home

My View: Mark Penn Must Go

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

As a supporter of NAFTA and free trade, I hope it is clear that my call for the firing of Mark Penn is not based on objections to a free trade agreement with Colombia, but because Penn (who I believe is an incompetent political operative) can not serve both Burson Marsteller and Hillary Clinton's campaign for President. He needs to go. Immediately.

< Irony DOA | New PA Poll: Hillary Ahead by 11 Points >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Typo, you mean "Colombia" the country. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Andy08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    not based on objections to a free trade agreement with Columbia,


    Thanks (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:12:22 PM EST
    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lyzurgyk on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:07:40 PM EST
    Whether Penn is too dumb to realize (which I doubt) or merely too greedy to care how the meeting was going to be spun,  this is unacceptable.

    Actually Hillary would likely get some traction out of canning him.

    I've never figured out how or why (none / 0) (#57)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:10:37 PM EST
    they thought having him continue on at Burson whilst working on the campaign could or would ever work.  If he had his own small boutique firm with a limited number of selected clients, that might have been an imaginable scenario, but we are talking Burson Marstellar here which on any given day is the largest public relations firms in the world with thousands of clients.

    It was only a matter of time before he ran into a conflict of interest here.  As it happens, this is generall why PR firms get fired - when they represent one client whose interest is directly opposed to another's - there is a delicate balance that the large firms have to strike on this front and while some opposing clients can coexist under the same firm's representation they never have the same personnel working both clients.

    Clinton has every right to fire Penn.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the company he represented at the meeting was considering firing Burson right now.

    Parent

    It seems like (none / 0) (#79)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:27:39 PM EST
    that traction would be strongly felt within the HRC campaign too.

    But, they may not want him as spiteful a loose cannon.  He has a long history with HRC.  For example it's been leaked that he personally conducted secret (even within his company) polling for HRC regarding a 2004 run.  He must know a few things that the HRC team would prefer to keep quite.  Otherwise, I can't understand why he wasn't gone a long time ago.  Recent campaign leaks have indicated that he is strongly disliked, and I can't say that the campaign strategy has been all that effective.

    Parent

    Oh boy. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:28:59 PM EST
    He really really needs to be fired. He should have never been hired. He should have been fired after Iowa, IMO. He's the fool that didn't think to campaign past 2/5 or in caucus states as well. This latest incident is yet another reason.

    Fire Penn 3 weeks before PA? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:09:05 PM EST
    I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense. It's business as usual, and people understand that.

    I don't care what anybody in the press or on the A list says, at this point. I'm betting most voters are with me on the press, and they don't read the A list (lucky them).

    Whatever new scandal the Obama Fan Base is going to start frothing and stamping about is but a pinprick to people's cynicism -- at least those who don't own wine-racks. All they want at the end of the day is a candidate who's a little bit better. I think that, under the radar, that's what could be happening. That's the deal that Hillary has to close. Is firing Mark Penn going to help that? No. Who wants to read a ton of "campaign in disarray" stories?

    Penn got the (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:52:43 AM EST
    Karl Rove endorsement. So, you know, go figure.

    I think if Hillary hasn't fired him by now, it just isn't going to happen.

    I know.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:05:15 PM EST
    ..actually if she did it would probably be weeks of negative publicity for her.

    Parent
    What negative publicity? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Korha on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:28:20 PM EST
    Everybody hates Mark Penn--the Clinton campaign, Clinton supporters, Obama supporters, and the media. When you have someone as clearly incompetent as Penn in charge of your campaign's strategy--a strategy which has been a colossal failure--and yet you keep him around as your most highly paid adviser, what does that say? I think Clinton could only get a round of positive publicity from firing him.

    This latest disaster is a perfect opportunity for her to do so.

    Parent

    Probable headlines if she fires Penn... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by magster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:39:24 PM EST
    "Clinton campaign in disarray"

    "Was he fired, or did he quit because Clinton broke?"

    "Clinton reacts to Obama's PA surge by firing Penn."

    "Mark Penn is really Elvis Presley" (Enquirer)

    Parent

    Definitely the media would (none / 0) (#42)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:45:59 PM EST
    report that the train has left the tracks, irrespective of fact-- truthiness would win. Look back at the reports of campaign disarray earlier this year. One would have presumed the campaign was sacrificing kittens in front of voters.

    however, I think the headline from the Enquirer would be 'Mark Penn child of Elvis and Cylon Caprica.'

    Parent

    Eh (none / 0) (#45)
    by Korha on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:48:03 PM EST
    I think a lot of people will be breathing a sign of relief that Penn is finally gone. It won't be perceived as a sign that the Clinton campaign is in disarray, it'll be perceived as the sign that Clinton has finally recognized that Penn is a disaster and that the campaign will be better run from now on.

    Seriously, everybody hates him. Ambinder:

    I've asked several Clinton aides and advisers for their reaction. Some declined to comment. Others responded with pejoratives, but since I don't print anonymous pejoratives as a policy, I will refrain from sharing them.

    It's true that other campaigns have consultants with day jobs. The closest analogy is that of Charlie Black, a senior McCain strategist who resigned from his lobbying/PR firm in order to devote his attention full-time to McCain. (The irony: Black's firm falls under the umbrella of Penn at Burson Marsteller.)

    One of the toughest tasks for a political journalist these days is to try and find someone in Clinton world who is willing to defend Mr. Penn or his sense of political optics.  



    Parent
    I think at this point you trade one or two (none / 0) (#73)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:07:24 PM EST
    bad new cycles, and I think that is the most it would be, for the future bad news cycles that he is going to produce.  I've said before that he needed to go.  He is a liability for her and I don't know what she is waiting for.

    Parent
    Not everyone (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    To think there is one lone person out there who doesn't hate Mark Penn.

    I have a picture of my two year old reading Microtrends.

    Parent

    I agree - but Penn can't go now (none / 0) (#77)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:06:51 PM EST
    Hillary doesn't need another "Dick Morris" traitor.


    Parent
    This might be a decent (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:08:57 PM EST
    excuse.

    Parent
    It's double embarrassing (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by magster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    when Clinton publicly criticized Obama for having advisors speak with foreign governments about trade agreements last month.

    Clinton's margin of error is so slight, the last thing she needs is her chief campaign strategist giving the Obama campaign a gift like this.

    Parent

    You sure? (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:40:42 PM EST
    From my view the party is suspicious...period.

    Shady is as shady does.

    Parent

    So did Obama fire (none / 0) (#40)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:44:43 PM EST
    Alan Goolsbee?

    Parent
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#60)
    by magster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    wasn't the original story debunked as a Canadian Conservative troublemaker making trouble (successfully)?

    Parent
    well the media debunks every story (none / 0) (#65)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:23:57 PM EST
    that is going against Obama..

    Parent
    No it was not debunked at all (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:24:09 PM EST
    For the record (none / 0) (#80)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:44:20 PM EST
    The original story was debunked on the following counts:
    When did contact occur
    Where did contact occur
    Who was said to be involved in the Canadian gov.
    What side initiated contact
    What form of contact, i.e. phone v in person
    What was said

    BO was justified to say that the story was inaccurate and not true.  To this point in time there has not been one false statement from BO regarding this NAFTA issue.

    Parent

    Final NAFTA story, it was only Obama (none / 0) (#81)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:24:13 PM EST
    Exactly right, not debunked.

    Latest story I saw was on March 7 when Prime Minister Harper's Office said Clinton never gave Canada secret assurances and that only Obama's campaign talked with them.  

    Parent

    No, it was true (none / 0) (#75)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:39:08 PM EST
    Don't you remember the notes that ended up coming out about the meeting?

    Parent
    double embarrassed who? (none / 0) (#59)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:12:09 PM EST
    Obama Adviser Recommends Keeping 60,000-80,000 Troops In Iraq Through 2010

    WASHINGTON -- A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

    The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."


    Parent

    I'm not happy about this... (none / 0) (#61)
    by magster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:19:36 PM EST
    The OpenLeft article on this states that this advisor has been pushing this residual force position as part of that guy's think tank since last fall, and that both he and the Obama campaign state that this position is not the Obama position.

    Still he advises Obama, so.....

    Parent

    that is the damage control statement (none / 0) (#63)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:22:40 PM EST
    Obama campaign state that this position is not the Obama position

    but everyone knows that Obama depends more on his advisers as he himself says..

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:52:52 AM EST
    This latest is completely unacceptable.

    give him a break gu;ys... (none / 0) (#3)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:54:00 AM EST
    Penn wasn't acting on Clinton's behalf. Was in role as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, an international communications and lobbying firm.

    The episode that embarrassed Obama was very different in both times, his adviser (financial, and foreign affairs) were representing HIM in their respective areas of expertize.

    That is my point (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:56:11 AM EST
    Time for a Consultants ethics panel? (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    I get you but that would be too much to ask for (none / 0) (#6)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:00:01 PM EST
    I mean he just lobbying for a firm.. does he have to pick one over the other.. that's HIS JOB!! that's what they do.. just like advertisement firms, lawyers they represent different clients, and the clients could be at the very ends of the spectrum!

    Parent
    Yes he does (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    Politics demands it. He is doing great harm to his client today.

    He must go. I am surprised I need to explain it to you.

    Parent

    But then what about Axelrod? (none / 0) (#8)
    by nell on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    He has all kinds of shady connections to business firms, such as Exelon, and much of his consulting is antithetical to what Obama promises...

    Parent
    I've said for some time (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:04:10 PM EST
    that the nuclear weapon for Hillary in PA is the fact that Axelrod worked for John Street, the very unpopular former mayor.

    Parent
    problem is media can only bring this kind of (none / 0) (#14)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    stuff .. and they choose to be silent in case of Obama... but why do we hush up the things on the Clinton side..

    Parent
    See the big picture. If you want to slam McCain (none / 0) (#22)
    by kindness on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:25:27 PM EST
    for his campaign being run and OWNED by lobbyists, then you have to send Penn packing for this.

    This isn't about tit for tat.  This is about doing what is right and more importantly, prepping your side to defeat McCain in November.

    Parent

    Add that his b&w grimmer strategies have ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:31:04 PM EST
    ... that his grimmer strategies went against the others who said that her strength in early victories came from Clinton being more herself instead of this stiff robotic 'commander-in-chief' focus he insisted on and which has become a bit of a joke, not helped by the Bosnia story.

      The 3am ad is possibly the most risible, especially placing her in a suit at 3am.  And now it's compounded by a 3am ad for economy news at 3am.  If this were SNL I would understand it, but Penn is going to be the main reason she fails.  It must be very difficult for the others to watch this.

      And it's clear his being forced out would result in a Dick Morris fuming of a public type to last for several decades.
    Why can't she just override him?   That she doesn't will tell more about her than it does about Penn since she's supposed to be the leader.  Enough already, she has to really take charge and perhaps think about authenticity more.  

    Parent

    asdf (none / 0) (#68)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:35:24 PM EST
    I can tell you that Penn's conflict of interest here is problematic for both Clinton and the Burson client he was representing based on my experience in the PR world.

    PR is a field where managing and avoiding client conflicts are a key component of an agency's competence.  Pepsi and Coke can't live under the same roof in PR.  Ford and GM will not work with firms that represent any of their competitors.  I could go on, but Penn of all people given his position and experience should have instinctively understood what the impact would have been for both clients when he attended that forum.  I'd fire him over this if he was my consultant.

    Parent

    We don't care about Mark Penn (none / 0) (#33)
    by Korha on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:38:15 PM EST
    He's a rich and privileged man who is ensconced in the financial and political elite of the most powerful country on earth. Whatever happens to him, and he may be the greatest guy ever (I doubt it) and maybe he's being unfairly slimed (I doubt it), but if even if that's all true, at the end of the day he'll be just fine driving around in his limo and making millions as the CEO of an international consulting firm. Okay?

    What matters here is that he is destroying the Clinton campaign. If you believe that Hillary Clinton will be the best President and is uniquely suited to positively effect the lives of real people around the world, then Mark Penn must be fired. She will never make it through the general election with this guy as her chief strategist.

    Parent

    Penn Bashers (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:06:14 PM EST
    All of you!

    Amen! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM EST


    Who's In Charge? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jaman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    That Clinton hired and continues to employ Penn only reinforces the fact that she is deeply in bed with the DLC pustule that has made the Democratic Party indistinguishable from the Republican Party.  Corporate money is the problem with our government and the Clintons' triangulation has debased Democratic principles in order to gain and retain power.

    That you do not blame Hillary for Penn and do not understand how using the corporate/lobbyist money and connections is antithetical to Democracy is sad.


    And Axelrod is a saint, right? (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:10:00 PM EST
    pffft.

    Parent
    pffft? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jaman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:33:40 PM EST
    No one is or has ever been a Saint, but compared to Penn, Axelrod looks pretty good!  People give money because they expect a return one way or another.  Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice--won't get fooled again!  Meet the new Clinton, same as the old Clinton. Triangulation = sold out.

    Parent
    He is a better political operative (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:34:53 PM EST
    but just as greedy.

    Parent
    You think (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:38:00 PM EST
    The media buying all of Axlrod's framing and none of Penn's has anything to do with that?

    Parent
    That's part of being a (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:41:04 PM EST
    political operative.

    Parent
    I think it's a decision (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:44:14 PM EST
    That the media makes.

    Parent
    Penn is a bad strategist (none / 0) (#36)
    by Korha on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:41:00 PM EST
    Period. He's also stupid.  

    Can you imagine Axelrod privately lobbying for a foreign government? If he did I would immediately advocate his firing as well. Absolutely unacceptable.

    Parent

    I love those (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:46:33 PM EST
    "Period, end of story" arguments about Penn.


    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#50)
    by Korha on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:57:00 PM EST
    You defend him then. His political record is incredibly bad, especially in contested democratic primaries.

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    I do admit he doesn't understand how to game a caucus and knows more about how to win a large states with a popular vote primary.


    Parent
    Now that is something (none / 0) (#21)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:14:41 PM EST
    that perhaps many of us, Clinton and Obama supporters alike, can come together on! He may have been technically competent, I don't know, but I don't think by and large his public appearances did Hillary many favors.

    Maybe that will be Obama's (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    Unifying theme.

    Post-Penn utopia.


    Parent

    The Next War? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:36:43 PM EST
    The Wall Street journal's Coverage Clinton Aide Met on Trade Deal
    The firm has a contract with the South American nation to promote congressional approval of the trade deal, among other things, according to filings with the Justice Department...

    The spokesman said he didn't know if Mr. Penn was representing Sen. Clinton or Burson-Marsteller, which signed a $300,000, one-year contract with the Colombian Embassy in March 2007 to work on behalf of the trade deal and anti-drug-trafficking initiatives, according to the Justice Department filings.

    No matter who's elected in November, the Permanent Government is more likely to push for military action against Venezuela than Iran. The implications of Penn's duplicitous role extend beyond trade.

    This is the kind of comment (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:43:38 PM EST
    That puts me in the position of defending things I'd otherwise not defend.

    BTD's point is that this is a PR issue for Clinton.

    I'd be inlined to agree with that if it wasn't for those who try to make something more out of it.

    Maybe that's what a PR issue is.  Making sure no one can ever muddy the issue and make something more of it.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:45:54 PM EST
    That is exactly right. BTW, politics is mostly PR.

    Parent
    There's a slippery slope here (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    Maybe Clinton can condemn the trip without disowning the man, eh?

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:54:11 PM EST
    Make him gone.

    Parent
    That's (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:57:01 PM EST
    Your view.

    I really wouldn't care either way.

    At least there won't be a bunch of consultants raising their hands to the sky claiming Penn's been lynched when he is.

    Parent

    then Obama should fire (none / 0) (#74)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:16:13 PM EST
    Austin Goolsbee and renounce and condemn Pastor Wright.  you may be right about Penn, but let's keep some consistency here.


    Parent
    Mostly PR until. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:23:32 PM EST
    the coffins come back.

    Parent
    Sure, if you ignore (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:46:58 PM EST
    Bill's funneling billions to the Colombian military, as well as dispatching DyneCorp mercenaries.

    Dynecorp is Republican for Blackwater.

    Parent

    This is dailykos hysteria (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    Period.


    Parent
    Im more a policy guy than Candidate, (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    so if this is hysteria, it's all mine.

    I've been posting questions about when  Colombia/Venezuela would become a campaign issue for months.

    (Interesting that Al Giordano, a staunch Chavez proponent ducked my querries on Obama's position in January in one of the 1st posts on The Field.)

     

    Parent

    MLK couldn't invade DoMinican Republic (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:29:39 PM EST
    "It took a President."

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:53:50 PM EST
    This is tin foil crazy stuff from you Ben. I expected better.

    Is Big Al Giordano feeding you this nonsense? Is Chavez still the saint in your eyes?

    Parent

    No, Al ducked when I asked 2 months ago. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:02:37 PM EST
    Keeping his Latin America work firewalled from his Obama advocacy.

    If you want to dig back, you'll find I was never a Chavez groupie, rather supporting him in context of US intervention.

    Parent

    Crazy to WORRY about intervention v Chavez? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:22:32 PM EST
    I don't claim there's no risk of military action with Obama either. This is one of the factors had me pushing Feingold to run 3 years ago, and made me the last Gravel holdout.

    Parent
    I'm with ya Ben.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    I'm of the opinion Hillary or Obama would bomb Quebec as president if they thought it would help their poll numbers.

    Parent
    LOYALTY above ALL else (none / 0) (#55)
    by jor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    Clinton, like other presidents, values loyalty above competence. Hence the Judas comment regarding Richardson. Its the only reason Penn sticks around. Its amusing, how this is trait is quietly swept under the rug around here.

    I thought Richardson's choice (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    Was both an incompetent choice and a disloyal choice.


    Parent
    What's wrong with Penn? (none / 0) (#69)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    He's the ideal campaign strategist for Clinton. Helps highlight her political experience and judgment. Demonstrates her political sympathies and general positioning. Dovetails nicely with her overall tactical vision. Where's the problem?

    I have never really liked Penn (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:43:04 PM EST
    Could Clinton survive unloading him right now though with the publicity that would go along with it for her?  I wish he would have gone a long time ago.

    I agree, he sucks. I would also get rid of... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    ...Maggie Williams and replace her with Teresa Vilmain, James Carville, or anyone that has track record of managing a political campaign. Maggie Williams doesn't -- she seems to be almost as bad Donna Brazille.  

    I have no opinion on Mark Penn (none / 0) (#72)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    but I am going to step in and advocate on behalf of the FTA with Colombia. First of all, let me disclose that I have Colombian citizenship having been born there. Most Americans have little knowledge of Colombia nor of Colombian realities. The reality is that the country has turned the corner and the long-standing civil war is on its last legs. The FARC is on the verge of defeat and only its life lines via Caracas and its drug trafficking keep it afloat. Apart from the recent death of Raul Reyes, two other members of the FARC secretariat have been killed, one by the FARC themselves in one of the most macabre events in the war. His body guards shot him in the head and then cut off his hand to show authorities that he had in fact been killed. Manuel Maralunda, the head of the FARC, is rumoured to be living in Venezuela having been forced to flee.

    President Uribe, who enjoys wide-spread popularity over 90% post the raid in Ecuador, has a carrot and stick approach to the insurgency (that in some form or another lasted since April 9, 1948). The carrot is that any guerrilla member can surrender and rejoin civil society at any time. Housing and job training form part of the offer. Crimes committed are not forgiven but can be worked off through public works. The stick is of course army offensive when and where appropriate. Until Uribe took office, we played defence. When attacked, we would respond. Now we actually attack.

    The FTA with Colombia has become lost inside the byzantine arena of Democratic Party politics. The argument is that Colombia allows or fails to protect trade unionists. Hardly the case. 26 trade unionists have been killed this year. The problem is not so much trade unions, Colombia has always had a vibrant trade union history, but that one union is tied to the Colombian Communist Party, the largest in Latin America outside Cuba, that has been infiltrated by the FARC. In 2002, two union leaders blew themselves up in Yumbo, Valle while building pipe bombs. That is the problem, some FARC members hide behind union shields.

    The image that Colombia is some sort of right wing dictatorship is so far removed from reality. Long a two party democracy, the country has suffered but two military govts the last from 1953-58. A new constitution in 1991 provided for direct election of governors and mayors. That has led to the breaking of the two party system. Uribe, who hails from the Liberal Party, ran as an independent and is the first non-Liberal or non-Conservative to ever win the Presidency. Bogota, a city of over 7 million people, now has its second leftist mayor in succession and the one prior was an independent who transformed Bogota which now ranks as the world's 13th most greenest city. The BRT system is considered the world's most efficient and modern. A subway has been started. The war in Colombia is now on cars, we have car-free days once a year with the aim to make them monthly. Our ciclovias, which close down 20% of all city roads nationwide on Sundays and holidays opening them up to cyclists, pedestrians offering free exercise classes, are model now being used in Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Spain, France and El Paso, Texas. The ciclovias are extraordinary. By bring people out into the street, they discovered civility.

    Colombia's export base once limited to coffee has rapidly diversified. We export flowers (70% of US roses come from Colombia), fruit especially bananas, underwear and clothing, coal, meat, and leather goods. If I have a worry about the FTA it would be as a Colombian, not as an American, would we be able to compete with American agriculture. Trade with Colombia is on the order of 2% of US trade. Trade with the US is on the order of 40% of Colombia trade. The danger is for us, not for you.

    The US needs to decide is Colombia an ally or not. To deny this FTA would send a signal to Colombians that our future lies elsewhere. Of course, the other thing you can do is legalize or at least decriminalize the drug trade. We are kind of tired of putting up the dead in a war that cannot be won. When the FARC is defeated someone else will rise to take over the drug traffic because the profits are so huge.

    What Hillary Said in Ohio (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jaman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:39:39 PM EST
     Clinton said, "If you come to Ohio and you go give speeches that are very critical of NAFTA... and then we find out that your chief economic adviser has gone to a foreign government and basically done the old wink-wink - 'Don't pay any attention, this is just political rhetoric' -- I think that raises serious questions."

    "I would ask you to look at this story and substitute my name for Sen. Obama's name and see what you would do with this story... Just ask yourself [what you would do] if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments."

    Mark Penn is not - as in the case that Senator Clinton cited on March 3 - an unpaid issues advisor, but, rather, the commander-in-chief of the Clinton campaign: the chief strategist, pollster, message czar, and the highest paid member of her campaign staff.

    I can't remember a presidential campaign in my lifetime in which the top strategist moonlighted for corporate accounts during the heat of the primaries (if that's really what he was doing with the Colombian ambassador, as claimed: note that the Embassy told the Journal that it didn't know which hat Penn was wearing). The conflict of interest is staggering.