TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:20 PM
January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
12.06.2008
What Penn Got Right

Mark Penn makes a number of truly preposterous claims in his interview with GQ's Lisa DePaulo, one of which I'll get to in a second. But, for the moment, I'd just point out the one thing I think he got right. It has to do with the question of toughness versus humanity, which Penn touches on in this exchange:

Do you think we’d even be talking now if you hadn’t established her as capable of being commander in chief?
I think we wouldn’t have won any primaries anywhere if people didn’t feel comfortable with her being president.

And your polling showed that to be true?
Oh, absolutely. All polling showed that. All the exit polls. You look at the exit polls in New Hampshire, for example. The exit polls in New Hampshire showed that her readiness to be president, her ability to be commander in chief, were absolutely central to that vote. What I’ve always said was, it was about being strong and human. Right? People who wanted to emphasize the human qualities never had a strategy for her. They had a couple of random ideas.

Like?
Like put her mother on TV, okay? That’s not a strategy! [a little snort laugh] And I never opposed anything that would humanize her in addition. But to just run her as somebody—to say that the only thing that Hillary Clinton had to do to be president was to, you know, show some softness would have been a mistake. She would have gotten zero votes from men.

I agree with the Penn critics who say Hillary needed to show more of a human side. But I'd argue that she needed to show more of a human side only once she'd established herself as tough and up to the job. I don't think it would have served her well to build a campaign around "human" qualities from the get-go. (I doubt anyone was proposing to go quite that far, Penn's accusation notwithstanding. But certainly there were advisers willing to move too far in that direction, too quickly.)

The example I'd cite is New Hampshire. What made the choking up work for Hillary was the contrast with her iron-lady persona. People thought, "Oh, here's a tough woman who also has some very human emotions." If she hadn't first established her toughness, though, it would have made her the woman who cries under pressure, which is disastrous for a presidential candidate.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2008 5:26 PM with 6 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ackyri said:

Well observed, Noam. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

June 12, 2008 5:48 PM

michael said:

I'm not persuaded by "toughness versus humanity" or any revisionist tinkering. I only know Obama and his team and Hillary and her team had a year and a half to get it right.

It isn't as if they were tossed into this ring in April or May without a clue where they were or after Part I had a chance to start over with a clean slate.

This isn't even like a sport where victory hinged on an incomplete pass or a missed free throw or a base hit but it always sounds insulting when a loser searches for excuses instead of recognizing the superior opponent.  

June 12, 2008 5:51 PM

The Stump said:

As I say , there's lots to choose from in that GQ interview . At the top of my list is Penn's

June 12, 2008 5:54 PM

liberal reformer said:

This surely is correct, Noam. She had to empasize her toughness before she could be humanized.

June 12, 2008 5:56 PM

AlanSP said:

"I think we wouldn’t have won any primaries anywhere if people didn’t feel comfortable with her being president."

That's some top-notch analysis right there.  She wouldn't have won if people didn't feel comfortable with her winning the office? Fascinating! With keen insights like these, it's no wonder they were willing to pay him so much.

For a guy who says it was always about being "strong and human," he sure neglected one side of that equation.  He pushed "strong," and then when it was clear that wasn't going to cut it, he threw "petty" into the mix.  Every time that Hillary was magnanimous or warm, the story was always about Penn being opposed to it.  He actively suppressed the side of Hillary that we saw in the California debate, and in her endorsement of Obama.  The man genuinely doesn't get it.

June 12, 2008 6:04 PM

mmathog said:

Imagine if HRC had started say, oh, 18 months ago saying nothing but 'what we need in Washington is change, CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE,' and let her 'experience' be the secondary (and rather obvious) part of her case, does anyone think Obama would've gotten the necessary oxygen? He *might* have (she did vote for the Iraqi war authorization) but it woulda been a lot tougher for him.

Making her campaign about 'experience' made her defensive from the start, what's the point of that? If she could've wrested 50% of the 'change' mantra from Obama, then she could've pivoted to 'experience,' of course, perhaps not enough people would've been able to swallow such an obvious insider running on 'change,' but of course Bush managed to run as an 'outsider.'

June 12, 2008 7:33 PM