Time for Someone to Go

I got an email from the Change to Win union federation yesterday saying "Mark Penn Has to Go." And Ezra Klein titled a post "Time for Mark Penn to Go." The issue is Penn's meeting with Colombian government officials to help push a trade agreement through congress at the very time when his boss, Hillary Clinton, is trying to portray herself as a trade skeptic. The mighty Ambinder remarked that "One of the toughest tasks for a political journalist these days is to try and find someone in Clinton world who is willing to defend Mr. Penn or his sense of political optics."

Well, I would think it's easy enough to find someone -- Hillary Clinton who's stuck with Penn through thick and thin. And in some ways, I admire her for it. She knows perfectly well that a great many influential people in left-of-center circles don't like Penn, including many people in her inner circle. But she sincerely believes, and has believed for years, that Penn's advice about political strategies is immensely valuable. That's why he was an important strategist in the later years of the Clinton administration, that's why he was the chief architect of her Senate campaign, and that's why he's been one of the main architects of her Presidential bid. There's no sense in acting like he's some guy who for some crazy reason seems to keep popping up near Hillary Clinton -- they're not identical, but close association with Penn and Penn's approach is part of who she is.

So if it's time for anyone to go, I think it's time for her to go. And, of course, I do think it's time for her to go. And Penn probably realizes that at this point nothing he does or doesn't do is going to put her in the White House so he might as well start transitioning back to his real job. Hence meeting with the Colombians.

Comments

Given his smear campaign of trying to brand the 50%+ of Democrats who've voted for Clinton as racists, I think it's time for Matthew to go.

Posted by Petey | April 5, 2008 1:11 PM

Given his smear campaign of trying to brand the 50%+ of Democrats who've voted for Clinton as racists, I think it's time for Matthew to go.

You should totally punish him by not reading him. That'll show him!

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 5, 2008 1:19 PM

Yet you still return to his blog. You're clearly a model person, Petey.

Posted by Tony Hussein | April 5, 2008 1:19 PM

Also worth noting: it's silly to be opposing the Colombian trade deal anyway. It's all meaningless posturing.

Posted by right | April 5, 2008 1:30 PM

I wonder if Penn cleared this with Hillary, or if he just thought nobody would care. Or maybe he is a secret Obama supporter.

Posted by Josh E. | April 5, 2008 1:38 PM

Apparently, the Colombians were insulted by Mark Penn's groveling apology, and canned him.

Posted by neil | April 5, 2008 1:45 PM

Hmmm. I thought the meeting was to resume the cocaine shipments through Mena Airport.

Or was that the SECRET meeting?

Ooops.

Posted by Don Williams | April 5, 2008 1:52 PM

Well, Penn's certainly a real scumbag who should be dumped in the ocean...

But since Matt and 95% of the commenters here keep on claiming that Obama has a total lock on the nomination, maybe they should take a moment to consider *his* Mark Penn, namely that Axelrod guy.

Doesn't most of Axelrod's income derive from the corporate PR/lobbying work his firm does? So if the big corporations are basically paying his salary, both now and in the past, mightn't that "taint" his advice on policy positions for Obama to take both during the campaign and if he reaches the White House?

Seems to me, that a very closely fought Democratic Primary is about the *only* time you guys would have any leverage on Obama in this regard, so use it or lose it.

Posted by RKU | April 5, 2008 1:52 PM

Petey actually raises an interesting point.

What WOULD it take to actually convince Clinton's defenders that race is playing some role in the level of support she's getting from poor rural whites?

Maybe, like, one of her key advisers jetting off to help advocate for a trade deal that's completely antithetical to the interests of unions and industrial (or formerly industrial) workers across hard-hit states like Pennsylvania? That somehow doesn't result in a significant decline in her support among poor whites?

Nah, that couldn't be it.

Posted by NS | April 5, 2008 2:10 PM

That Mark Peen is so exposed, shows just how many people are gunning for him. The republicans are currently digging dirt on the Obama campaign infrastructure people. Trust me if he gets through the nomination, they are going to declare total war, and all these minor soap opera things that seem to keep the Obama base enthralled day to day online, are going to look as minor and inconsequential as they are when, Team Obama's skeletons are brought out on cable news 24/7.

In fact the big question to Republicans is why didn't Hillary gut Obama with the Wright thing? It seemed a logical 24/7 play, ceratianly on the republican side such a play will energize the republican base. On the dem side it will play to the more than half the democratic base that isn't online. Why didn't Hillary take the obvious next step? The answer of course is that Hillary was just laying on the table what the general will look like, without him being vetted. But of course you, Kos and others are still screaming about the injustice of looking past the glamor and idealism, in hopes that somehow your smaller internet megaphones will reach the very very captive cable news republican base that will be eating this up this fall.

What we need is less hubris from Team Obama and it's proxies and more reality. Ask yourself is Chris Mathews really going to abandon his love for McCain for Obama? Are the big network execs reading your web columns? Are they going to feel any compulsion at all airing things that Team Hillary has so carefully avoided bringing up for the sake of party unity, in the general?

What I wish is that web pundits like yourself would stop cheer leading and get back to real policy analysis. Like let's talk about the problems with the Massachussetts Healthcare system and how that can be fixed in a nationwide implementation. Let's talk about the obvious destruction of the middle class over these last 30 years. Let's talk about the fact that it costs as much to go to most state universities now as it did to go to Harvard a decade ago, and let's figure out who can afford this in America without a middle class leveraging their homes to do so?

The blogsphere has no value if its just more detailed horse racing news, and up close examination of the blemishes on the Brad Pitt's rear end, which is what the Atlantic is beoming with it's Sullivan led "primary coverage". How 'bout you guys at the Atlantic put down your oral media fixations and get back to policy.

Case in point Obama's approach to poverty, education, and health care is the major dispute with Elizabeth Edwards that is preventing an endorsement. Any chance we going to get some of those details out from your prestigious Harvard graduated cohorts, or are we going to be sniffing Mark Penn's ass for the next 4 months?

I never thought you would turn into David Broder so quickly. Go back through your comment pages, look at my posts. Understand that this comes from someone who has been reading you since you were blogging from Harvard, and enthusiastically supporting your analysis, until very recently.

Posted by patience | April 5, 2008 2:15 PM

There's an old tradition of trusted lieutenants falling on their swords for their boss's mistakes. Doing this helps insulate the boss and enables the boss to move past a crisis. Penn could have done this for Hillary earlier, but by now it's too late.

The optimum time to fire Mark Penn (aside from the best case scenario in which he wasn't hired in the first place) would have been after the Iowa debacle. The next best time would have been after they failed to vanquish Obama on Super Tuesday. Next best would have been to fire Penn along with Patti Solis Doyle. But by now, firing Penn doesn't really do anything other than confirm that the Clinton campaign is flailing.

WRT Axelrod vs. Penn, Axelrod is now a creater of a winning campaign, while Penn is credited with a losing one. It's silly to imagine anyone has leverage to force Obama to fire him, even assuming there would be any reason to.

Posted by jimBOB | April 5, 2008 2:16 PM

"What WOULD it take to actually convince Clinton's defenders that race is playing some role in the level of support she's getting from poor rural whites?"

At this point the cognitive dissonance coming from Clinton supporters is so profound that I think a better question might be, "What WOULD it take to convince Clinton supporters of the truth of any mathematical concept more complex than 2+2=4?"

Posted by Jim Crozier | April 5, 2008 2:18 PM

Well, I would think it's easy enough to find someone -- Hillary Clinton who's stuck with Penn through thick and thin. And in some ways, I admire her for it.

Yes, loyalty to a fuck up of a subordinate IS an admirable trait. Just as the Dauphin's loyalty to Abu Gonzales when everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY wanted Alberto's ass in a sling. Or the Dauphin's loyalty to any number of inept, corrupt or stupid aides that he should have shit canned when he had a quarter of the chance was admirable.

That's exactly what this country needs - more Bush-like admirable traits in the country's next President. Next thing you'll tell us is that you fervently wish that Obama were a drunk who found AA and God instead of a therapist because being a dry drunk is an admirable trait.

Posted by calipygian | April 5, 2008 2:20 PM

I wonder if Penn cleared this with Hillary, or if he just thought nobody would care. Or maybe he is a secret Obama supporter.

He isn't a secret Obama supporter. He is an open McCain supporter.

Penn is the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, a DC public relations (PR) firm. Burson-Marsteller owns a subsidiary, BKSH. BKSH is run by Charlie Black. Black is a longtime Republican politico, and a top adviser for John McCain for President. And, as Think Progress notes, while Black is a volunteer on the McCain campaign, he views Mcain as his client and continues to take a paycheck from BKSH. JedReport dissected these relationships in a diary on DailyKos last night.

Mark Penn is nothing but another scum-bag, prostitute toe-sucking, hack political consultant like that fucking jerkoff Dick Morris that the Clinton's L-O-V-E and are ruining the country. If only we could gather the Penns, the Roves, the Matalins, the Morris', the Gollums Carvilles and dump the whole fucking lot of them into Mount Doom from whence they came, this country would be A LOT better off.

Posted by calipygian | April 5, 2008 2:26 PM

"In fact the big question to Republicans is why didn't Hillary gut Obama with the Wright thing?"

Yeah, why didn't she say things like, "I wouldn't have attended that church" or try to convince superdelegates that it made him unelectable? Oh, wait.

Posted by Tony Hussein | April 5, 2008 2:27 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | April 5, 2008 2:29 PM

Goodness.

Now, a bunch of Obama supporters are explaining to Hillary what she has to do to win... What playbook does that remind me of? Let me think, let me think....

Posted by lambert strether | April 5, 2008 2:33 PM

Oh dear, a comment from lambert "I hate Obama" strether. How's that Clinton-Scaife Rapprochement working for ya?

Posted by bjd | April 5, 2008 2:40 PM

Lambert, like most rational people, we recognize that Clinton has lost. She can keep dragging this on if she wishes, but nothing good will come of it. If you don't like the real world, I am sure you can find alternatives.

Posted by zilifant | April 5, 2008 2:46 PM

Opps, she did it again...
Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

Posted by bjd | April 5, 2008 2:49 PM

patience:

I like the post. You have articulated my feelings on the blogosphere's weakness as an alternative outlet. This Mark Penn business is trite compared to the larger issues that we face. However, I think views of our nature are not very important here. The democratic party--which I still support--has largely been co-opted by neoliberal politicos; a development that has lead to continued electoral defeat. Until the democratic party realizes its utility as a party of working class people and their interests, I fear we will not only lose elections but more importantly fail to deliver any semblance of coherent political ideology and concomitant political reform.

Our party, whether its politicians or bloggers, care little about the sort of new deal liberalism that sustained the country and party for so long (not all individuals, but the party as a whole). Instead, we have morphed into non ideological hybrid of liberal social positions and moderate republican fiscal ideas, with the latter being responsible for are current plight. So not only is the party merely functioning as a benign form of republicanism but it also provides the perfect foil for republicans.

Posted by jeff | April 5, 2008 2:51 PM

Now, a bunch of Obama supporters are explaining to Hillary what she has to do to win..
Posted by lambert strether | April 5, 2008 2:33 PM

There is not even one post that mentions what Clinton should do to win.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 5, 2008 2:52 PM

Gary Sugar, you have to remember that we, and our states, and our opinions don't count *s*. Thus, lambert finds what he wants to find, despite the fact that the truth is otherwise. Doubtless he will decide that our board is full of snipers and little girls with radioactive flowers.

Posted by zilifant | April 5, 2008 3:05 PM

Are they going to feel any compulsion at all airing things that Team Hillary has so carefully avoided bringing up for the sake of party unity, in the general?

Umm, like what? You really think that if the Clinton camp was sitting on something really "juicy" they wouldn't have included it in their kitchen sink approach?

Posted by justinb | April 5, 2008 3:14 PM

"Petey actually raises an interesting point. What WOULD it take to actually convince Clinton's defenders that race is playing some role in the level of support she's getting from poor rural whites?"

Y'know, Obama is getting about the same percentages among whites that Bill Bradley got among whites in 2000.

A candidate for the Democratic nomination that wants to sell out the Party on economics like Bradley or Obama pretty much always gets about a third of the white vote. There's a market for that stuff among the upscale voters Matthew speaks to, but it's a niche market.

Matthew's fully aware of this, and yet he still trots out the racism smear on a regular basis. His behavior is straight out the Jonah Goldberg school of scumbaggery.

Posted by Petey | April 5, 2008 3:32 PM

His behavior is straight out the Jonah Goldberg school of scumbaggery.

Blow me, you DLC piece of shit. The Clintons were the dominant force in a party that rolled over for the Southern Conservatives for, depending on who's counting, between six and sixteen years. If you want people to be less suspicious of your motivations, pick better friends.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 5, 2008 3:43 PM

Re jeff's comment "The democratic party--which I still support--has largely been co-opted by neoliberal politicos "
-----------
Oh, bullshit.

The party-- as has been true for over 200 years -- has been "co-opted" by whoever is coughing up those hundreds of $Millions in campaign donations.

Which I suspect includes VERY few posters on this blog.

Whatever seance, movie, or puppet shadow show on the cave wall they've ginned up to keep the herd happy is pretty much beside the point.

If Hillary's supporters like Haim Saban win, then we'll be invading Iran next spring. If Obama's patrons win, then that is less likely.

The idea that EITHER group gives a hairy rodent's posterior what the commenters here think is hilarious.

Posted by Don Williams | April 5, 2008 3:52 PM

"Blow me, you DLC piece of shit."

See, that's not Matthew's criticism.

Matthew says that folks like me who care about the Democratic economic agenda are racist pieces of shit, not DLC pieces of shit.

Matthew says that the 50%+ of Democrats who've voted for Clinton are racist pieces of shit.

He knows better, and he says it anyway.

That's what makes him a scumbag who's abandoned intellectual honesty.

Posted by Petey | April 5, 2008 4:41 PM

A candidate for the Democratic nomination that wants to sell out the Party on economics like Bradley or Obama pretty much always gets about a third of the white vote.

This is incorrect. Bill Clinton swept the white vote in the 1992 and 1996 primaries. He proceeded to attempt to gut the Great Society, open up "free" trade agreements for the more efficient movement of capital at the expense of workers' rights, and kill health care reform for fifteen years.

Aligning yourself both with the Clintons and with "the Democratic Party on economics" is very hard for me to follow.

As far as I'm concerned, both candidates are well to the right of what I want in a Democratic candidate. Neither is willing to take a stand against the rhetoric of "free" trade that has worked to destroy workers' power, neither is proposing much more than meliorism on most issues, neither is engaging in the kind of broad-based critique of corporate power that could actually allow for a rearrangement of power if he or she wins.

Claiming that the difference between Obama and CLinton on health care policy makes one the voice of the party on economics and the other not is, to me, to make a complete mockery of what economic leftism is supposed to be about. Neither is, neither deserves to be, neither wants to be the voice of the economic left.

Posted by DivGuy | April 5, 2008 4:44 PM

Petey, you flatter yourself. Matthew ignores you.

Posted by bjd | April 5, 2008 4:45 PM

A candidate for the Democratic nomination that wants to sell out the Party on economics like Bradley

What DivGuy said. Plus, Clinton's appointees to the Supreme Court more often than not have joined with Roberts and co. in favor of business over consumers, environmentalist, anti-trust advocates, and government regulators.

Posted by Mike | April 5, 2008 5:13 PM

Uhh. Wherever you discern that I believe that anyone here has political clout or that I support hillary clinton, or barack obama for that matter, i am not sure. My point was--and still is--that the democratic party as a unit has offered tepid policy and political alternatives to the republican machine.

As for the idea that party has been "co-opted" (I like your use of quotes as means of critique) is quite obvious. As I am sure you are aware, the influence of money on politics is much greater today than in the past. FDR did not take his political cues during the new deal from standard oil or some other big money interest. His policy belies any notion of taking money from huge donors and providing kickbacks. There was no huge money organizations sponsoring the new deal, and, realistically, there was no need to. Campaigns were less constant and required much less money. So im not sure where your going with the idea that the party has always been for auction to the highest bidder.

To the other point,I think it is hardly a stretch to suggest that the democratic party of today is politically different from the days of FDR/LBJ liberalism to today's clinton/obama centrism.

I could cite numerous statistics but I think you would care little. But, i guess, I would offer simply that you explain to me how austen goolsbee, Jeffrey Liebman, and David Cutler are similar to the liberalism of FDR etc., or clinton's coterie for that matter?

Posted by jeff | April 5, 2008 5:32 PM

Matthew says that folks like me who care about the Democratic economic agenda are racist pieces of shit. - Petey

No, you are exaggerating at least fivefold, and personalizing it like that, you are just wrong. What Matt has actually said is that in your favorite beer drinking states, Clinton's margin is correlated with some statistic that implied racism. That is smearing maybe 5% of the Democratic vote. But you know that Matt does not think you personally are motivated by race. You have explained your reasons relentlessly. How could he possibly not know them by heart?

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 5, 2008 5:37 PM

It should be clear to most people at this point that Petey's main goal is to be a pest. Don't feed the pest folks.

Just remember he's voting for Nader, and you'll realize that whatever he posts, the opposite is likely true.

Posted by Jake | April 5, 2008 5:37 PM

BTW, the last part about clinton is that her advisors are also politically/ideologically different from new deal liberalism. Not that her economic advisors are like FDR.

Posted by jeff | April 5, 2008 5:38 PM

"This is incorrect. Bill Clinton swept the white vote in the 1992 and 1996 primaries."

You want to argue demographics based on the '96 primaries?!?

And in '92, Clinton was the candidate for preserving and expanding entitlements. Tsongas was the candidate for retreat on entitlements.

Tsongas got about a third of the white Democratic vote in '92. Funny how that works.

Or as Matthew would say, white Democrats are racist against Greeks.

For a trust fund scumbag like Matthew, it's never about economics. He's got a rich daddy, so he doesn't need to worry about healthcare or pensions.

Posted by Petey | April 5, 2008 5:48 PM

Matthew says that folks like me who care about the Democratic economic agenda are racist pieces of shit, not DLC pieces of shit.
Matthew says that the 50%+ of Democrats who've voted for Clinton are racist pieces of shit.

Petey, please stop lying.

And don't just stop lying about what Matthew is saying: stop lying about your supposed support for a liberal economic agenda.

You claim to think that a second Clinton administration would be good for the American class. This might be a reasonable thing to believe, if you hadn't lived through the first Clinton administration. But, though your maturity level strongly suggests otherwise, I assume you lived through the first Clinton administration.

Do you remember the first Clinton administration, Petey? Do you remember when Bill Clinton made good on his promise to end welfare as we know it? Do you remember when he repealed Glass-Steagall? Do you remember when he made NAFTA a higher priority than universal health care?

Do you remember when Bill Clinton declared that he was not a liberal? He wasn't lying.

We don't need to speculate about what sorts of economic policies we'll get from a Clinton White House. We know exactly what we'll get from the Clintons. We already got it. And it sucks.

Do you remember what Hillary Clinton's 1993 health care plan was actually like? Sure, it would have achieved universal coverage, and we desperately need that. But it also cemented the privileged position of big business and created a virtual oligopoly for big insurance companies, at the expense of basically everybody else. And we can do much better than that.

Do I think that Barack Obama's health care plan is better than Hillary Clinton's? Not really. Do I think it's substantially worse? Not really. The differences between their proposals will be swamped by the differences between those proposals and whatever plan Congress actually adopts. (If it ever adopts either. Remember what happened last time?)

And anyway, it's hard to find a constitutional basis (much less an ethical basis) for requiring U.S. citizens purchase services from private corporations. I wouldn't get too attached to health care mandates.

Do you think that the issue of health care mandates is so important that it trumps all other economic issues--issues on which the Clintons have been screwing us over for years? If so, you're crazy.

Do hate Marty Peretz and GE? Of course. But I also hate Richard Mellon Scaife and Wal-Mart, and I consider the latter pair to be far bigger threats to American workers. Do you disagree? If so, you're wrong.

Do I think that Obama is as liberal on economic issues as I would like him to be? Hell no. Do I wish that Barack Obama would fire Austan Goolsbee? Absolutely.

But I'm also pleasantly surprised by Obama's willingness to criticize the Clinton administration's economic policies from the left. There's some small chance he'll pleasantly surprise me further in the future. (Who knows? Maybe Hillary Clinton is right that he's secretly in favor of single-payer. We know how she feels about single-payer.)

We won't be pleasantly surprised by the Clintons. We already know what they stand for.

Obama can't be worse than the Clintons were on economic issues, and there's some sliver of hope that he'll be better. (It wouldn't be hard.) It's time to roll the dice.

Posted by ML | April 5, 2008 5:57 PM

"Do you remember what Hillary Clinton's 1993 health care plan was actually like?"

I'm familiar with the details. It was fucked up on a number of grounds, mainly the political ones, but it would've laid the groundwork for a better system than the one we have now.

But, happily, this isn't 1993. We have a good universal healthcare plan available on both political and policy grounds. Hillary Clinton has glommed onto that plan. Barack Obama attacks that plan with Harry & Louise ads right out of 1993.

But I guess I must be racist if I think universal healthcare is the most important piece of domestic legislation that will come up in the next administration.

I don't have a million dollar inheritance coming my way like the noted anti-racist and trust fund scumbag Matthew Yglesias.

Posted by Petey | April 5, 2008 6:04 PM

"Do I wish that Barack Obama would fire Austan Goolsbee? Absolutely."

Wait for hell to freeze over before Matthew writes a post that says that. Trust fund scumbags heart Austan Goosbee.

Posted by Petey | April 5, 2008 6:08 PM

You should totally punish him by not reading him. That'll show him!

Absolutely. Marianne Moore said,

"This would be a fit haven for
waifs, children, animals, prisoners,
  and presidents who have repaid
sin-driven

senators by not thinking about them. "

Quit thinking about Yglesias, Petey. Do us all a favor.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 5, 2008 6:13 PM

"Quit thinking about Yglesias, Petey. Do us all a favor."

Your wish has already come true. I used to read and comment daily, and now I stop by only occasionally. It's still hard to resist the basketball posts when they float through the RSS stream, though. Nice commentator community there.

I used to think that even when I disagreed with him, that Matthew was 1) on my general side of things and 2) intellectually honest.

Lacking those two things, my interest level in the blog has already dropped drastically. And why should I help add value to the enterprise of a trust fund scumbag who thinks the 50%+ of Democrats who've voted for Clinton are racists?

Posted by Petey | April 5, 2008 6:27 PM

Petey --

Sometimes when the world seems dark and we feel alone we do desperate things we wouldn't normally want to do.

We may align ourselves with the Richard Mellon-Scaife candidate.

The Rush Limbaugh candidate.

The candidate who thinks John McCain is qualified to be President.

The candidate whose main adviser is Mark Penn.

The candidate whose family has collected over $100 million in income the past seven years.

The candidate who voted for the Iraq War.

The candidate who served on the board of Wal-mart.

The candidate who volunteered for Barry Goldwater's Presidential campaign.

But not all is lost. You are among friends here -- good, earnest liberal friends. There is no reason to spit at them, to reject their love and friendship.

Oh I know, when your soul is in such despair it's hard to have any hope. You may feel it's time to give up, to surrender to the darkness.

But together, if we work together, we can make things right.

We can fix things. Make them better.

I have three words I want you to repeat.

Yes we can.

That's good. Now say it again:

Yes we can.

That's right. Yes we can.

Yes we can.

Posted by Barbar | April 5, 2008 7:12 PM

TRUST FUND SCUMBAG!! MANDATES ARE ALL THAT MATTERS!

Posted by Yetep | April 5, 2008 7:26 PM

ALL RICH PEOPLE ARE EVIL!!! DOWN WITH $400 HAIRCUTS!!!

Posted by ZednCu | April 5, 2008 7:39 PM

How can you trust a trust-fund baby when the Clintons have made 9 figures during the Bush administration?

Posted by Peeeeetey | April 5, 2008 7:43 PM

Wow Petey, I see you are going after Ezra too:
---
Penn is financially corrupt. It's time for him to go.

But Austan Goolsbee is ideologically corrupt, far more destructive to the Democratic agenda than Mark Penn, and Ezra never says it's time for him to go.

Ezra prefers the approval of the "professional Democrat" class of the Beltway to the Democratic agenda. That's fucked up.

Posted by: Petey | April 4, 2008 3:16 PM
----

Mark Penn is also ideological as you well know. So Goolsbee is a regular neo-classical economist with center-left leanings, at least he doesn't "poll" people and come up with the same target group of people, a political must-win!, that just so happens to be center-left on social issues and center-right on economic issues, just like Mark Penn. Petey, Penn is slime bag and a union buster, and I can't believe you would support her campaign (Clintonism=Pennism=Morrisism) over Obama's. And honestly, to go after Ezra like that? Seriously. You must be very bitter that Edwards lost; I am sorry the bitterness has taken your sense.

Posted by David | April 5, 2008 8:42 PM

Time for Petey to go.

He's become just another troll like Al - pops up in every post just to insult Matt about stuff irrelevant to Matt's post.

Now, I do that, too. But I have either foreign policy reasons or comedy heckling as an excuse. Al and Petey have neither.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 5, 2008 9:35 PM

Touche, Matthew.

Hill clearly has overstayed her welcome. Her Siamese fuck buddy Penn proves she's rotten at the core. The late Hunter S. Thompson's scabrous portrait of Humphrey in "Fear and Loathing On The Campaign Trail '72" might not be able to touch how unutterably corrupt and squalid a pol Is she better than McCain? Not by much. Say, goodbye, dear. Bye, bye.

Posted by Trevor | April 5, 2008 9:36 PM

And why should I help add value to the enterprise of a trust fund scumbag who thinks the 50%+ of Democrats who've voted for Clinton are racists?

Do you actually think you are adding value to these comment threads?

Posted by Dave | April 5, 2008 9:52 PM

Penn is to the Clintons what Rumsfeld was to Bush; someone who keeps making mistake after mistake, yet has seeming unending loyalty from the boss at the top.

My guess is that Penn knows where the bodies are buried; he knows too much dirt on the Clintons and they are afraid to anger him by letting him go. And they know he is just the sort of SOB to spill the dirt on them to extract a measure of revenge.

Posted by cm | April 5, 2008 9:56 PM

Do you pay attention to the crazy people on the street screaming in Cambridge about socialism and the Illuminati? Nope, so why pay attention to Petey? It's clear at this point he just wants something to be angry about because he's so in love with forcing the working class to buy insurance or be fined, which they are actually against. Think about it: Petey considers himself a working-class warrior because he wants to take away working-class autonomy in a way they are against. Clinton's base of working-class whites are voting for her in spite of mandates, not because of mandates. This one of the main demographics that doesn't read policy papers. Nevermind that Clinton voted for the bankruptcy bill while Obama voted against it. Nevermind that Edwards failed to actually get working-class support and was more a boutique candidate of upper-middle class professionals who liked to posture themselves as left-wing. Petey doesn't seem to realize that just because you can have a couple of data points available to write a narrative that that narrative is true or that competing narratives are also true. Petey is now just the left-wing version of a dittohead.

Posted by Reality Man | April 6, 2008 4:02 AM

You can tell the Clinton campaign is in trouble when Petey's tedious trolling has detiorated to haphazard and uninspired bathos that's more piteous than irritating.

Even a troll as immature and unintelligent as Petey could do better than to pretend that the mark of a true comrade is spamming tapped alums' personal blogs with claims that all the prolateriat needs to control the means of production is a nepotistic new world maggie thatcher and her husband--who got his money in the time honored tradition of the working class: by getting fucked up the ass by a series of middling dictators. Who cares if our pass around pres got more than a hundred mill for it? You think feeling your pain by squeezing your balls with that southern drawl enhancing it all comes cheap?--subverting the will of democratic primary voters so that they can pray mccain dies on the campaign trail so that they can fuck up universal health care again with another tepid plan that has no chance of passing just to give paul krugman a semi before they cause the dems to lose congress again so they can complete their mission of personally enriching themselves by destroying their party. yeah, that's the ticket we need.

Petey, you're past it. You're routine's done. Just retire before you embarass yourself further. or at least move on to an easy mark like delong. Or somebody who actually deserves it like mcmegan. just be glad you managed to take your lack of god given talent as far as you already have.

Posted by Client #11 | April 6, 2008 7:57 AM

Penn should go,

He doesn't deserve loyalty from Hillary since the Columbian meeting illustrates a lack of loyalty to her. Matt is way off-base in asserting that the meeting was acceptable or even understandable professional behavior by Penn.

Posted by Undecided | April 6, 2008 8:43 AM

"The candidate whose family has collected over $100 million in income the past seven years"

The Clintons have paid over $33 million in federal taxes and donated $10 million to charity.

"Obama can't be worse than the Clintons were on economic issues, and there's some sliver of hope that he'll be better. (It wouldn't be hard.) It's time to roll the dice."

Obama's Economy Delivered by a Sliver of Hope and a Role of the Dice

"Do you remember when Bill Clinton made good on his promise to end welfare as we know it?"

Yes. It is called Welfare to Work. The old system kept families and individuals tied to poverty.

Posted by EWard | April 6, 2008 1:35 PM