Penn Firing Comes Too Late
Mark Penn leaving the Clinton campaign, sort of, is likely too late to help her.
WaPo:
Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Penn had met with Colombia's ambassador to the United States to discuss promotion of a free-trade agreement, one that Clinton opposes. Penn apologized Friday for an "error in judgment," and the Colombian government responded a day later by firing [Penn's company] Burson-Marsteller.
NYT:
Mr. Penn devised the plan to focus on a limited number of big state primaries, ignoring many smaller states and caucuses, where Mr. Obama built what appears to be an impregnable lead in pledged delegates.
...
Mr. Penn and his business partner, Doug Schoen, began their polling firm in 1977 when they worked for Edward I. Koch’s campaign for mayor of New York. They went on to become deeply involved in campaigns for politicians in other countries, including Menachem Begin in Israel in 1981.
...
Mr. Penn advocated that Democrats did best when they campaigned from the center, although this did not always sit well with others in the party. His clients have included the Democratic Leadership Council and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, defeated in his Democratic primary and now an independent.
Penn was one of the the best arguments Obama had against Clinton within the Democratic Party. She would have been better advised to run from the left than from the center. She is more left to Obama in several serious issues, like healthcare, and should have used that more effectivly.
But anyway - the primary race is over (and I am not happy with the result.)
As Kos wrote (before the Penn firing):
No one can persuade Clinton to get out of the primary race. But by any metric imaginable, Obama has already won. The superdelegates aren't self-destructive enough to change that, and the sooner they line up behind Obama, the sooner Democrats can focus their fire on the real target: John McCain. Clinton can stick around, but the rest of the party will move on without her.
Posted by b on April 7, 2008 at 5:08 UTC | Permalink
"and I am not happy with the result."
Can you clarify? You would have preferred Clinton? or some other candidate?
AIPAC lobby seems very nervous about Obama. I wonder who they'll support now that the choice is between McCain and Obama.
Posted by: swio | Apr 7 2008 6:12 utc | 2
Josh Marshall gave a snippet from the announcment by Maggie Williams that Penn (i.e. his lobbying firm) would continue in polling and advice functions. But then, one of the two taking over the strategic side, Garin, is a pollster, so what's up? Marshall's take is that, "...if he was really sacked, the sacking announcement sort of reads like he helped draft it."
Sigh, a poor Joe Blow citizen like me is left once again with the option of not voting for the worst candidate, but a candidate that leaves a bad taste in his mouth, a third party candidate -- or not voting at all.
That last is probably why the voting % in the United State of Arrogance is among if not the lowest in Westworld.
Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Apr 7 2008 6:37 utc | 3
Can you clarify? You would have preferred Clinton? or some other candidate?
Me? Clinton? No way ... - No, I certainly would have prefered someone not on the list at all - or a Paul/Gavel team. I have serious problems with Obama's foreign policy. A Samantha Power "Do Gooder" imperialist under the flag of "preventing genozide" or whatever.
What's keeping him from taking on Sen. McCain?
He is, haven't you noticed? I don't think he is worried about Clinton anymore. He is fundraising for the general election.
- Kos said so.
Sore loser?
Posted by: | Apr 7 2008 8:46 utc | 5
The French just fired Gen. Gamelin. Pity about the Northen Group of Poilous. Now Gen. Weygand, do something about those Panzers at Lille and the Somme.
Posted by: John Shreffler | Apr 7 2008 9:05 utc | 6
From what I read of him, I would suppose B would have preferred Kucinich, or at worst Edwards, rather than Obama and Clinton, notably due to their economic and foreign policies. Obama was smart or wise enough to see Iraq was foolish, he's not necessarily for invading Iran but one can't rule out a war if he's elected, and his "bomb Pakistan" is worrying. I suppose his main undoing in foreign policies would come from the fact that he's buying the American exceptionalism - which shouldn't be surprising since his personal story would tend to confirm it at his personal level.
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Apr 7 2008 9:21 utc | 7
Coke or Pepsi... er, well, in this case, Coke or diet Coke.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 7 2008 15:13 utc | 8
@5
You ask if I'm a sore loser. Last year I was hoping that Al Gore would run for the nomination, he didn't. I can't say I feel "sore" about that. I was supporting John Edwards last fall and through January, he dropped out. I can't say that I feel "sore" about that.
I voted for Hillary Clinton in my home state's primary, she won it but I can't say that did much for my sense of comfort one way or the other.
Clinton is definitely behind in the race for the nomination. If she loses will I feel "sore"? The meaning of the word "sore" is a little vague but I guess my answer would be no. At this point I'm sure Barack Obama can not win in the general election and I doubt Clinton can win in the general election. I would prefer to see the Democratic convention nominate Al Gore.
What about you? You sound like someone who thinks they are backing a winner. Do you derive some boost in your self-esteem from that? When your "team" wins do you enjoy taunting the fans of the loser? I say hey, go for it...that's who you are. You're no doubt past that point in your life when you are likely to make any fundamental changes in the way you interact with others so you might as well indulge yourself in what pleases you.
Posted by: CMike | Apr 7 2008 18:09 utc | 9
You sound like someone who thinks they are backing a winner. Do you derive some boost in your self-esteem from that? When your "team" wins do you enjoy taunting the fans of the loser? I say hey, go for it...that's who you are. You're no doubt past that point in your life when you are likely to make any fundamental changes in the way you interact with others so you might as well indulge yourself in what pleases you.
thank you for sharing. i find it extremely revealing.
Posted by: annie | Apr 7 2008 19:22 utc | 10
Wow, people seem a little testy today. I think Uncle has it right, and from personal experience I can say it's liberating once you realize there is very little difference between the different product lines...er, I mean party lines.
Another key to understanding the political process here is to realize that most Americans have absolutely zero ability to remember anything that happened in the past. It's not the UNITED STATES OF ARROGANCE, but the UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA. A lot of people actually believe either democratic candidate is going to bring the troops home. HA! Just look how gutsy Nancy and her scurrying little pack of weasels acted after the clear mandate that got them into the majority in 2006 was to BRING HOME THE TROOPS.
I think at this point Hillary might just try to bring down the ceiling on the entire party, clearing a path for McCain, (who will have a "heart attack" in his first year so whatever vile beast gets selected as VP can seize the reigns) driving the country further into the abyss, so that by 2012 we will be begging for Queen Hillary to take the royal scepter for herself.
That is of course if the aliens haven't arrived yet to give us THE BIG REVEAL that earth is like one of their favorite comedy channels on their galactic cable package, so they have decided to intercede in order to save us from ourselves to keep us broadcasting, maybe just at a lower frequency or something.
Seems more plausible than changing a totally diseased system that feeds parasites like central banks and international monetary funds.
Posted by: Lizard | Apr 7 2008 21:05 utc | 11
righton lizard! lots of money quotes in that post.
I wonder who they'll support now that the choice is between McCain and Obama.
#2 i think this signals a boost for the baker boys, either way. they (mc and obama) may talk the talk but i think both of them are what some people refer to as 'realists'. nobody running is getting us out of the ME.
the competition going on between imperialist/fascists and the imperialist/neocon/fascist is asking us to decide which form of suicide we prefer when there is no consensus we want to die.
Posted by: annie | Apr 7 2008 21:37 utc | 12
I wasn't going to comment, more but, lol @Lizard...
First out loud laugh I've had today, thanks...
Couldn't help but be reminded of Perry Ferrell's (Of 'Jane's Addiction' fame) and even later his 'Porno For Pyros' project:
Pets
Children are innocent
A teenager's fucked up in the head
Adults are even more fucked up
And elderlies are like children
Will there be another race
To come along and take over for us?
Maybe martians could do
Better than we've done
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
My friend says we're like the dinosaurs
Only we are doing ourselves in
Much faster than they
Ever did
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We will make great pets
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We will make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
Porno For Pyros Pets lyrics
Sing along kid's, We'll make great pets!
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 7 2008 23:43 utc | 13
Salon on Cashing in on the Clinton campaign
It should have been easy to predict, in retrospect, that Mark Penn would get himself into trouble for moonlighting while he served as Hillary Clinton's chief strategist. After all, his firm had billed only $14 million for his work on the campaign. How's a guy supposed to live on that?The system is insane ...
...
Consultants typically take a percentage of the money a candidate spends on whatever service it is they provide. Media consultants make more whenever they convince their clients they need to cut another ad, pollsters make a profit on each survey, and so on. Penn's counterpart as chief strategist on Barack Obama's campaign, David Axelrod, has seen at least $1.2 million paid to his Chicago-based firm, where David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, was a partner until he left to go work for the campaign. (Plouffe makes $12,000 a month in salary.) Obama has paid his chief pollster, Joel Benenson, $635,000 so far. Bob Shrum made at least $6 million for not getting John Kerry elected president four years ago. Raise your hand if you think you could have accomplished the same job for less.
...
Maybe the whole Penn saga will encourage some donors to contact campaigns to demand more accountability regarding overpaid consultants. As for Penn himself, he isn't even really departing. He may be out as chief strategist, but reportedly he'll keep providing polls and advice to Clinton.
The comments to this entry are closed.
If Sen. Obama has won the primary race what's keeping him from taking on Sen. McCain? Surely no one is going to suggest that if Sen. Obama doesn't keep running against Sen. Clinton he won't win the primary race because he's already won it - Kos said so.
Posted by: CMike | Apr 7 2008 6:00 utc | 1