When you start reading stories like this, you know it’s over…
In an interview with The Observer, Mr. Panetta compared Mrs. Clintonâ€™s top strategist Mark Penn to Karl Rove, suggested that the Clinton campaign had totally underestimated Barack Obamaâ€™s appeal, and complained about the overall lack of planning that he said had characterized the former First Ladyâ€™s bid to return to the White House.
Mr. Panetta, who served as chief of staff in the White House from July 1994 to January 1997, and who has contributed $2000 to Mrs. Clintonâ€™s presidential campaign, complained that Mr. Penn â€œis a political pollster from the past.â€
â€I never considered him someone who would run a national campaign for the presidency,â€ he said.
He asserted that Mr. Penn â€œcomes from an old school, like Karl Roveâ€”itâ€™s all about dividing people into smaller groups rather than taking the broader approach that was needed.â€
I’ve said repeatedly that Mark Penn is just plain awful, and the fact that Hillary put him in such a high position suggests a serious lack of judgement. It’s good to see that Panetta agrees with the first part at least.
Also, if this is the type of judgement that comes from experience, well, maybe that experience ain’t too good…
â€œIt seems to me like they rolled the dice on Super Tuesday, thinking that would end it,â€ he said. â€œAnd when it didnâ€™t end it, they didnâ€™t have a plan. And when it came to the caucus states, they did have a planâ€”which was to ignore them. I think those were serious mistakes.â€
Seriously, if that was truly their “plan” there’s NO way Hillary deserves to be the nominee. No way, no how, good night, good luck.