster who had taken over some of Mr. Penn’s duties as chief strategist, as Mr. Penn continued to press his point. “A decision has already been made.”

**************************************************

Once Obama emerged as a credible alternative, there was no way HRC was going to win those caucus states. The party's hardcore activists, college graduates who will spend four hours at a caucus, just is not her demographic.  They're 70-30 for Obama. That's neither good or bad, it just is. She needed to take him out earlier in the process.

Blackton - fair point. My comment chiefly refers to those who have harbored visceral hatred towards the Clintons at the very beginning of her campaign (some of the TNR bloggers included). I do agree, though, that she has handled her presidential bid in a less-than-savvy fashion and cannot really argue the justice of observations you have made in your post.

I have never harbored visceral hatred for Hillary.  When she was first elected as my senator, I was very pleased.  But, for a long time I have directly and unequivocally disliked her for political behavior that I find repellent.  I have also held for a long time a low opinion of her political skills, fully borne out by her many failures in the course of this campaign.  My former dislike has also turned lately to intense dislike bordering on detestation based on her even more repellent behavior during this campaign.  Nothing visceral about it.  The implication of visceral is unthinking.  I have thought about it plenty and find much about Hillary to dislike.