« That Pill Is Poison | Main | Lets Play Commissar »

Penn Again

07 Jun 2007 05:47 pm

My colleague Marc Ambinder has the story of Hillary Clinton's campaigning pretending to bow to Mark Penn-related pressure, as Penn agrees to "recuse himself" from his company's union-busting work. Penn also insists that he never did any of the union-busting work personally. So, in short, Penn and Clinton are promising that in response to labor's complaints they're going to . . . keep doing all the same things. He'll still be profiting from his firm's union-busting work. Ari Berman has more:

"The logic of the question has considerable merit," says Harold Ickes, a longtime Clinton advisor and ambassador to organized labor. "Mark has told us that he is taking extra steps to assure people on the outside that he does not engage with clients that may be involved in controversial issues. The phrase 'Chinese wall' has been used."

Ickes predicts rival campaigns will use the anti-labor connection against Clinton. "You don't want to have attention deflected from the candidate," he says. [...]

Penn's "recusal" must thus be seen as a classic case of PR spin; a phony gesture that fails to address the underlying problems or the reasons prominent labor leaders are upset with Clinton's campaign.

Now I assume that if the unions keep up the heat, they'll eventually get Clinton and Penn to go further on this front. That said, I think it says something that she found herself in this position in the first place. A Clinton administration, like the Clinton campaign, would doubtless be pro-union in a whole variety of ways. Clearly, though, she doesn't really have her heart in it. She also clearly seems to value her relationship with Mark Penn (who's really a problematic figure for all sorts of broader reasons) over her relationship with one of the central pillars of the progressive coalition.

Share This

Comments (15)

Penn, and anyone else who has a proven track record at helping Democrats win, is OK with me!

"That said, I think it says something that she found herself in this position in the first place."

Multiple Explanations

- Arrogance

- Revanchism to reestablish the royal family using old DLC lieutenants. to steamroller over all opposition.

- Thinking Labor has no where else to go.

- Intimidation to get on the bandwagon.

- Arrogance

- Thinking the general election campaign is the one they need to win, not the primaries

- No real Labor Experience in previous Clinton runs, or in Clinton administration.

- Arrogance

Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Mark Penn has got to go.
Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Mark Penn has got to go.

And as Marty once had it recited:

I have a dream that one day a real rain will come and wash all of the scum off the streets of the district.

And why should Hillary have a good relationship with one of the "central pillars of the progressive coalition?" She's never been a progressive.

The Chinese Wall thing is complete and utter crap. Penn will continue to profit by his firm's bad acts. HRC will continue to take union support while being advised by a union buster. This is bullshit.

And JoeCHI -- I don't think you make this deal with the devil. HRC is a deeply problematic candidate as it is. She is viscerally disliked by so many people. The fact that she is so reliant on this whore tells me that progressives need to step up support for Obama and/or Edwards and stop her from getting the nomination. I sure hope the unions think long and hard about this.

AlanC9,
Bravo!!


Klein's tiny left nut,
You are right. The example MY gives is the reason a lot of people on the left dislike her. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has everything to do with her stances on things and the people she chooses to surround herself with.

Penn, and anyone else who has a proven track record at helping Democrats win, is OK with me!

I think the standard anti-DLC claim is that these people have a proven track record of helping Democrats lose.

It is now obvious that the Rethuglicans think that John Edwards is the toughest opponent for them to beat, amongst the top three. The Schmuckity and Colmes show last night on the fascist news channel spent a 1/2 hour trying to make something of the fact that Edwards was campaigning with Danny Glover who earlier on had a picture taken of himself and Venezuela president Hugo Chavez. Called guilt by association. Then this morning, the fascist c***sucker and member of the fascist Opus Dei society, Robert Novak, trashed Edwards in his bi-weekly column.

"A Clinton administration, like the Clinton campaign, would doubtless be pro-union in a whole variety of ways." Um, no. It would only be a slightly less hostile to unions administration than the current.

More or less what yoyo said. A Clinton administration would only be pro-union in the sense that it wouldn't be as bad as what we've got now.

When I read an article like the one Matt cites, I can only chuckle in amusement over those periodic powwows of beltway types, at which the assembled mighty and near-mighty collectively scratch their teeming noggins and wonder plaintively, "Why don't Americans like politics?"

Could it be any more obvious? Politicians themselves, and all of the pollsters, operatives, speech-writers, public relations gurus, lobbyists, influence peddlers and fund-raisers they routinely associate with, constitute nothing but a filthy den of whores. They are in the business of selling manufactured reputations, electoral successes, rhetorical triumphs, votes and favorable legislation to the highest bidders. Every seamy sentence that oozes from their lips or drips off their press releases is a loose stool of semantic excrement, compacted from lies, bullshit, cliches and gibberish. How any person with an ounce of self-respect can participate in this foul and soulless racket is beyond me.

The denizens of this world are so lost in falsity and nothingness that they convict themselves even in their vain defenses of the disgusting behavior at issue. The front-running candidate for a party that was nourished on the blood - literally, the blood - of union organizers and labor activists is chiefly advised by a scum-sucking union buster, and the politico response is, "Oh that doesn't matter! It's just his business! He only does it for money! We all do it!"

We're actually supposed to think it is better that Penn doesn't even believe in union busting, but his company just sells its union-busting services to those with the cash to pay for them. And as long as he only rakes in the profits of union-busting, and manages the managers who manage the union-busting, and hides behind his Chinese wall from actions themselves, there is nothing to deplore.

Wow, Dan, you pretty much blew me away there. As a denizen of DC I can say that you speak the truth. I can also tell you from my association with a number of mainstream journalists that they simply do not understand the kind of righteous anger you just displayed. They view it like its rabies.

Glad to see we have much of Klein Le Mal's anatomy here tonight. (Raising the theological question -- which part represented on the board here is smaller?)

Klein's tiny: I was just in DC a few weeks ago on business. I had a very pleasant stay. People don't look like the Undead. Of course they are not all in politics.

Is there some way to wean MY off his addiction to "That said"?

like yoyo and dr, I see clinton has essentially union-neutral. Organized labor will hold their nose and follow Hillary all the way if she looks like the winner, but she has no track record of doing anything to truly support the labor movement. They backed her for the Senate both times because of that kind of calculation.

Dan,

Most of us here in DC are not the undead and in fact its a rather pleasant city in which to live for the most part, although ungodly expensive. In fact one of the things I most love about the city is that in 2000 and 2004, Bush failed to crack 10% of the vote here. For the most part you can be comfortable that your neighbors aren't Republicans.

Dave,

I saw Clinton speak to a union group earlier this year and I have to say, despite my lack of enthusiasm for her, she had done her homework more so than any of the other candidates (all of the Dems spoke) and she spoke at length and in a highly supportive way of the issues facing this group. Her staff work is superb, she is obviously a quick study and she can definitely talk the talk. Walking the walk -- on that score I remain skeptical.


Comments closed June 21, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.