Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
PENN: OBAMA IS THE ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE NOW
On the Mark Penn/Howard Wolfson/Guy Cecil conference call right for Team Clinton. Following is a rough translation of some of Penn's remarks. Most interesting is his claim that Barack Obama is the "establishment candidate."
This is a contest that would be all but overall if it were winner-take-all contest [in the states]. We predicted we’d be ahead at this point and we are ahead. We won in blue states, we won in red states....There are some myth-busters…She won more people who decided on the very last day. Sen. Obama may have had some momentum going into the final days, but she had it among those who decided on the last day. This [Obama] momentum was broken and she bounced back to a significant victory here....
It’s often said she’s not winning in rural areas. She won rural districts in MO…and won youth vote in CA and MA....
The kinds of margins we saw in MI and FL were the kinds of margins we saw in the contested states. Those are states where we have very large margins. So, when they hear both messages…we see the kinds of margins we saw in places like MI and FL....
Overall people rejected an increasingly establishment-oriented campaign of Obama.
--Tom Schaller
UPDATE: By their count, and presumably Team Obama's, the delegate results from last night could be as close as a single delegate. Penn said at most one or the other will come out ahead by no more than six delegates. Just think about how tight that is.
COMMENTS (10)
"It’s often said she’s not winning in rural areas. She won rural districts in MO…and won youth vote in CA and MA...."
My, how convincing.
And nobody is going to bite on the "establishment = Obama" thing. The Clintons running an outsider insurgent campaign? This ain't 1992 anymore.
Posted by: Chris O. | February 6, 2008 10:55 AM
Hey, George Bush convinced people that the Harvard-educated, wealthy son of a former president was an outsider fighting against the elites. Penn must think it's worth a shot to try to brand Obama the establishment candidate.
Posted by: Jinchi | February 6, 2008 11:16 AM
Penn may be some sort of polling genius, but I'm shocked they keep putting him on TV. Every time he goes on TV the Clintons lose votes. One of the reasons my girlfriend (here in NY) voted for Obama was because she found Penn to be repulsive and couldn't fathom why Hillary would let a snakeoil salesman run her campaign.
Also, that spin is laughable. People rejected Obama? He won more delegates!
Posted by: matthewcc | February 6, 2008 11:17 AM
Like a boxer still awaiting the reading of the scorecards: arms above the head, posing like he knows he nailed it, but you see in his eyes how nervous he is. He knows this could go either way.
Posted by: Ulrik | February 6, 2008 11:19 AM
who knew pigs were so talented? I had no idea they could blow smoke out their asses.
Posted by: Passing Shot | February 6, 2008 11:34 AM
Hillary may have won the youth vote in CA but barely, and it's entirely attributable to her whomping Obama in the Latino vote. Remove that electorate and he whomps her in the youth vote every where I saw. Of course, he better start making up ground in the Latino vote or he'll never get TX which, imo, he'll need.
Agree with those above, I find Penn extremely distasteful and he just turns me off every time I see or hear him. Just put Wolfson out there.
Posted by: tom.a | February 6, 2008 12:04 PM
I don't know why you play into their spin by repeating their talking points verbatim, without even the cover of commentary. Even WITH commentary, it's usually reprehensible, for any candidate. If I want their spin, I'll go to their website.
Posted by: Eli | February 6, 2008 12:08 PM
This really really bothers me: website quotes a partisan operative of one camp; Poster says: hey, why no commentary because he is wrong in oh-so-many ways?
This is the Internet and you are not sheep: YOU are the commentary.
If I have to hear one more Hillary or Obama person WHINE that a post is too deferential to the other candidate, I am going to vote for Ron Paul, who we all know IS THE BESTEST CANDIDATE EVER.
Please, I assume everyone that reads this TAPPED,TPM, Carpetbagger and the like can and will, rebut bad spin when posted. That is whole point of the Internets for god's sake.
So, rebut and don't whine. Plus, EVERYONE that reads this page KNOWS that Penn is a tool, apart from being a Hillary partisan.
eric
Posted by: eric | February 6, 2008 12:18 PM
Most interesting is his claim that Barack Obama is the "establishment candidate."
Then what do you call it when a candidate is endorsed by the Establishment media, the Establishment politicians and the Establishment bloggers?
The Establishment Candidate.
You can't call Obama the Insurgent Candidate anymore. He's not even an underdog.
Posted by: corinne | February 6, 2008 1:09 PM
@Corinne: Sure Obama is not unlikely to win. But "establishment candidate" is a relative thing. Kucinich could've called Obama an establishment candidate. But being the undisputed uber-establishment candidate herself, Clinton can not.
Posted by: Ulrik | February 7, 2008 11:04 AM