That’s it.
Mark Penn must go.
Not because he’s hurting Clinton’s candidacy. Frankly, at this point I’m so fed up with her for keeping this moron around that I really don’t give one solitary flying fuck whether he hurts her candidacy or not.
But what I don’t want to have happen is Penn, like Bob Shrum, rising from the ashes of his latest Democratic incineration to pressure the unwary and unwise into believing that they neeeeeeed him.
Penn must go. NOW. He’s not even a real Democrat, for fuck’s sake - he’s an Ed Koch/Joe Lieberman pussywhipped "centrist" douchebag. And this party’s had all the douchebaggery from this crowd it can take for - oh, say, the next millennium or so.
To that end, I’m making it my personal mission to get this insecure and narcissistic little asshole drummed out of the Democratic Party campaign consulting business, once and for all. Let the Rethugs have him - underneath, he’s one of them anyway. Probably wears bright red magic underwear, too - with Jack Bauer in tights and a cape emblazoned on the front.
So, for the foreseeable future (since I have no confidence in the party establishment taking a single step to save themselves from themselves, ever), ARA will highlight Penn’s heresies and stupidities. (Yeah, I know; not enough years left in my life to highlight them all. But we do the best we can.)
Herewith, then, today’s edition:
Clinton’s chief strategist Mark Penn ratcheted up the debate in recent days by convening a rare two conference calls in three days with reporters to underscore the campaign’s focus on which Democrat can win in November.
“The kind of independent support that [Obama] had so far would evaporate relatively quickly once he faced the Republicans because of them filling in the totality of his record,” Penn said on Monday.
Two days later, after Obama’s eighth straight victory, Penn told reporters: “Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries.”
Um.
What . . .
the . . .
fuck?!
‘Kay, lessee if I got this straight. Winning Democratic primaries is no indication of who can win the general. Hmm. So, Mark, I can tease out two separate interpretations of that:
1) Mark thinks that losing Democratic primaries is a sign of who can win the general; or
2) Mark thinks that winning the nomination is not an incontrovertible prerequisite to competing in the general in the first place.
I have no doubt that Mark’s perfectly capable of "believing" both (that is to say, he believes that we’re stupid enough to believe both) - but for what it’s worth, my money’s on 2).
Why?
If you’re shilling for the candidate who appears to be losing in the pledged-delegates department, and you’re planning to force the nomination your way by strong-arming the superdelegates, then obviously, you’re not someone who genuinely believes that winning primaries (and thus, the nomination) is essential to becoming the party "nominee" who runs in the general election.
Somebody, please, shut him the fuck up.
