Philly Inquirer: Clinton had no ground rules for Penn, even Rove had to give something up

[BeyondGeography]

The American Debate: The Clintons' wider problem
By Dick Polman

Inquirer National Political Columnist

The Clintons were reportedly shocked, shocked to learn last weekend that chief strategist Mark Penn had recently donned his other hat - as CEO of a global consulting firm - and sought to lobby on behalf of a client for a trade treaty that Hillary opposes on the campaign trail. The Clintons let it be known that they were "angry" with Penn, and . . . made it clear that Penn would no longer pilot Hillary's lurching ship.

Most voters don't really care when a campaign plays musical chairs with its personnel. As the chief executive officer of Burson-Marsteller, Penn is clearly a prominent figure among his far-flung corporate clients (including Countrywide Financial, our top mortgage lender; Blackwater Worldwide, the security mercenaries who have been blamed for deadly actions in Iraq; and Shell Oil, Pfizer and many others), but he is hardly a household name. . . . I am less interested in Penn than in what Penn's rise and fall tell us about Clinton herself, and about the boneheaded fundamentals of her campaign. Penn has not been the source of her woes, only a symptom.

Ever since her campaign was launched, she and Bill have condoned and tolerated Penn's dubious dual role. They appeared not to understand their own problem, that it might be difficult to sell Hillary as the candidate of "change" when their own chief strategist was so enmeshed in the special-interest world of Washington. Clearly, they never demanded that Penn, as a condition of his campaign employment, step down from his executive position and thus distance himself financially from clients whose business needs might clash with Hillary's political needs.

Heck, even Karl Rove did that. . . . Back in 1999, at the dawn of George W. Bush's excellent adventure, Rove sold off his Texas consulting firm and thus avoided all conflict-of-interest accusations during the subsequent campaign. One might have assumed that a Democratic candidate - who bills herself as a fighter against the special interests - would insist that Penn work out a similar arrangement. But no.

. . . At a time when Hillary's campaign may well hinge on whether she can bond successfully on April 22 with Pennsylvania's downtrodden workers, it didn't help that her chief strategist was trying to feather his own nest by working a trade deal deemed hurtful to workers.

So the Clintons' purported fury with Penn is badly misplaced. . . . They have only themselves to blame.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080409_The_American_Debate__The_Clintons__wider_problem.html

[redqueen]

1. Oops.

[JayFredMuggs]

2. Thanks for this link....

Tells us more about the Clinton's and gives us insight about how shallow their thinking is.

[Lucky 13]

3. Thanks for this article.

I have to believe this is a result of their own ARROGANCE not IGNORANCE... but either one on this magnitude is not a quality I want in a President.

[kevinmc]

4. So the Clintons' purported fury with Penn is badly misplaced. .... Kinda hard to say anything..

when Bill Clinton is doing the same thing. Which makes Hillary's position on Columbia even harder to believe.

[TahitiNut]

5. That pretty well sums it up, I think.

It's one thing to have arm's length business, social, or political relationships with folks whose closets contain skeletons, perhaps 'trusting' in the system to vett such folks more than it does. It's quite another thing to create a CLOSE (intimate?) political or business relationship with folks who are clearly engaged in activities posing a clear conflict of interest. That doesn't indicate anything close to sufficient care taken in ensuring that their behavior is completely consistent with the intent of the principal. Indeed, it suggests the very real possibility of two-faced stances and the hypocrisy of "plausible deniability." We're awash in such situations.

[KoKo]

8. I almost think he's saboutaged her Campaign from Day ONE...

If the Clintons hired him they must have learned much less from their years being "hunted by the RW" than we would have thought.

His positioning her to win in the first states leaving no money in case it didn't work out. Then the "3:00a.m. Call" Ad where "stock photo footage" was used and no one bothered to check out whether the kid in the ad might now be grown and have some opinions of her own. Experienced Ad Folks don't make that kind of mistake and they had enough money that they should have shot the ad with a kid whose parents supported the Clintons instead of using "old stock" video. Bill unleashed in SC...Bill popping off here and there where folks could be reminded of him pointing his finger waving in admonishment of someone or the other. All the missing money spent on donuts and catering and who knows what else that Solis-Doyle and her other handlers wasted....

Well...it just goes on and on seeming that either she and her staff are clueless and that they relied on Penn to just pull it all off without them having to do anything else. But, it still seems odd that he's made so many mistakes that have come at crucial times in her Campaign. No wonder Gore fired him. Maybe if he hadn't hired him in the first place his campaign would have been in better shape to fight back against the RW heaving their usual filth.

There's much I can like about Hillary's "pluck and persistence" but with the Bill Baggage and Penn and the rest...it's very hard to imagine that she could get elected in November if she can't manage her own campaign and the money involved in it more wisely than what she's shown..

[TahitiNut]

10. It's hard for me to attribute the screw-ups solely to ineptitude.

As a former internal auditor and analyst, I've never seen any operation plagued by such "errors" where there wasn't also some outright corruption. Sometimes the corruption is opportunistic - sometimes the chaos is a by-product of the inherent hypocrisy accompanying corruption. In a political campaign, if they cross the line and overtly discuss (internally) how to construct a false face or facade to 'sell' their product, then such duplicity has nothing to keep it from being pervasive. Too many politicians adopt the "don't get caught" and "damage control" attitude rather than the "don't do it in the first place" fundamental of integrity.

[dkf]

6. It beats me why Hillary doesn't understand the concept of "conflict of interest".

She is an awful awful manager.

[elehhhhna]

7. and a poor excuse for an attorney, also.

THEY are mvery familiar with conflict of interest issues, b'leeve me.

[HereSince1628]

9. R.I.G.H..T. How stupid does the Clinton camp think we are?

The big doggone is still a supporter of free trade.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/09/871004.aspx
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=80312
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/08/clinton-triangulation-on-colombian-free-trade-perhaps/
http://wonkette.com/377720/clintons-disagree-on-free-trade