Clinton's Catastrophic Failure of Judgment

berni_mccoy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-09-08 03:06 PM
Original message

Clinton's Catastrophic Failure of Judgment

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion" -- Edmund Burke

Clinton has not only failed her own test of the 3 AM call, she has exhibited a catastrophic failure of judgment in this campaign of hers. Not only because she uses focus groups and polling to test what she says, not only because she has told a series of whoppers, not only because her campaign has become a miserable failure when she had every advantage. The catastrophe surrounds her choice and method of associates who are not only her long-time friends, but her extremely well-paid advisers. If, as Clinton supporters have so very much liked to point out during this campaign, "you are judged by the company you keep", then Clinton is about to be judged harshly.

The company she keeps is Mark Penn and his firm, Burson-Marsteller, which since the primary contests have begun, has received more than $100,000 per day. And for what exactly? Formally, as filed with the FEC: strategic advice and polling services. Yes, she has tailored her messaging based on the advice and polling data from this man, who, is anything but a progressive political expert. She has used his services to sacrifice her judgment to the progressive opinion, all the while, she has been considering other plans.

As has been recently learned, Mark Penn and his company have associated themselves with some of the most aggressive right-wing and conservative initiatives imaginable. The Trade Deal with Colombia, being heavily pushed by the Bush Administration, is one of the most recent examples of Mark Penn's representation. But there are many others. As I've highlighted here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/271, Penn's company not only worked for Bush/Colombia's trade deal, not only was one of it's chief's Charlie Black, McCain's campaign adviser, not only were they Blackwater's primary PR Firm, but they formed 360 Advantage, an extreme RW media organization with many of the people from the Bush/Cheney 2000/2004 campaigns. You have to wonder at this point if Karl Rove himself is actually working for Clinton's campaign. After Rove went to work for Fox, Clinton has made numerous appearances on the network.

What would drive Clinton to choose such a person as her chief strategist and adviser? Perhaps it was the prestige that Penn advised British Prim Minister Tony Blair for his successful third-term run. Perhaps it was the long-time relationship with her husband Bill, where he served as pollster and adviser for Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign and throughout the second term of his administration. After all, Bill Clinton is strongly in favor of the trade deal with Colombia. Whatever reason she had, it has proven to be a complete and utter failure of her judgment to chose this person as her primary adviser.

He chose a strategy that was a winner-take all approach leading up to Super Tuesday. When that plan completely failed, and there was no backup plan, the racial attacks and kitchen-sink approach began. The campaign seemed to mirror Bush's 2000 primary run. When losing badly to McCain at the beginning, Rove set about a whisper campaign to call into question the race of McCain's daughter and how he came to have a 'black baby'. Penn took every advantage Clinton had going into this campaign and simply squandered them away with outright lies and smear attacks. All of which came back to bite the campaign in a very bad way.

It was bad enough when Clinton was caught in, not just one or two exaggerations, but a series of complete untruths (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/8/171833/4930/894/492369), you have to wonder what were they thinking? Polling, perhaps, is the answer: tell the people what they want to hear, true or not. Her entire credibility has come into question, and for completely unnecessary lies. She could have not made these fanciful claims, but she did. She appears to be pathological.

The answer to why is in who she has come to depend on. Yes, Mr. Penn. The absolutely disaster of her campaign lies at his feet. But he is not to blame. He is simply trying to create a fictional character. Remember, Penn goes way-back with the Clintons. She *knows* him, personally. This explains why she won't really fire him. But it also explains her inconsistency with NAFTA and other trade deals. She fully supported NAFTA during her husbands administration and as the recently revealed Clinton Administration documents show, she spoke out as a proponent for NAFTA. It is extremely unlikely that she did not know about Penn's service to the government of Colombia, especially given her husband's strongly pro-stance on the Colombia/Bush Administration trade deal. And given her recent series of lies, it is hard to give her the benefit of the doubt in this. She also had to know that Penn's company had protected Blackwater, worked with McCain's campaign and even partnered with Bush/Cheney's old team to form a new political advocacy firm. Maybe this is why she has been so outwardly spoken in favor of McCain. At any rate, her catastrophic failure of judgment in choosing and standing by Mark Penn certainly explains much about her campaign. Let's hope it helps Democratic voters, Delegates and Super Delegates decide where she really stands: for them or for the ideology for someone like Mark Penn. After all, if she wins, Mr. Penn is going to be in her administration, salary paid for by taxpayers like you and me.