Cliff Schecter on Mark Penn

[ProSense]

Hillary Pollster Mark Penn's Firm Tests Negative Messages On Obama And Edwards -- Including On $400 Haircut

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2007

Where I Stand

Ok, assuming anyone is interested, here it goes. This comes from me by the way, Cliff Schecter, not cliffschecter.com. I have been accused of shilling for virtually every candidate so far, so why not share my thoughts.

First of all, I am on nobody's payroll. You got that trolls who like to send me J'accuse emails? I consult for Working America and have accepted a position at Brave New Films. You will find that neither has endorsed a candidate (or if they have, they haven't told me).

<...>

Finally, there is the rest of the field. Let me get to the elephant in the room. Hillary Clinton. Here is my problem. I worked for Mark Penn during her husband's reelection in 1996, and quite simply find him to be one of the most detestable human beings I have ever met.

I could go into personal gossipy stuff about how he treated people, but why bother? Suffice it to say he's a scumbag with a capital SCUM. He is the anal leakage his client Olestra caused.

He will hurt our party, much like his old friend Dick Morris did, if he has the President's ear. He has run a union-busting outfit. Toiled for Big Oil. Worked with neo-Fascist Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, and advised Mike Bloomberg to switch parties and run as a Republican for Mayor of New York. He has advised Joe Lieberman. I could go on, but just read Ari's piece and you'll get the important stuff. Oh and there is this:

Lots of people are understandably curious to know what sort of messages Hillary pollster Mark Penn is testing on behalf of her boss right now. Well, we've got some answers to that question.

Penn's pollsters have been testing various negative messages on both Barack Obama and John Edwards. The messages tested on Obama were that he's inexperienced and that he's voted to fund the war at certain junctures.

A bit more surprising: Penn's firm polled on Edwards' $400 haircut, a line of inquiry that would seem more likely to come from a GOPer than from a fellow Dem's campaign. Penn has already created controversy for Hillary with his anti-union corporate clientele.

So Penn wants to reinforce right-wing attacks on our candidates. Wonderful. So here it is. Not only can I not support Senator Clinton in the primary while this man is by her side, I frankly will have a hard time pulling the lever for her against a Republican. And I live in Ohio.

Hopefully, that makes where I stand clear. Who I support could change (which by the way, might include Senator Clinton if she would dump that anachronistic, 90s ass, as Al Gore did in 2000). But for now it's Edwards and Dodd leading the charge. That is assuming Gore and Wes Clark don't get in, which would make me rethink things.

From The Carpetbagger Report:

What the poll tells us is where the Clinton campaign is prepared to go, if necessary. The senator has been consistent about not going negative on her campaign rivals, which is good. But she’s also polling about John Edwards’ expensive haircut, which is not good.

Put it this way: why test a message about Edwards’ haircut in the first place? The results will show whether voters actually care about the issue, but so what? This isn’t a road that Democratic candidates should be prepared to go down anyway, so there’s no reason to even put the poll question in the field.

Realistically, are Edwards and Obama message-testing through polling? Probably. Are they measuring responses on anti-Clinton criticisms? Probably. Is all of this just a necessarily evil of modern presidential campaigning in a competitive primary? Sure.

But a) Clinton has derided this style of politicking; and b) she got caught.

How can you tell that this is an embarrassment for the Clinton campaign? Some of the best communications/media professionals in the Democratic Party work for this campaign, and for 24 hours, they’ve had no comment on this story. Sometimes silence says quite a bit.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. I just finished that and I agree with cliff. Penn is like his buddy Dick Morris.

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[Adelante]

3. Sweet

That is assuming Gore and Wes Clark don't get in, which would make me rethink things. :)

[ProSense]

4. Kick! n/t

[MBS]

5. thanks for this

I have been struck how several Democratic activist friends of mine-- ordinarily firmly and laudably committed to the "Never-speak-ill-of-a-fellow-Democrat" approach to all aspects of Democratic politics-- simply go off the deep end when Mark Penn, and several other senior members of Hillary's team , are mentioned. "These people should never be allowed anywhere near the White House" is a particularly memorable remark from a friend other wise known for a notably sane, generous, kind style of activism.

[blm]

8. Advised Bloomberg to switch to Repub, advises Lieberman, reifies GOP talking points against

Dems.

Want to bet TeamClinton has been working these angles and building this campaign since Jan 2001?



This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:



http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354



Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."


Here's Bill Clinton helpfully defending Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq in June 2004. Great timing, eh?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/


Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs


(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.




http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward




Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg |

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>>>





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg





Wonder why?



http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[Forkboy]

6. Penn reminds me of Al Davis for some reason.

[ProSense]

7. Kick! n/t

[Mabus]

9. Interesting information

Thanks for posting it. I saw someone mention Mark Penn in another post and I wondered who it was. I put him on my list of things and people to research. Thanks for providing the information I was going to look for later.

btw, it was nice to meet you and the others at the conference.

[TeamJordan23]

10. This story is really picking up in the netroots. Good read. nt

[TeamJordan23]

11. <self delete>

[Donna Zen]

12. Research help

About a year ago there were was a quote Mark Penn in one of the large newspapers. I think it was the NYT, but I can't even be sure of that. Anyway, the article was posted at Kos. In the article Penn remarks that Team Hillary was divided about the IWR vote for and against. In the end, he said, it was decided that a vote "yes" would put her in a better position. A better fucking position!:grr: As I read, I couldn't help but think: in what kind of poition did it put our troops? How about all of those Iraqi women and children (aren't women and children Clinton's signature issue?) are they living in a better place...if they're still living?

Anyway, I didn't bookmark the article or the post. I've searched and come up empty. I'll look again, but I'd love some help.

And one wonders why during a recent DU "would you vote for Hillary" I voted "no." A vote I believe puts Democrats in a better position to hold congress and move progressive legislation, 'cause those things don't matter to Team Hillary.