"Hillary's Rove" Comes Through for Blackwater

[G_j]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/hillarys-rove-comes-th_b_68688.html


RJ Eskow

Have we just had a taste of how influence might be wielded under a Clinton II Administration? In a very successful week for its most notorious client, Mark Penn's firm was able to get Blackwater CEO Erik Prince several major television appearances. Lob-ball questions were included at no extra charge.

Democrats have waited years for a consultant that can play the media as well as the GOP can. Unfortunately, most of them had hoped it would be for a better cause. And even if this is all coincidence, Mr. Penn's continued leadership of Burson-Marsteller - and the firm's indiscriminate choice of clients - creates a serious perception problem in a time when voters are yearning for change.

It makes sense that 60 Minutes and other news shows would offer Prince prominent spots, and would hit the talking points he and his PR firm want them to hit. After all, Hillary could be the next President of the United States. Who wants to get on the bad side of the man so many are describing as "Hillary's Rove," especially this early in the election season?

The sometimes-formidable Lara Logan offered a soft venue for Prince's unverifiable denials of the mass shooting in Iraq - denials that contradict both eyewitnesses and the United States military. (The State Department and the FBI are stonewalling the military and freezing them out of the investigation - presumably so they can prepare a more politically-influenced report).

..more..

[leftchick]

1. "That should give her supporters - and other Democrats - pause"

it gives me more than pause, it makes me ill to see the same bullshit connections wrapped up in "democratic" clothing.

<snip>

Lara Logan and Charlie Rose are good at what they do, so what other explanation can there be for these gauzy, soft-focus appearances? As for Mark Penn, the Clinton campaign's argument is that he's not involved in the Blackwater account. Really? He's the CEO. Nothing happens there unless he wants it to happen. (The Clinton campaign also maintains that the Blackwater engagement ended recently, although no dates were provided.)

<snip>

As for the Clinton campaign, they're letting this issue fester. That should give her supporters - and other Democrats - pause. The best way to address the problem would be to insist that her chief strategist take a leave of absence from his corporate job, and to act forcefully to ensure that the campaign's leaders avoid either the substance or the appearance of impropriety.

[Solly Mack]

2. k&r

[charlie]

3. Fred Thompson's wife worked for Burson-Marsteller

And his current campaign finance director was once their CEO.

These politicos are so fucking cozy together, they can't be sure whose ass they're scratching when they rub an itch.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. How low will HuffPo go?

Any excuse, no matter how honest, to smear Clinton.
OK, OK, so HuffPo hates the Clintons... we get it already...

[Vanje]

6. So you 're not crazy about the messenger

Do you have any thoughts on the message?

[Lerkfish]

7. is the information inaccurate?

should we avoid any information just because it will offend her supporters?
I think EVERY candidate should be scrutinized.

[roguevalley]

19. Ignore supporters. People can be sheep on both sides. Always

follow the truth. Always.

[Lerkfish]

23. right. I agree. We don't need supporters to obstruct the truth.

[creeksneakers2]

27. There really is no information at the core of the article to refute

Its just assumptions based on nothing that Mark Penn had anything to do with the Blackwater interviews. Blackwater was a client of a public relations firm that is owned by a company Penn runs which in turn is owned by another company. The companies insist that they exist as separate entities. I think I read that Penn is basically just in charge of the Microsoft account now and puts in little time at the agency.

Anyway, there's no proof that the distantly related public relations company even still has Blackwater as a client.

The only connection to Hillary is guilt by association by association by association by association.

[eridani]

32. You mean like all those Enron entities doing business with each other? n/t

[mod mom]

8. So we should ignore the facts on Penn since it might smear Clinton? I don't think so.

If you have information that disputes Huff Po please share, however a swipe at Huff Po without back-up sounds like Clinton desperation to moi.

[mod mom]

9. Better question: How low will Clinton staffers go in choosing the almighty $ over integrity?

[Lerkfish]

10. i expect them to advocate for their candidate. However, its unrealistic for them

to demand we not discuss their candidate in a critical light.

THEY are the disciples, we are not.

[mod mom]

18. I would think if a candidate knew of Penn's background they would remove him.

Hasn't happened.

[havocmom]

13. If the media and pundits had done an HONEST job reporting about bush in 2000...

Now, some here don't want them to do honest reporting on today's candidates?

:wtf:

It was bad not to report throughly on bush but it is bad TO report throughly on HRC?

How is that logic an improvement?

[Ian_rd]

28. I think Methuan is being ironic

"... no matter how honest ..." Hehe, I like it.

The Hillbots are noticeably absent from this thread. I said it before and I'll say it again - the Hillary supporters are behaving more and more like Bush supporters in their ability to shield themselves from negative reports about their beloved hero, and when they do respond it is often without substance to the issue at hand. The other post on this thread about how they would react if this were a Republican is dead-on - they would be pissed and rightfully so.

If all of Hillary's statements, votes, and money sources could be applied to a Republican, everyone on this board would be strongly opposed to him or her. But because it's Hillary, there are many who simply fall into worship mode.

[waiting for hope]

30. Really? There have been

a few that are not so keen on Obama, Edwards, and others on HuffPost. Cherry picking at it's finest and it does work both ways.

[H2O Man]

5. Interesting.

Thanks for posting this.

Nominated.

[backscatter712]

11. Explain to me why people are still supporting Clinton?

I'm sorry but the Mark Penn scandal was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. If Clinton's going to hire one of Blackwater's shills, I won't trust her with the powers of the Presidency.

[robinlynne]

17. I don't get it. I really don't.

[Le Taz Hot]

12. K & R.

How do you support this?????? If these were Republicans, the Clinton apologists on this board would be jumping up and down. Talk about a double standard!

[leftchick]

14. I agree and it is disturbing to say the least

it is very clear now that a clinton presidency will be no better than the shit we have suffered with the last 7 years. From her foreign policy to her power hunger. Does anyone honestly believe she would give up any of the executive power enhancement that the chimp has aquired for the oval office? Look out for queen hillary!

[G_j]

25. I know

I find it extremely disheartening. :cry:

[robinlynne]

15. agreed.

[robinlynne]

16. k&r. She should publicly leave Mark Penn and distance herself. Positioning herself

with republican criminal enterprises is not a good start for a democrat.

[frylock]

20. *crickets*

Zandor? Elmer?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

21. You are SOOOOO bad!

And I love it! :D

[havocmom]

29. Hmm, supper time and still nuttin...

[jgraz]

31. It's not a "Hillary is ahead in some random poll" thread

Post one of those and they'll show up like flies on a dog turd.

[hedgehog]

22. More info about Mark Penn

from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901661.html

[Swamp Rat]

24. k&r

[me b zola]

26. k&r