by publius
The Obama campaign Unions supporting Obama called for Clinton to fire Mark Penn for meeting (in his "independent" capacity as a lobbyist) with Colombian officials to help enact a trade agreement that Clinton opposes. Personally, I think the unions are Obama is on the wrong side of this issue. It's vital for Obama that Penn remain in his current spot. If he's fired, the Clinton campaign might be forced to hire a competent strategist.
Accordingly, Obama the unions should have said something like this: "We are of course disturbed that Mark Penn would lobby for a trade agreement Senator Clinton opposes. But hey, everyone makes mistakes. No biggie. Clinton should not be punished for this momentary lapse of judgment with the loss of a such a trusted advisor."
is it the Obama campaign demanding this, or a coalition that happens to support Obama?
Posted by: brett | April 05, 2008 at 01:25 PM
yep - fixed. thanks
Posted by: publius | April 05, 2008 at 01:46 PM
"Mark Penn: The Dick Morris of the New Millennium"
Posted by: rob! | April 05, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Hey, now. An academic that plays a peripheral role in the Obama campaign wrote a paper few people will read that disagrees with the candidate on Iraq policy. Surely we can all agree that that is much worse than your chief strategist having a meeting, that hopefully *no* one will hear of, with a foreign government to push a policy that the candidate disagrees with. I mean, the academic probably already has tenure; Mark Penn has a family to feed on the near minimum wages that high-powered lobbying generate.
Posted by: J. Michael Neal | April 05, 2008 at 02:40 PM
This was the moment I started thinking of him as Slimeball. (ObWi is half-way down the first Google page for “Mark Penn cocaine)”.
I don’t think of it as a loss for her campaign but a gain for the Democratic Party, and I think we should all take that view. Obama can survive his loss, and in fact as the Democratic candidate can only benefit in the Fall from Penn’s departure now.
Good-bye Toxic Penn, Hello Democratic Party and welcome back from the brink. We was worried.
Posted by: felix culpa | April 05, 2008 at 04:13 PM
The Columbian's (who like the Obamaites) can't take a joke have already fired Penn:
Posted by: Jay Jerome | April 05, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Roy Neel was a competent strategist, but after Trippi let Dean get past the point of no return it didn't make a difference. Penn has already porked the pooch in this case. Getting a patch kit to the Titanic crew in 1985 wouldn't have done them too much good, either.
She could get the hybrid offspring of Lee Atwater and Machiavelli to run her campaign now and the best she can hope for is to force a nomination from the floor. Whether it's in her yet or not, the fork is primed.
Posted by: JR | April 05, 2008 at 04:47 PM
"It's vital for Obama that Penn remain in his current spot. If he's fired, the Clinton campaign might be forced to hire a competent strategist."
So true, and yet it's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
Posted by: Jason Williams | April 05, 2008 at 05:06 PM
It's vital for Obama that Penn remain in his current spot. If he's fired, the Clinton campaign might be forced to hire a competent strategist.
Or somebody even worse. James Carville, anyone?
Posted by: Mike Schilling | April 05, 2008 at 05:49 PM
I dont understand Publius' comments about Mark Penn and Hillary Clinton. NO Senators can negotiate or approve of trade agreements. Unless, of course, the President asks a senator to act as his special delegate or legate. That authority belongs to the President (as defined by the Constitution). What Mrs. Clinton can do (along with the other 99 senators)is vote to either ratify or reject treaties made by the President and his subordinates. Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks.
Posted by: Sean M. Brooks | April 06, 2008 at 01:55 AM
Sean, Hillary is running for President.
Confusedly, Sebastian
Posted by: Sebastian | April 06, 2008 at 12:46 PM
not sure it is fixed, fixed. the underlining now looks like a cynical wink.
Posted by: redwood | April 06, 2008 at 03:55 PM
publius,
Too little, too late.
Penn is gonzo.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | April 06, 2008 at 07:37 PM
Hi, Sebastian. Yes, I'm aware that evil woman, Hillary Clinton is running for president. And I hope neither she or Obama makes it to the White House. Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks
Posted by: Sean M. Brooks | April 06, 2008 at 08:24 PM
It seems worth noting this: "His polling firm, Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign, the statement said."
And then I point out that Dick Morris, for instance, was "only" the Clinton pollster.
The main pollster is the main controller of the flow of information about polling, and that's the font of modern political strategizing.
I suggest no one get too attached to the idea that Mark Penn will not continue to be a crucial and major strategic factor in the Clinton campaign, though I could, of course, be wrong.
And, sure, the demotion is significant, and it's quite reasonable to assume that his voice will be much less.
But this is also a lot of particularly well done sleight of hand, if you look a little closely, I also tend to think.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 07, 2008 at 01:11 AM
Or, in other words: I bring you this offering of good news, publius!
(You'll testify for me in Re Cleek, right?)
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 07, 2008 at 01:15 AM
As Gary says, this isn't a firing. It is barely a demotion. It is a formal changing of the job title to make him seem less important.
Posted by: Sebastian | April 07, 2008 at 11:22 AM
So uninvolved.
Clear?Posted by: Gary Farber | April 08, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Meant to point this out yesterday.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 09, 2008 at 10:51 AM