Mark Penn, the pollster who serves as Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, is a notorious spinner, but does he really expect us to accept the sort of claims he's making to justify Hillary's electability?
In a memo touting Clinton's electoral strength, Penn claimed that "Hillary Clinton has withstood the full brunt of [the "GOP attack machine"] and actually emerged stronger." "Stronger"? She has unfavorability ratings in the high 40s and the general election hasn't even begun.
Penn was later quoted making the following statement:
"She has consistently shown an electoral resiliency in difficult situations that have made her a winner," Mr. Penn said. "Senator Obama has in fact never had a serious Republican challenger."
While it's true that Obama has not had a serious GOP opponent in his state or federal campaigns, Hillary only has had one (Rick Lazio) during her two Senate campaigns. So how could she have "consistently shown an electoral resiliency in difficult situations"? There's only been one competitive race. I don't think "consistently" means what Penn thinks it means.