A Rational Animal

Photo: AP/Jerry Lai/Burson-Marsteller.com

Okay, enough with the numbered days already.  One, it’s kind of pointless after missing ten days due to illness (not that I couldn’t have filled those ten days with individual posts on Penn’s egregious conflicts of interest; believe me, I could); and two, it’s pretty damn clear that no matter how clear and contemptible his fuckupery, she’s not going to dump him.

For today, I’m just going to indulge in a bit of lovely schadenfreude, courtesy of the New York Observer.  NYO has three - count ‘em; three - articles this week on the blithering idiot that is Penn. 

Fittingly, Jason Horowitz (or his editor) slaps Penn around from jump with the headline "Micro Mark," in a piece that begins with Penn whining that people "misunderstand" his brilliant strategy:

“There was a misunderstanding that this campaign was about small things. It never was. If anything, the Obama campaign has microtargeted constituencies.”

This, from Mr. "Microtrends" himself. 

“I think that virtually every schoolchild knows that she is ‘ready on day one,’ said Mr. Penn, referring to one of the slogans he designed for Mrs. Clinton. “If you look back—at the beginning she was ‘ready for change and ready to lead’ and that’s something that built a large coalition that carried her through Super Tuesday. Between then and now, there was a period where the campaign didn’t have resources to play ahead in those states it needed to campaign in.”

As he put it, his strategy had succeeded in the “biggest message-oriented states.”

‘Cause, you know, those caucus states don’t count, and shit.  Seriously:  "biggest message-oriented states"?  WTF is a message-oriented state?  It sounds like a Karl Rove’s number-one mental tic.

Oh, and that "not having the resources it needed" bit?  Whose fault was that?  Sweet jumping jeebus, but this moron has no sense of irony.  Which, of course, is perfect, considering that he’s a DLC Boy, and therefore, the bastard brother of Rove’s GOP. 

But the money line is this:

He reserves a special disdain for a group he identifies as the “impressionable elites”: people who can afford to pick candidates based on fuzzy feelings rather than on the impact the candidates’ policies will have on their lives. At a recent discussion of the book at the Strand bookstore in Manhattan, during which Mr. Penn said, “The theory of the book is that the era of big trends is over,” one audience member asked if Mr. Obama was not a “macrotrend.”

Yeah, "impressionable elites" - Penn’s sole audience.  He exists purely by and for the chattering classes, of which he is a card-carrying member.  And I’d really like to know who he is to be calling other people "elites" (see DLC Boy, above).  Hell, he couldn’t even be bothered to stick around to play Chief Strategist the night before the Potomac Primary; it was more important to him to grab the shuttle to New York to plug his latest useless contribution to the deforestation of the planet.

I guess that $3.8 mil. in January alone wasn’t enough to keep him on-task.  Nor, apparently was the $10+ million total that he’s raked in from Clinton so far, even with his continuing income from Burson-Marsteller Worldwide (and, thus, from John McCain’s chief strategist).

But to enjoy the schadenfreude more fully, don’t miss NYO’s other two articles.  Ostensibly pieces about Leon Panetta and Harold Ickes, they’re actually [well-deserved] hatchet jobs on Penn.  No, I have no illusions about Panetta and Ickes, either, but it’s a beautiful thing to see them go for Penn’s jugular for the sheer sport of it.  (Okay, so maybe not "sport" - how about a little well-timed revenge?)

Ultimately, though, Clinton’s refusal to can Penn in the face of such an abysmally stupid performance makes me glad that Obama appears to be the likely nominee.  Because if she insists on remaining joined at the hip to this sort of fuckwittery on her campaign, who do you think would be attached to her in the White House?

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: