Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist Mark Penn says he is getting a bum rap. The Burson-Marsteller CEO is presented on the cover of the New York Observer (March 3) as Clinton’s “Svengali.”

Penn rejects the notion that his “poll-obsessed, micro-targeting approach has produced a plodding and uninspiring campaign.”

He told Jason Horowitz that Hillary’s run is about “big goals, healthcare, ending the Iraq war, new energy and the future.”

The pollster is portrayed as a bare-knuckled advocate of “winning-is-everything.” His idea was to “take out” Barack Obama as soon as possible before the third-year Senator from Illinois could gain any traction in the Presidential race.

Penn, according to NYO, received a lot of pushback, especially from the press shop headed by Howard Wolfson who thought an attack on Obama would be counterproductive.

The NYO reports that Penn has been singed by news that his firm has billed the cash-strapped Clinton campaign more than $10M.

He says that number is misleading. That fee went for work covering voter contact and direct mail, noted Penn. “All of it goes to companies, not to me personally, and I do now own the companies, and they are part of a Fortune 500 company. Large teams of people are involved.”

Penn said Penn, Schoen & Berland’s consulting fees are capped at $240K a-year.
He believes Clinton is going to turn the race around in Ohio and Texas on March 4, but is willing to take responsibility in the event Clinton loses.

Slammed Like Piñata

The same Observer features an interview with Leon Panetta, President Clinton’s former chief of staff, who rips Hillary’s “clueless” campaign.

He likened Penn to Karl Rove, President Bush’s former political advisor, and dismissed him as a “political pollster of the past.”

Penn “comes from the old school,” where it is all about “dividing people into smaller groups rather than taking the broader approach that was needed,” according to Panetta, who is a member of Fleishman-Hillard’s international advisory board.

He faults the Clinton campaign for underestimating the widespread appeal of Obama and an overall lack of planning.

Panetta never considered Penn as “someone who would run a national campaign for the Presidency.”

N. Richard Lewis, President, Lewis & Associates, Los Angeles (2/28):
I think Hillary suffers from a lack of speech training and, considering the high quality of the idea content in her speeches, lackluster wordsmithing . There are no memorable phrases and she sounds like a shrill virago when she raises her voice for emphasis.

Thinkman2 (2/27):
Please tell Mr Penn that whining won't make it so! When you choose to play in the political sandbox, you are not always the winner.

Ex B-Mer (2/27):
The Hillary campaign reflects the typical big agency client experience these days: Lots of promises, "deep thinking" by "heavy breathers," huge invoices and, at the end of the month, tiny activity reports with little to show for where all that money went.

In Mark Penn's case, six months ago he had a proven winning product that couldn't miss and he somehow blew it for his client. That takes some real doing! I'll bet he now hopes B-M's big clients aren't watching.

As he always does, Frank Rich nailed it Sunday: "The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating."

Curiouser and curiouser (2/27):
It's all about hubris. Penn thinks he's a great strategist. Apparently not. If I were the big guys at WPP, I'd be awfully nervous about having the CEO of one of my biggest PR agencies doing such a miserable job, failing in public -- and worried that clients might wonder where Penn's attentions are -- with client accounts or with Hilary?

Ron Levy (2/27):
Penn is right because you can give an account advice that won't help -- even if the advice is brilliant and based on superb research -- if the account doesn't take the advice. "In title he was chief strategist," says the story," but "his authority has gradually been diluted by a variety of advisors all eager to push their own message. No one reported to him at headquarters, and many decisions had to go through [campaign manager] Ms. Solis Doyle."

Leon Panetta, a wonderful administrator and coordinator, faults Penn (who heads a competitor of Panetta's firm) for "dividing people into smaller groups rather than taking the broader approach that was needed."

But classical marketing management wisdom, taught at Wharton (where I went) and I'd guess at all top business schools, is that you analyze your market into segments and then target each market segment with a research-based appeal.

Also Panetta, though superbly bright, almost certainly didn't have the black book--the research findings--so he's in no position to judge what approach "was needed." "When you are in command, COMMAND," complains an anonymous source (there's often something detestable about anonymous accusers), but Penn was NOT in command. Solis Doyle was.

No one at headquarters, this story points out, reported to Penn. He may still win despite the troubles. Or he may lose because the opposing candidate is a better speaker--awesome and inspiring--and becaue Sen. Clinton voted for the war.

But the candidate can't also be the campaign manager, neither can the pollster and chief strategist, and it's the campaign manager more than any other staffer who's responsible for the outcome.

Dukakis was ahead by I think 17 points (this is from memory), but his campaign manager kept him off the tube for 11 days and nights so everyone could confer on strategy and nessages. When the 11-day period was over, so was the 17-point lead.