Thomas B. Edsall

BIO

Thomas B. Edsall

The Huffington Post

Mark Penn Ties Drag Clinton Down

Mark Penn Ties Drag Clinton Down

February 29, 2008 02:56 PM



As the Clinton campaign struggles to pull out of a potentially terminal nosedive just four days before the decisive Ohio and Texas primaries, much of the blame for the former First Lady's difficulties is falling on the shoulders of her controversial chief strategist, Mark Penn.

Critiques of Penn run a wide gamut:

* that he mistakenly assumed that Hillary Clinton would easily bulldoze the opposition,powered by money, endorsements and a legendary name.

* that his strategic strength resides in managing general election campaigns but he has an unreliable sense of the primary electorate.

* that Penn had an inadequate back-up plan for Obama's emergence as a challenger, allowing the Clinton campaign to founder in full public view -- trapped and exposed.

Penn will doubtless be the subject of endless debate, just as journalists and strategists interminably discuss the serial defeats of presidential candidates guided by former Democratic consultant Bob Shrum and the failure of Karl Rove to achieve his promised permanent pro-Republican realignment.

Strategic and tactical fault-finding, however, miss the key point. Clinton's Mark Penn problem does not lie in the strategist's advice and counsel -- it lies in Penn himself.

As the CEO of powerhouse PR giant Burson-Marsteller, Penn heads a bipartisan corporate conglomerate specializing in influence peddling, lobbying, phony front groups, and manufactured hype. Penn, the network of companies that he oversees, and the corporations to which he answers, represent precisely what voters have come to dislike most violently about Washington: the relentless cultivation and manipulation of political connections to generate wealth for a handful of operatives, all at taxpayer expense and in blatant defiance of the public will.

There is no one in politics today who has ascended the special interest ladder as steeply as Penn. He's no Jack Abramoff, but in the public mind Penn, and the corporate structure that supports him, are an integral part of the same lucrative and corrupt system that produced Abramoff.

The problem Penn poses for the Clinton campaign is reflected in the numerous stories in the media about Penn's conflicts as CEO of Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, on the one hand, and as chief strategist for Hillary Clinton, on the other.

To cite one example, just when Clinton was faulting Obama for his ties to Exelon Corporation, it was disclosed that Exelon had paid Burson-Marsteller over $230,000 in contracting fees.

Similarly, after Blackwater USA security guards killed 8 Iraqi civilians, the company turned to BKSH, a subsidiary of Penn's Burson-Marsteller, for strategic advice on how to minimize the negative impact of dealing with Congressional inquires.

Such conflicts only touch the surface. For the media, Burson-Marsteller and its affiliated companies could easily become a full-time beat pumping out a cascade of additional stories:

* The creation of such seemingly innocuous organizations as the National Smokers Alliance, European Women for HPV Testing, and the Coalition for Clean and Renewable Energy - organizations which are in fact the creation of corporations seeking to win lucrative support for contentious fights over smoking in public places, the promotion of highly-remunerative testing for a sexually transmitted human papilloma virus, and the expansion of nuclear power facilities.

* The laundry list of controversial Burson-Marsteller -- and its subsidiary BKSH -- clients includes US Smokeless (i.e., chewing) Tobacco, Johnnie Walker (distilled spirits), Morongo Casino Resort & Spa (gambling), Lockheed Martin (weapons), and Chevron Texaco (oil/gas) and Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Wyeth/Amgen (pharmaceutical).

* Penn's work for BOTOX, as described on his firm's website, sharply contradict Clinton's feminist commitments and ironically clash with her particularly strong support among older women:

"Burson-Marsteller worked to redefine the BOTOX image to speak to its benefits, drive a relationship with potential end users, minimize safety concerns and reflect its flexibility. Among the critical issues that needed to be addressed were consumers' perceptions regarding the side effects and toxicity of BOTOX Cosmetic....A multimedia initiative targeted key print, broadcast and online media outlets in top U.S. markets, and physician "key opinion leaders" conveyed scientific messages that provided objective, independent thought. The campaign resulted in more than 743 million positive media impressions for the BOTOX brand. Among prescription products, these results are second only to the benchmark launch of Viagra. In the first nine months of 2002, sales increased $90.3 million over the same period in the previous year. Media highlights include coverage in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, Newsweek (cover story), Time, Associated Press, Reuters, Dow Jones, Bloomberg and UPI. The BOTOX brand was also featured in stories on "Good Morning America," "Today Show," "CBS Early Show," ABC, CBS, FOX CNBC, CNN, CNNfn, Fox News Channel and MSNBC.

* An equally controversial list of foreign clients including the Pakistan People's Party, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Colombia, Armenia, and Greece.

From the point of view of any news organization, Mark Penn, who has evolved from a relatively obscure Bill Clinton pollster into the helmsman of the Hillary Clinton campaign, is a walking, talking target -- an over-the-top example of the seductions of Washington, a lethal combination of political opportunism and corporate profiteering.

At this late stage of the campaign, it should come as little surprise that his top position in Hillary Clinton's enterprise would be used to question her campaign's judgment. A succinct portrait of Penn's liabilities was published as early as a year ago by the Washington Post in this relationship map:


 

Comments
153
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

It's not Penn. It's not the campaign.

IT'S THE CANDIDATE THAT'S THE PROBLEM

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 PM on 03/02/2008

Thank you, Tom Edsall, for this useful expose about the slime that oozes out of every pore of Mark Penn.

Penn is indeed in a class by itself. While as incompetent as a strategist and as toxic on campaign morale as Bob Shrum was, at least Shrum knew how to write a good speech and is a progressive at heart. While as unprincipled and sleazy as Karl Rove is, at least Rove sold his company before going to work on Bush's 2000 campaign. By contrast, while serving as Hillary's chief campaign "strategist" and raking in millions of dollars while costing her millions of votes, Penn continues to benefit financially from Burson-Marsteller's representation of union-busters and the Blackwaters of the world.

Still, while Penn is a more than worthy scapegoat, he wouldn't be there were it not for Bill Clinton's association with ubersleazebag Dick Morris in 1994 and Hillary's decision to hire him in 2000 and again now. These choices and her continued refusal to fire him call her judgment into as much question, I think, as her vote for the Iraq war.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 03/01/2008

Hillary needs to give Mark Penn a promotion & a raise. He has done brilliant work on the behalf of the American people, particularly in this campaign. Hell, I bet he was the genius mastermind behind "let's sue TX if we don't win" strategy. Brilliant!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:21 PM on 03/01/2008

Brilliant!!!

He has indeed done the American people a great service, by wrecking Clinton's chances at every turn and making sure that his own pernicious influence in Washington will soon come under serious scrutiny.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 03/02/2008

They both need Lyprosuction

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:41 AM on 03/01/2008

Why can't people like you lay off the physical appearance insults and discuss issues? What's your next important observation about Clinton - that she has "thick ankles?"

There are lots of people out here, including myself,
who have weight problems. You don't help your cause by insulting us.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 AM on 03/02/2008

fuckin idiot couldn't even spell "lyposuction" right

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:39 PM on 03/02/2008

"that Penn had an inadequate back-up plan for Obama's emergence as a challenger"

Inadequate???? Penn had no plan at all. He blew Hillary's wad of money and manpower on Feb. 5th. They had to basically start a new campaign thereafter. New fundraising. New tactics (kind of a buckshot approach, as far as I can tell), and new Hillary.

Actually several new Hillary's. So many new Hillary's that the pundits and bloggers were all asking which Hillary would show up to the Cleveland debate.

now I'm asking which president would show up to the White House in January, 2009 were it to be Hillary Clinton??? Mean Hillary? Petulant Hillary? Mocking Hillary? Conciliatory Hillary? Scolding Hillary? Weeping Hillary???? inquiring minds want to know.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 AM on 03/01/2008

Unless you want a robot to show up, it will be a human being with many facets of character. Do you think that Obama has not shown he can be mean, petulant, mocking, conciliatory,etc.? This is one area where the different standards for men and women is clear.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 AM on 03/02/2008

"Penn, the network of companies that he oversees, and the corporations to which he answers, represent precisely what voters have come to dislike most violently about Washington: the relentless cultivation and manipulation of political connections to generate wealth for a handful of operatives, all at taxpayer expense and in blatant defiance of the public will."

This statement pretty much says it all for me.

This is who she hires to get herself elected.

This is the sort of people she would have running the country.

This is why I don't trust Hillary.

This is why I won't vote for her unless someone holds a gun to my head.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:31 AM on 03/01/2008

I'll do you one better.

I won't vote for her even IF someone holds a gun to my head.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:06 AM on 03/01/2008

Well, you can't vote anyhow...you're not only Russian, but you're fictional; furthermore, judging by the copyright date, you should be dead too. How do your brothers feel about this issue? :)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 03/01/2008

leive fat Penn alone he can't help it Obama has a magic (wink wink ... black) JUjU the same that RR had, the one that Al and Kerry and Hillary dont have the one that BUBA had in 19992. dems its time to lieve fear behind and and start drinking the Kool-aid it is not poison far from it ..... it is sweet victory come nove-2008.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:13 AM on 03/01/2008

Just because Mrs. Clinton is dependent on a slimy Washington influence peddler doesn't mean that her 35 years of selflessly helping America , and especially America's poor children should be fprgotten. Just look how well poor children have done in Arkansas....and how well they did during her husband's administration. Heck, even the Clintons were poor until they cashed in on their political capital.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:15 AM on 03/01/2008

Clinton's Democratic opponents have been reasonably decent in letting her get away with the 35 years of service claim. The republicans won't, if she gets nominated. They'll rip the claim to shreds. They'll point to "only" 8 years in the Senate, 8 as unelected first lady, and 15 years or so as corporate lawyer.

This would be a shame, because she has devoted a significant portion of her adult life to public service. But by reducing it to an exaggerated slogan, she will leave herself open to justifiable claims of misstating her background, and it will just reinforce the image of her as a win-at-all-costs narcisist, whether justified or not. She would be better off dropping the slogan. She should concentrate wholly on the substantive details of her service, it would cast her a more positive and less assailable light. But this is not how Penn works.

And if Obama wins, she will have accomplished several months of the republican's dirty work, framing Obama as inexperienced. Thank you.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:56 PM on 03/02/2008

You're either stark raving mad or a paid clinton hack

hillary voted to clusterbomb mothers and children
hillary threw millions of mothers and children off 'welfare as we knew it'
hillary skipped the SCHIP vote
hillary voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill
hillary savaged a 12 year old rape victim to protect a sex offender


Where is the 'selflessly helping America'.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:58 AM on 03/02/2008

er, selflessly?

Yes, I'm sure she's witholding her tax statements because she's been so "selfless."

Now that's entertainment!!!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:07 AM on 03/01/2008

" ... selflessly helping America." Exactly what planet are you living on?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:32 AM on 03/01/2008

I think his post was meant to be sarcastic.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 AM on 03/01/2008

Charles R. Black Jr.? (see bottom left of diagram)

Mark Penn is a BOSS of the biggest lobbiest working for John McCain?

No wonder Bill said "If John McCain is running against Hillary, it will be one of the most 'civilized' elections in U.S. history." It will be civil, because there's no difference between the two of them.

What a sham!

Obama in '08

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 AM on 03/01/2008

When did Mark Penn the Wise abandon reason for madness??

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 AM on 03/01/2008

It's seemed for months like Hillary was getting crap advice and of course now we all KNOW she's been getting crap advice - but when I look at a face like that - I wonder what on earth she was thinking.

You really are only as good as the people you surround yourself with - and she seems to have nothing but nitwits surrounding her. NOT good.

*

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 AM on 03/01/2008

Don't forget the equally odious Howie W and Terry McCauliffe. I would pay big bucks to never hear from those scumbags again.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 AM on 03/01/2008

It's the same guys year after year. The unpopular kids who somehow got popular by going into politics. The Shrums and Penns are all the same. They're power hungry because student council eluded them until they go to college. The only time the Democrats have done well in years was when they spiced it up a little with Carville and Begala, brilliant and charismatic and they think like winners.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 AM on 03/01/2008

So did they use Botox on Hillary's voice?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:49 AM on 03/01/2008

Hopefully mister penn won't take his toaster into his bath!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 AM on 03/01/2008

I agree he is the reason she is losing, but I do not think it has as much to do with any perceived affiliations as with the turnoff his methodology causes. His strategy of reducing people to numbers does not look good up close, and it creates burned bridges given the structure of the primary (see: states x and y do not count, caucuses do not count, etc.). His poor job of running the campaign is cutting into Clinton's competency arguments. This seems like one guy Clinton and Obama supporters might agree to throw under the bus.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:22 AM on 03/01/2008

"I agree he is the reason she is losing, "

Her problems run much deeper than that. And Mark Penn is her responsibility too. Nobody likes to say it, but it becomes increasingly clear that most voters do not like her. Iowa got a good long look. She finished third. Not second. Third. She holds onto a core of first-woman-president voters and has slowly driven away every other constituency. She is now playing the gender-card, sometimes subtly and sometimes not so subtly. I hope it doesn't work and Texas finally finishes her off - the Clinton-fatigued masses deserve relief after the constant assault of Bill, Hillary and Chelsea night after night after night.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 PM on 03/01/2008

I agree with much of what you say, but I believe if she had not followed Penn"s strategy in the beginning, she would have been able to cash in on her early advantages and it never would have reached this point.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 PM on 03/02/2008

There you go distorting things again! Yes, she finished third in Iowa, but the distances between first, second and third were very close.

And yes, Clinton plays the gender card, but so does Obama play the race card.

Why do you people feel that the only way to support Obama is to attack Clinton with such venom?

As Bill Maher said, your hatred of Hillary says more about you than it does about her.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:56 AM on 03/02/2008

We don't hate her, but we're so very tired of her that we're losing patience.
By any reasonable standards, she should have stepped down by now. She's lost 11 in a row. That's defeat, by anybody's standards.
But she's still allowing her incompetent campaign managers to leak threats about litigation to recover 'lost' votes in Michigan and Florida, and taking Texas to court over its voting procedure.
The popular vote is clear. The American people don't like her, don't trust her judgement, and don't want another dynastic President whose primary job is to repay the lobbyists and corporate douchebags who've put her in power.
In other words, they don't want Hillary, or her campaign supremo, Mark Penn.
She should step down graciously and take a post in the Obama administration.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:08 PM on 03/02/2008

I think you are spinning the closeness of Iowa. Obama finished with 8 points on Edwards and 9 on Clinton, and every one of the Democratic candidates was still in the race at the time. Given the advantages Clinton and Edwards had at the beginning (name recognition and money were Clinton's advantages; Edwards basically lived in Iowa since 2003), Obama should have been blown out. 17 combined points over the other two can hardly be considered a close result when the combined difference for the other two candidates was -7 for Edwards (-8 to Obama and +1 to Clinton) and -10 for Clinton (-9 to Obama and -1 to Edwards).

"Why do you people feel that the only way to support Obama is to attack Clinton with such venom?" I did not see anything particularly venemous about the previous post. Maybe it was overreaching to say "most" voters do not like her as opposed to "many" or "a majorty". Not sure what else could be interpreted as venom, though.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 PM on 03/02/2008

So is this what a new Clinton presidency would be like?

Incompetence, mismanagement, and scandal--and always finding some lower level person to put the blame on?

Hillary's built and managed this campaign herself. These are HER people, running HER campaign. It's not Penn's fault. Not Bill's fault.

So, looking at their campaigns as a preview of their presidency....who do you think would do a better job of managing money.....organizing staff....and choosing good people to get the job done in an ethical way?

Obama '08.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 AM on 03/01/2008

BUZZARDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 PM on 02/29/2008

Separated at birth: Mark Penn and Perez Hilton.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:04 PM on 02/29/2008

It looks like Hillary has managed to sabotage her own Presidential campaign by hiring Mark Penn, whose company, Penn, Schoen and Berland, is owned by the London-based WPP group, and his partner, Doug Schoen, has written a book staunchly defending the creation of a third political party, and has heartily endorsed Michael Bloomberg as a third party candidate who could easily win the White House.

The same people who are managing Hillary's Presidential campaign are also masterminding the Presidential campaign of John McCain and the "non-campaign" of Michael Bloomberg. Since WPP Group is owned by the British, and are actively participating in the Presidential campaign, it makes you wonder whether the British have already selected the Presidential candidate they'd like to see take office, and if that candidate (many believe that "London's man" is Michael Bloomberg) can enter the Presidency through the "back door", specifically, being named Vice President on either the Republican or Democratic tickets.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 PM on 02/29/2008

I will say to go from lending your self money to a $35 million dollar month is pretty damn impressive.

The only issue is there is another candidate reported to have raised $50+Million in the same time period.

That candidate has also found over 1 million supporters who were willing to donate their hard earned money to help him get elected.

That person is Barack O...B A MA!! !!! ! !!!



YES WE CAN!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:44 PM on 02/29/2008