The Logical End of Mark Penn: Every State Is Insignificant
Well, I suppose it had to come to this. We all knew, deep down, we all knew.
According to TPM's front page, Mark Penn has said the following:
Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries.
That's right, every state that holds a Democratic primary is insignificant.
You see, it doesn't matter who Democratic voters choose. Not in California, Illinois, New Mexico, Kansas, or Virginia. Because that process, the democratic one, isn't really well-suited to picking the best candidate; the candidate who'll win in November. And don't we want the best candidate? Of course we do! And so does Mark Penn.
Mark Penn sees, and this really is merely the logical endpoint of his recent comments, that elections are imperfect devices. They measure what people WANT more than what they need. What Mark Penn is damn sure they need. And what's that, what do we need in a candidate? Who can be sure? Who can know a mind as brilliant as Penn's? All we can say for certain is that what's best for America has a one hundred percent correlation with what's best for Mark Penn's wallet.
But don't let that distract you. The guru Penn has led us to where -- had we been clear-thinking as he -- we were always meant to go. The land where elections don't matter, where the voice of all states everywhere, Hillary supporting or Obama supporting, are irrelevant in the quest for a Democratic nominee. All that matters is electability, and primary voters can't be trusted.
Yes, it is the logical endpoint of a masterful argument against democracy. We have finally reached it. It is finished.
Let's hope the Hillary 2008 campaign is the logical endpoint of Mark Penn's career as a Democratic strategist.
But it makes sense; when you're the "inevitable" candidate, you shouldn't let little things like "voters" or "primaries" stand in your way. After all you've seen their "long view" - first Iowa was the goal, then it was Super Tuesday, later it was the Potomac Primaries, then all her chips were in Wisconsin, then we were told of a big stand in Texas and Ohio, two days ago they said they knew all along that it will come down to a showdown in Puerto Rico and now suddenly primaries are "insignificant" and what really counts is a floor fight at the convention.
Essentially, I think what Penn really means is that any state that doesn't support Sen. Clinton is insignificant. Rather, any loss at all is insignificant because she'll take the Oval Office by coup d'etat if the "insignificant" voters come together in preference of either Obama or McCain come November.
I know we're supposed to detest Noonan, but her Rasputin comparison is looking more and more prophetic.
February 17, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can see where this is going.
Primaries allow the uninitiated masses to have a say. Instead, we should put that choice in the hands of Superdelegates.
That's going to be next: Set aside the primaries. After all, what good is democracy? Democrats should instead have Oligarchy.
Instead of Dems we can be Ollie's. Oligarchans it is!
Mark Penn will endorse oligarchy.
♪♪♪
February 17, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
These talking points are so idiotic. Like going on and on about disenfranchising FL and MI voters--except counting those votes would be much more disenfranchising in general. I just don't see how people come out of these meetings and say, "yes, yes, that's a good idea!" And if Hillary does survive the nomination, she's going to need the small states, the caucus states, black voters. Seriously, what the hell?
I do hope if she does make it to the general she kicks this guy out.
February 17, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink