A Rational Animal

So Hillary’s in favor of clean coal, huh?

Leave aside, for the moment, that "clean coal" is an oxymoron.  What interests me here is that a year ago, and one day after she proposed new funding for so-called "clean coal systems," her chief strategist was doing this:

In an internal blog at his other job, as chief executive officer of public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, Penn wrote of how Burson worked "behind the scenes'’ for TXU Corp., a Texas company seeking to build power plants fueled by pulverized coal, which some environmentalists say would be major polluters.

"Major polluters."  A masterpiece of understatement.  Also a vivid example of Penn’s real principles - which is to say, the principle of lining Penn’s own pockets.  I doubt that Penn ever met a principle that he couldn’t jettison in a heartbeat in favor of money and power.

But it gets better:

Penn’s internal blog — several months of which were obtained by Bloomberg News — suggests that all along he has been working with multiple clients.

[Ed. not:  Um, duh?  Of course he has.  And it’s not bloodly likely that many - or even any - adhere to liberal Democratic principles.] 

He downplayed his role in Clinton’s presidential campaign, saying he is "not a policy adviser, I’m a communications adviser.'’

[Ed. note:  WTF?  The one is the other, dude.  How stupid do you think we are - oh, never mind.  We already know the answer to that one.]

Others say he’s the most powerful figure in the campaign, and an April 30 Washington Post profile said he "has become involved in virtually every move that Clinton makes.'’

[Ed. note:  No shit.  She’s losing, Q.E.D., Penn’s running the show.]

But the money line comes from Howie:

"The real question from the campaign perspective is whether Senator Clinton is comfortable with what Mark is doing, and the answer to that is yes, unequivocally,'’ Wolfson said.

Exactly.  Which is why so many of us can’t support her.

Seriously, does she really think we want to nominate somebody who keeps employing this hideously expensive loser, who’s busily helping her lose her campaign, knowing full well that, once in office, she’ll continue to employ this same hideously expensive loser - with the major difference, of course, that we’ll be the ones losing at that point.

Not one lousy plugged nickel of my tax dollars should go into Penn’s pockets.

Image copyright 2007, The Washington Post

Today’s edition isn’t a new example of Penn fuckup-ery, but it’s something that I just discovered a couple of days ago.

As the whole world knows by now, while serving as Clinton’s pollster and "chief strategist," Penn retains his sinecure as CEO of Burson-Marsteller Worldwide.  (As though serving as Clinton’s pollster and chief strategist weren’t already a full-time job - which, for Penn, it evidently isn’t, but that’s the subject of a future post.)

The chart above shows the hydra that is Mark Penn; its many heads include, of course, Penn’s own polling firm, Penn, Schoen and Berland (also to be the subject of a future post).  Yeah, yeah, I know; none of this is news to you. 

But notice, if you will, the firm directly across from Penn, Schoen and Berland in the B-M Worlwide orbit:  BKSH & Associates.

Who are BKSH?  Funny you should ask. 

You’ll also note that the chart lists BKSH’s principals, one of whom happens to be one Charles R. Black, Jr.  And who might Mister Black be?

Besides serving as chair of BKSH, Charlie Black is also the "dean" of John McCain’s campaign inner circle.

That’s right.  McCain’s most senior strategist and closest adviser also draws his regular paycheck from Clinton’s [allegedly] most senior strategist, Mark Penn. 

Conflict of interest much, Mark? 

This one’s from a couple of days ago.  It falls into the "C’mon, Mark, how stupid do you really think we are?" category:

“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois?” Chief Strategist Mark Penn said. “That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”

Okay, first of all, who you callin’ "insignificant?"

Would that be, oh, Iowa, maybe?  Or how about South Carolina?  Maybe Virginia and Maryland?  Ooh, ooh, I know!  D.C.!  Your turf is about as "insignificant" as it gets, huh, Mark? 

Nice job insulting some 2.5 million voters, in those five jurisdictions alone.

And what was that throwaway line at the end?  “That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama”?

I’d love to have heard what you said after that.  if you said anything at all, of course; I can picture you just throwing it out there into the conference-call ether with no explanation, and the stenographers on the other end dutifully transcribing it without asking the obvious follow-up: