Mark Penn, Chief Strategist for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, quoted in MSNBC's First Read, February 13, 2008:

"Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois?" Chief Strategist Mark Penn said. "That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."

More on Clinton's reckless strategy of ignoring small- and medium-sized states to come. In a Republican primary, such a strategy might have merit since their system is winner-take-all in most cases: win the big ones by 5 points, get marked as "inevitable" and conserve resources for the general election. But every Democratic primary state splits its delegation at least partially in proportion to votes cast.

And yeah, when you compete and lose in 10 states in a row, then have your campaign strategist telegraph that you don't care about any state other than California and New York, that goes over REALLY well in Wisconsin - a swing state that the Democratic nominee will probably need reasonably badly.

Mark Penn can suck my claw. HAT TIP to TPM.

UPDATE: Apparently Mark Penn thinks that winning primaries is not a qualification for a successful Presidential nominee, while Bill Clinton thinks that caucuses (where Obama has dominated) are not a reliable marker for a successful candidate either. The biggest slam against Hillary Clinton is that this moron Penn not only still has a paycheck but is trotted out to the media as a representative; her executive capacity is apparently weak in this instance. What kind of downer this guy is to Clinton's prospects for upcoming primaries small and large! And his strategy of ignoring small states and focusing only on a few that his Mark-ness found "significant" is a big part of why Clinton may be about to lose. A less competently, less inspiringly run campaign is difficult to imagine.

Mark Penn has made a massive amount of money from Team Penn, in the millions. I would be happy to be equally incompetent for much less money.