Via TPM, we learn that Change To Win, the innovative and creative progressive labor coalition, is demanding that Hillary Clinton fire Mark Penn, the least popular staff member of any current presidential campaign. Why are they demanding this? Apart from the fact that they are a group of unions, and Penn has a reputation as a union buster? Apart from the fact that they are backing Obama, and this is just manna from heaven for Obama? Apart from all that, they are demanding this because SOMEBODY HAS TO. And I already did, but I don't have millions of members backing me up.
I can't believe I am writing this at this point. It's turning into Bush-Rumsfeld - she's refusing to fire a wildly unpopular staffer whose presence has become a lightning rod. I'm not the first person to make that comparison. Paul Begala made it, according to HuffPost. In public. Just how dysfunctional can all this get? Does Hillary actually enjoy this? Does she have some masochist streak that we don't know about?
Showing posts with label Mark Penn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Penn. Show all posts
Friday, April 11, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Clinton's language
The more I listen to Hillary, the more I realize she is the consummate politician. I'm honestly starting to wonder if she's capable of speaking in a straightforward way. Her answers to some questions on CNN about semi-firing Mark Penn illustrate this.
And then, as if she can't help herself, she goes into spin mode, and uses it as an opportunity to bash Obama.
And then she goes right into attacking Obama. Of course, this is all "as far as I know," so if she's wrong, she can claim that she didn't know. She mentions what the Obama campaign allegedly didn't do. The problem here is that no one will remember whether or not the Obama campaign did anything, because it's a trivial detail that's in the past. So she can paint Obama as not doing anything, because no one is going to challenge her. Whether or not that's true is irrelevant.
But the big whopper is where she sets up the contrast: one of Obama's top advisers, in this case, was "representing the campaign," whereas Mr. Penn was not. So, according to Hillary, this is the issue: an Obama staffer was duplicitous, so we can tag the Obama campaign, and the Senator himself, as duplicitous. But because Mark Penn wasn't representing the campaign, it's OK!
How absurd can you get? Someone in the Obama camp may have sent different signals to the Canadian government - I don't remember the details well enough. But even so, it's perfectly normal for politicians to send different signals through different channels. That's called diplomacy. But what Mark Penn did was qualitatively different, because he, as one person, took two different, diametrically opposed positions. As a top adviser for Hillary, he represents her campaign. But in his role as a lobbyist, he took a position, and was paid to lobby for it, that directly undermined Hillary's position. The fact that he wasn't representing the campaign is exactly the problem. He should have been representing the campaign. But, as Hillary spins it, not only is it not a problem, it's better than whatever Obama did!
I think I'm starting to understand her psychology. When confronted with a conflict or a contradiction, she just automatically thinks in terms of whatever is in her best interest, and how to turn it to her advantage. She doesn't think in terms of whether or not it's honest to say something. As long as she can say something that isn't technically a lie, she will.
""I don't think [it will hurt], because I think people want to know where I stand," Clinton said on CNN's American Morning, reiterating her opposition to a free trade agreement with the Colombians."But that's exactly the problem! People DON'T know where she stands. She takes one position, and a key advisor takes the exact opposite position. But instead of acknowledging the confusion, she just denies it.
And then, as if she can't help herself, she goes into spin mode, and uses it as an opportunity to bash Obama.
""I find it kind of curious, we took action, and I think it was appropriate," she continued. "Contrast that to Senator Obama's campaign where, as far as I know, nothing was ever done when one of his top economic advisers representing the campaign, unlike Mr. Penn who was not representing the campaign, but Mr. Obama's representative told the Canadian government basically not to pay any attention to what Senator Obama was saying about NAFTA.""The line "I find it kind of curious" is an interesting use of spin. The word "curious" suggests innocence, which is duplicitous. She's just "curious," that's all. She's just kind of wondering. No agenda on her part! She's making herself out to be the innocent party here. Ludicrous.
And then she goes right into attacking Obama. Of course, this is all "as far as I know," so if she's wrong, she can claim that she didn't know. She mentions what the Obama campaign allegedly didn't do. The problem here is that no one will remember whether or not the Obama campaign did anything, because it's a trivial detail that's in the past. So she can paint Obama as not doing anything, because no one is going to challenge her. Whether or not that's true is irrelevant.
But the big whopper is where she sets up the contrast: one of Obama's top advisers, in this case, was "representing the campaign," whereas Mr. Penn was not. So, according to Hillary, this is the issue: an Obama staffer was duplicitous, so we can tag the Obama campaign, and the Senator himself, as duplicitous. But because Mark Penn wasn't representing the campaign, it's OK!
How absurd can you get? Someone in the Obama camp may have sent different signals to the Canadian government - I don't remember the details well enough. But even so, it's perfectly normal for politicians to send different signals through different channels. That's called diplomacy. But what Mark Penn did was qualitatively different, because he, as one person, took two different, diametrically opposed positions. As a top adviser for Hillary, he represents her campaign. But in his role as a lobbyist, he took a position, and was paid to lobby for it, that directly undermined Hillary's position. The fact that he wasn't representing the campaign is exactly the problem. He should have been representing the campaign. But, as Hillary spins it, not only is it not a problem, it's better than whatever Obama did!
I think I'm starting to understand her psychology. When confronted with a conflict or a contradiction, she just automatically thinks in terms of whatever is in her best interest, and how to turn it to her advantage. She doesn't think in terms of whether or not it's honest to say something. As long as she can say something that isn't technically a lie, she will.
Penn should be completely out
Why does it take a governor of the state with the next primary (Ed Rendell) to make a blindingly obvious point like this?
No kidding. It's bizarre to me that this man is still in any way associated with her campaign. I cannot for the life of me imagine what benefit Hillary thinks she derives from having him still working for her. The man has no constituency, and all he does is piss people off by his mere presence. Her failure to completely fire him just indicates a failure of leadership on her part. I don't get it.
hat tip: Talking Points Memo
"Mark Penn shouldn't just be out of his job as chief strategist for Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, he should be cut off completely from her
operation, one of the senator's most important supporters says."
No kidding. It's bizarre to me that this man is still in any way associated with her campaign. I cannot for the life of me imagine what benefit Hillary thinks she derives from having him still working for her. The man has no constituency, and all he does is piss people off by his mere presence. Her failure to completely fire him just indicates a failure of leadership on her part. I don't get it.
hat tip: Talking Points Memo
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Mark Penn nonsense: utterly predictable, utterly preventable
So Mark Penn is gone from the Clinton campaign, with some helpful advice from unions finally getting Hillary to admit the blindingly obvious.
What is surprising about this mini-scandal is that it was utterly preventable. Clinton has been under pressure to fire him for months. If she didn't know that he was representing Colombia, she's either a fool or incompetent, and either raises yet more questions about her qualifications to be president.
What is surprising about this mini-scandal is that it was utterly preventable. Clinton has been under pressure to fire him for months. If she didn't know that he was representing Colombia, she's either a fool or incompetent, and either raises yet more questions about her qualifications to be president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)