Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hillary's Mr Fix-It: The Rise and Fall of Mark Penn
He was the ultra-loyal – and highly controversial – strategist behind the former first lady's presidential bid. Now he's the latest casualty of an extraordinary campaign.
At six o'clock on a freezing November morning, Hillary Clinton's famously rumpled and gruff top strategist, Mark Penn, was hailed by another giant of her campaign for the Democratic nomination at the departure gate of the shuttle to Washington DC.Terry McAuliffe, a notorious blowhard of the party, wanted to know what Mr Penn had made of the event they had both attended the previous night, when the candidates (there were nine Democrats in the race at that stage) each addressed a raucous crowd of sign-waving, feverishly excited supporters inside an echoing basketball arena.
After a series of earnest and dull addresses by Hillary Clinton and lesser lights of the presidential campaign, Barack Obama had sprinted on to the stage to deliver a mesmerising speech that brought the house down. It would prove to be a turning point in what until that point had been a faltering campaign that had shown more promise than substance.
The core of Mr Obama's message was a promise that if elected he not only intended to unite Republicans and Democrats, "Red States and Blue States" but that he would also clean out the Augean stables in Washington DC. He would end forever the excessive influence of lobbyists and venal politicians on the way America does business. To that end his campaign would have nothing to with lobbyists and accept none of their money. It was to be a people's movement, rather than a campaign waged under the old rules. The speech could have been written with Mark Penn in mind. As "Worldwide chief executive" of the British-owned lobbying firm Burson Marsteller and chief strategist to Mrs Clinton, he saw no conflict of interest in his two roles.
One minute he was representing the controversial mercenary company Blackwater, whose guards had killed numerous unarmed Iraqi civilians, and the next he was advising Hillary Clinton not to apologise for her Senate vote to go to war in Iraq, but to say instead that "the vote turned out to be a terrible decision for everyone". Another controversy flared over Mr Penn's role in representing Wal-Mart and its efforts to defeat union organising campaigns.
To many Democrats, Mr Penn is seen as a figure who represents for Bill and Hillary Clinton what Karl Rove was to George Bush: a cynical manipulator of numbers, who can magically steer a candidate through controversies and moral hazards by looking at the polling figures and advising them where to position themselves.
On that early morning flight from Iowa to DC, Mr Penn, a pollster by trade, expressed himself more than happy with Hillary's dry-as-a-stick address to the Democratic audience in Des Moines. What mattered, he confided, was the polling data which pointed to an easy win in Iowa. Reports that dyed-in-the-wool Iowa Republicans were openly expressing interest in Mr Obama's inspirational message of unity was just anecdotal fluff, he said. Hillary Clinton was going to win the first and most important contest in the primary race. The answer was in the polling numbers, Mr Penn said as he headed for the first-class section.
So confident was he in the inevitability of Mrs Clinton blowing away the precocious upstart, and wrapping the nomination up by 5 February, or Super Tuesday, that he predicted he would not have to do much travelling during the campaign. Instead he would hole up at Burson Marsteller's sleek DC headquarters. "I'll stay in Washington and monitor all the polling remotely," he said, changing the subject to one of his proudest achievements, his role advising Tony Blair and helping to steer him to his third electoral victory by getting him to focus on the small-bore issues that appeal to voters. But Mrs Clinton is increasingly struggling to secure the nomination with the numbers stacked up against her.
As one of the most influential political advisors of his generation, Mark Penn finally fell on his sword on Sunday. He resigned from the Clinton campaign after he was caught by the conflict of interest between his work as a Washington DC lobbyist and his role as her chief strategist.
In an act of extraordinary hubris, Mr Penn rolled up at the Colombian embassy in Washington last Monday to advise the ambassador on the best way to get a controversial free trade agreement through Congress. The compant, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the advertising company WPP, was billing $300,000 for a year's worth of advice on a trade deal that the Clinton campaign is specifically and publicly opposed to.
American trades unions oppose the trade deal because they fear the loss of jobs. Human rights groups oppose it because of the actions of death squads linked to the government of ÃÂlvaro Uribe. At first the Colombian embassy described the meeting as one of a series with Barack Obama's team and that of the Republican candidate, John McCain.
But when Mr Penn publicly apologised for what he said was "an error of judgement" in attending the meeting the Colombians were furious at the "insult" and promptly sacked him and his firm on Saturday. By Sunday, his position in the Clinton campaign was also untenable with Hillary Clinton reported to be "furious" with him for his indiscretion.
Even though Mr Penn has been among their most loyal backers since the darkest days of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, both Bill and Hillary Clinton agreed he should be cut adrift from the campaign on Sunday. Mr Penn will, however, continue to give discreet advice and his polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates will still be used to guide the campaign in the difficult weeks ahead.
Despite the terse statement from the campaign that "after the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign", the impression lingered that he will continue to whisper advice, but this time from more of a distance.
With a blizzard of polling data to back up his position, Mr Penn advised Mrs Clinton to go on the attack against Mr Obama. Other advisers cautioned that this was a fatal error and that the voters had responded better when they saw her human side. It was glimpses of her vulnerability after her loss in Iowa that enabled her to rebound they said.
For months top advisers to Hillary Clinton have been telling her to get rid of Mr Penn, whom they blamed for some of the most spectacular miscalculations of her once "inevitable" campaign for the nomination. One of Mr Penn's mistake, it appears, was to assume that Mrs Clinton could win the nomination by focusing solely on the big states in the primary season, all but ignoring the smaller states that typically vote Republican in a general election.
This gave an opening to Mr Obama who tapped into his cross-over appeal among Republicans and independents in these smaller states most of which he won handsomely ending up with more delegates than Mrs Clinton despite all her big state wins. By the time Super Tuesday rolled around, Mr Obama had built up enough momentum to halt the advance of the Clinton machine.
But the greatest error was Mr Penn's belief that he could win the election by running Hillary Clinton's strategy to take the White House in the way he advises his PR firm's clients: drilling down into the polling data to discover what his book, Microtrends, describes as "the small forces behind tomorrow's big changes".
Mr Penn's philosophy boils down to the belief that "Americans overwhelmingly favour small, reasonable ideas over big, grandiose schemes". He calls it "niching", writing that "there is no one America anymore" but "hundreds of Americas".
Mr Penn is Bill and Hillary Clinton's God of small things and his poll-driven approach to politics has worked wonders in the past. He gave her the confidence to launch her first Senate run, telling her that New Yorkers were open to her running. And despite the deep undercurrent of anti-Clinton sentiment in the country, Mr Penn's polling persuaded her that she could win the nomination and the White House by running as a hawkish no-nonsense candidate who was at ease with picking up the baton in George Bush's war on terror. Mr Penn's polling numbers had worked their magic for Hillary and Bill Clinton many times before.
But inside the Clinton campaign there was fury that Mr Penn's obsession with polls allowed Mr Obama to capture the public's imagination by declaring himself to be the agent of change, a theme that has come to define the 2008 election.
The tensions between Mr Penn and advisors occasionally burst into the open as when Clinton campaign operatives gathered in her headquarters in Arlington, Virginia to preview a TV commercial. "Your ad doesn't work," Mr Penn yelled at Mandy Grunwald, one of the Clinton's closest friends in the advertising business. "Oh, it's always the ad, never the message," Ms Grunwald fired back, in a clash that got so heated that the campaign's political director Guy Cecil left the room, saying, "I'm out of here."
The latest upheaval in the Clinton campaign comes at a time when she only has a narrow path to winning the nomination and that depends on her winning the Pennsylvania primary on 22 April in two weeks' time. When the race for the Democratic nomination is finally wrapped up, it will all come down to a contest between Mr Obama's inspiration and Mr Penn's divination.
Another Clinton adviser whispered this weekend as Mr Penn was being hung out to dry: "Nothing can stop Obama now."
--Leonard Doyle
© 2008 independent.co.uk
46 Comments so far
Show All"Nothing can stop Obama now."
Excellent! Finally a stake has been driven into the heart of that monster, Hillary.
"The latest upheaval in the Clinton campaign comes at a time when she only has a narrow path to winning the nomination and that depends on her winning the Pennsylvania primary on 22 April in two weeks' time. When the race for the Democratic nomination is finally wrapped up, it will all come down to a contest between Mr Obama's inspiration and Mr Penn's divination."
There is no "narrow path to winning the nomination" for Hillary Clinton. She has been out of this race for two months, now. She's aleady lost a majority of the states, she can't win a majority of the delegates without huge victories that simply aren't going to happen (it looks as though she may now lose PA, where she led by over 20 points only a few weeks ago), and with the popular vote, the story is the same. She has stayed in the contest only for the purpose of sucking up enough delegates to prevent a clear Obama victory (at which she has succeeded), then trying to get the superdelegates to pull a George Bush Jr.--to throw out the results of the democratic process and coronate her (this, while posing as the Mother Protector of Democracy in the matter of Florida and Michigan). Without the widespread Republican support rallied by Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. (which, of course, won't be there in the fall), she would have been losing by even wider margins.
"To many Democrats, Mr Penn is seen as a figure who represents for Bill and Hillary Clinton what Karl Rove was to George Bush: a cynical manipulator of numbers, who can magically steer a candidate through controversies and moral hazards by looking at the polling figures and advising them where to position themselves."
That's actually a pretty funny line.
I'm pretty young (25), so perhaps someone could take a moment to explain something to me that's probably obvious to everyone else. What's the problem with this 'triangulation' I keep hearing about in reference to the Clintons? From what I understand, it's the process of changing one's position based on polling data. But isn't that what a politician is supposed to do? To listen to what the people are telling them and act accordingly? Haven't we had enough of elected officials following their own agendas?
That being said, I don't support Clinton in this race precisely because of her stances on major issues. However, it seems preferable in general to have an official following our orders rather than making his or her own.
jcarleski,
Triangulation is sort of like a trick play in football. It works the first time as it takes the opponent by surprise. And it worked magic for Bill Clinton. But a clever opponent, such as a Mr. Karl Rove, can come up with a counter-strategy -- keep the target moving by continually moving to the right. Then the Democrat follows the Republican to the right, further and further, and pretty soon the Democrat is playing on the Republican's turf and the Republicans are seen as having the right answers (why else would the Democrats be following them?). And not only that, but that Democrat has alienated all the real Democrats as what had traditionally been Republican, or conservative, policies are pursued and enacted by that Democrat.
"I'm pretty young (25), so perhaps someone could take a moment to explain something to me that's probably obvious to everyone else. What's the problem with this 'triangulation' I keep hearing about in reference to the Clintons? From what I understand, it's the process of changing one's position based on polling data. But isn't that what a politician is supposed to do? To listen to what the people are telling them and act accordingly? Haven't we had enough of elected officials following their own agendas?"
"Triangulation" is a vile political strategy aimed at positioning oneself at the "center" of a given debate. It does so by framing issues in such a way that the right and the left are marginalized as "extremes." In the current political climate, so heavily tilted to the right already, it had the on-the-ground effect of neutralizing most liberal initiatives, at a time when they were desperately needed, and it did so not because of their relative merits but because those doing the triangulation (Clinton, principally) wanted to position themselves as "moderates," and threw their own base over the sides to accomplish it.
Not a New Yorker, but was enthusiastic about Hillary getting into the Senate. It quickly became apparent that she was merely a triangulating, calculating, old windsock. Never has the presumptive nominee had so long (from 2000 onward) and so much celebrity at her disposal to shape the image of herself as a leader and an inspiration. And she completely blew it, not for lack of opportunity, but for lack of sincerity and judgment.
Everyman. Or Everywoman. More compassionate than a weeping madonna, yet more determined than a pack of republican hyenas. More erudite than, well you know who, and unfortunately just as unwilling to accept rejection as you know who.
As if Clinton didn't have a clue as to what he was up to--and he ain't really out of the picture either. They just had to go through the motions of damage control.
Triangulation borrows on the opposition's pitch to innoculate yourself from attack and by claiming the "center" on an issue. The problem with this is you forfeit what you stand for. In the case where the Right spent years and millions to control consensus and worked their talking points until it was represented as the conventional wisdom, it may be an effective strategy for short-term gain, but ultimately it leaves you drifting because you no longer stand on an issue--you are always positioning. And what happens when the field drifts even further to the Right--triangulation also moves the "center". What the Democratic party under Clinton is experiencing in it's inability to counter the rising tide of the Right is blowback from triangulation strategy. The Clintons will put up the farm to win for themselves. That is the only thing they sincerely fight for and against should anyone challenge them. It isn't like they fought against the emerging Right--they just joined them via the "New Democrat" DLC stalking horse--and the price was no unified force to counter the Right.
"But a clever opponent, such as a Mr. Karl Rove, can come up with a counter-strategy — keep the target moving by continually moving to the right. Then the Democrat follows the Republican to the right, further and further, and pretty soon the Democrat is playing on the Republican's turf and the Republicans are seen as having the right answers (why else would the Democrats be following them?). And not only that, but that Democrat has alienated all the real Democrats as what had traditionally been Republican, or conservative, policies are pursued and enacted by that Democrat."
An example of a failure: Hillary Clinton's proposed health-care initiative during the first Clinton term. What Clinton did, there, was adopt a slightly modified version of a health-care plan created by then-Republican-leader Bob Michel. It was a conservative "managed competition" approach (and a TERRIBLE idea). It was intended to be positioned as a "moderate" approach, between the "extremes" of those on the don't-do-anything right, and those on the left who favored single-payer (over 100 members of congress, at the time). It collapsed, though, when Republicans simply chose to portray the plan as some far-left "socialized medicine" initiative anyway, and use the same arguments against it as they would have against single payer. With huge amounts of money behind them, they succeeded, and comprehensive health care reform hasn't been on the table for 13 years, as a consequence (while the health care system--on an unsustainable trend--gets worse and worse).
so it sounds like the rub here is that triangulation lops off the political "ends," regardless of where they are on a more absolute spectrum and how much backing they may have. That makes a lot of sense given things I'm learning about Bill and what I see in Hillary. I appreciate the 101 lesson here, folks. :)
"Not a New Yorker, but was enthusiastic about Hillary getting into the Senate. It quickly became apparent that she was merely a triangulating, calculating, old windsock. Never has the presumptive nominee had so long (from 2000 onward) and so much celebrity at her disposal to shape the image of herself as a leader and an inspiration. And she completely blew it, not for lack of opportunity, but for lack of sincerity and judgment."
In her 8 years in the Senate, she authored or co-authored less than two-dozen pieces of legislation, and pressed for their passage in the Senate. All but three or four of those bills were devoted to fluff like honoring someone, naming a post office or a bridge or a road after someone, etc. She's been a passive space-filler, showing no initiative at all, and content to just sit back, vote on other people's bills, and collect a paycheck at the end of the week.
(This compares VERY unfavorably with Obama, who, in only 4 years in the Senate, has authored or co-authored literally hundreds of bills in every subject imaginable)
"so it sounds like the rub here is that triangulation lops off the political 'ends,' regardless of where they are on a more absolute spectrum and how much backing they may have."
Or what their actual merits may be.
jcarleski - 'Triangulation' is political doublespeak for I can take three positions on any issue. And the Cliff Notes on your 101 class would read: American politics has evolved into a process that is no longer run by Statesmen. Our country is now run by political whores who are selling our Constitution to corporate America.
Hoa binh
Hillary Clinton is the second-best senator from New York
The notion that Mark Penn is "gone" is a Clinton machine talking point, with no more reality attached to it than there is to Hillary's professed "opposition" to the Colombian trade pact, or to NAFTA.
HuffingtonPost has the following on Bill Clinton's support for the Colombia deal:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/bill-clintons-ties-to-col_n_95651.html
And this morning HuffingtonPost published an account of a conference call wherein Penn reassured directors of Burson-Marsteller that he was still involved in the campaign, implying that all that had changed was his title. Whatever is going on here, it doesn't sound to me like Penn has quit, or that the Clintons disagree with him on Colombia. THAT's the story, with all respect.
Ditto Vern...
"What the Democratic party under Clinton is experiencing in it's inability to counter the rising tide of the Right is blowback from triangulation strategy."
Mark Penn didn't just represent triangulation but consumer robot society. He sampled for government policy like he sampled salad dressing with test groups. The Clintons and Penn became the monsters implementing the bizarre notion of "negative freedom" of Isaiah Berlin. Watch the BBC documentary "The Trap" on YouTube which in part describes the Penn/Clinton relationship.
I would definately say that the Clintons are experiencing blowback triangulation/negative freedom/polling-for-policy/ Friedmanite capitalism.
Yeah, since 1492, statesmanship is what I had in mind. It is inconceivable to me that an ordinary schmuck like me and millions of others could understand and predict the debacle of Iraq before it happened, yet our highest legislative bodies claim not to have fully appreciated the implications of that vote, or the disaster that might result by injecting ourselves into Iraq.
There was no credible reason or evidence then even to bring a vote on either floor to authorize the use of force against Iraq. Only assertions, claims, and assessments, conveniently supplied by Bush's friends. Iraq had not attacked us, was not threatening to attack us, was not holding U.S. property (except maybe some papers of Chaney's,) or U.S. citizens prisoner or hostage.
Enough statesmen working together, fully considering the future, might have been able to stop this. Might have been able to resist the malignent influence of the militaristic empire mongers.
Say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but she does believe in a level playing field. She believes, deep in her heart, that the workers in the US should be just as screwed as the workers in Colombia, or China or anywhere else for that matter.
Without integrity Democracy will be subverted. It's only a matter of numbers. The number of elected officials in D.C. who have demonstrated a lack of integrity seems to have passed the tipping point. As Vince says above, we would never be in the situation we are in in Iraq if we had enough honest politicians. The same can obviously be said of our economy, health care system, educational system, and most of our institutions. The problems in our country come from a corrupt national government, not terrorists or immigrants.
Hoa binh
if you work within a corrupt system, you cannot help but be part of that corruption, one way or another. If you are running for the presidency and expect to have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, you must buckle to the demands of the corrupt money that pays your way.
How much publicity do you see MSM giving Nader or the green party? If the media was truly unbiased, it would cover other candidates as well, regardless of the size of their funding. Each one of us is responsible for discovering the truth for ourselves. Problem is there is hardly anything else in the media but spin.
Isn't it odd that many of the same people who do comparison shopping and research before making a major purchase do not do the same before casting their vote. Go figure.
It is unfortunate that some labor unions have endorsed Clinton, considering that Penn's firm has campaigned against organized labor for more than one client.
Democrats are still what Mo Udall once said they were. A Cicle Firing Squad!
Look at you Senator Clinton Bashers.
Here in times where Bush is giving away everything that once was ours.
Oh but you got to kick fellow Democrats like the Ex Governor of New York.Or Remember the Democratic Governor of California?
Now you are holding a did not do much canidate high.OBAMA! What happens when you see he also is not wearing clothes?
Going to kick him around also?
This Hillary Clinton you dislike so much.
Remember she went to Arkansas instead of falling into a big city law practice.
And she worked for the poor and needy her whole public life.
Oh and if you check the clintons really did not have a regular home most of their political lives.
2 lawyers making very little at their political jobs.
Now they made 109 million bucks together since 2000
About half from Bill's speaking engagements
another 40 million writing books so you bashers can put them down.
that leaves somewhere around 20 million in 8 years and Hillary gave what 3 or 4 million to her own campaign?
Go ahead and bash Hillary for having people you dislike.
Hell you got 8 years of Bush. Do you really think A President Hillary Clinton would give away the government like Bush has?
Obama will lose. The swiftboaters are arm and ready for him, an his inexperience will trip him up even more,
Imagine then you get to complain and bash a President McCain.
Ok Bashers you all locked and loaded in a circle? READY ,AIM, FIRE!
Just as Karl Rove is as a malign advisor in the vein of Cardinal Richelieu, so is Mark Penn. And for all intensive purposes, Penn is still working for Hilary Clinton. Just as Dubya was too dependent upon Rove to ever fire him short of his being a child molester (though there is doubt if the Bush crime family would get rid of him under those circumstances), so is the case with the Clintons and Penn. What would be ironic though is if Hilary Clinton loses the Democratic nomination despite Penn's machinations. Then Penn would get a deserved result, his fee would go down.
I understand the old idea "He is a SOB but he is our SOB" but when I heard Clinton hired Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn I began to lose my respect for Hillary.
Genaman - what makes you think Hillary is so pure? I do agree she is just as pure as Obama. But since 8 years of clintons (yes, Hilary, too - she uses those eight years as experience) got the workers screwed a la NAFTA and all, it may be time for a different group of thieves...er whatever.
Of course chessgames, but would Hillary or McQuak have been so easily caricatured and marginalized by the media as Kucinich and Nader? I'm sure that when I go digging around any of the candidates I'll find enough "politics" to put me off whole food forever. What I know now (thanks to an article posted here about a week ago,) is Obama had the same assessment then of the impending invasion as I did, and said so in public. He's not an ordinary schmuck like me, and may be in a position to do something about it.
Will he? I still see an unknown entity (justaman) being carried by current currents, as well as riding them. All WE can do is tell him we'd like him to make the attempt.
where's Daniel David when we need him? he could figure this out!
jcarleski -
Classicliberal2 gives an excellent example of one type of important public issue that gets corrupted to the core when traingulation is applied - universal health care, a Democratic Party platform pledge that dates all the way back to Harry Truman in 1948 and which still has never been achieved.
On the left end of the political spectrum you have the call for a single-payer, publicly financed system like that of Canada, European nations, and most of the civilized industrial world - an eventual end of private health insurance as we know it. On the right end of the political spectrum you have the pure private health insurance model favored by the big insurers, big pharma, and the big health care providers, prepared to bitterly attack all government involvement in the health care delivery system (other than taxpayer subsidies with no regulatory strings attached) as evil old socialized medicine.
Triangulators sally forth to condemn both models as extremist, and opt instead for what they bill as a middle course, a compromise that is neither fish nor fowl, but some blend of the two basic options that is hyped to capture the virtues of each extreme while minimizing the drawbacks of both.
Short term, this centrist mish mash may attract a temporary legislative majority, and make the triangulating political figure appear moderate, reasonable, and a real team player. It is also a marketer's dream, promising consumers the greatest good for the greatest number on the most cost efficient basis, etc., etc.
Long term, however, triangulation guarantees that fundamental, structural reform will never take place, and guarantees that those in control of the status quo will survive to co-opt the reforms, reset the clock, and reframe the issues for the next policy debate cycle so as to move the system inexorably towards the conservative end of the spectrum. One step forward, in order to take two or three steps back and call it progress.
The Clinton presidency adopted triangulation as a form of political art - using the technique on a whole array of public issues including tax reform, trade, education, civil rights, and so forth. Once the right wingers figured out that the DLC centrists could be counted on to regularly marginalize the Democratic Party's progressive wing, the neo-cons were home free to advocate increasingly regressive, Neanderthal policies, secure in the knowledge that almost invariably the farther right they moved, the farther the center would tilt in compromise with their desired direction.
One other thing about triangulation should also be noted: by their very nature, certain issues of public policy simply are not amenable to gradation along a political spectrum and then cutting the baby in half somewhere near the navel.
Take war and peace, for instance.
First Bush/Cheney and now McCain are true believers. Bring the evil doers on, so we can kill them over there before we have to kill them over here.
Go right ahead. Try to triangulate that.
Bill from Saginaw
When did Mark Penn fall?
He's still a consultant to the campaign. And all the publicity has probably attracted more corporate-scum clients to his business.
Hillary already spent 8 years giving away everything that's ours. Have people completely forgotten the Clinton era?
Just a very short list, else I'd hurt my fingers typing.
-- today's financial crisis directly ties to the legislation pushed for and signed by the Clintons in 1999 that repealed the depression-era reform bill called Glass-Steagal that was in place precisely to prevent the actions that are causing our current crises.
-- do you like today's media concentration? If not, remember the 1996 Telecom act pushed for and signed by the Clintons that allows it.
Then there's always NAFTA and WTO sending our jobs overseas.
Anyone remember the Lincoln bedroom stuff from the Clinton era? They essentially put the whole nation up for sale to get campaign contributions.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, don't get fooled again.
I love that the Hillary fans use exactly the same argument technique as the Bush people used to use. Remember when everyone who complained about what Bush was doing was a 'bush-basher'? Now we see the same propaganda technique from Hillary supporters. No criticism is valid, because if you criticize you are a 'hillary-basher'.
when the heck did Hillary work for the poor and the needy?
Was that when she was a corporate lawyer at the Rose law firm? Or maybe she did this wonderful work from her seat on the Walmart board of directors.
This is at the point where its a denial of reality worthy of a bushie.
'triangulation' was one of the many excuses the Democrats have offered for acting like Republicans.
It became a dirty word on the left when the left was stuck watching the Clinton's pursue one pro-corporate Republican policy after another in favor of the corporate interests that were feeding them money (and promising lots more after they left the White House obviously). 'triangulation' was the Clinton buzzword that they used to try to explain what they were doing, since they couldn't just come out and honestly say they were paying back the people who had bribed them.
"'triangulation' was the Clinton buzzword that they used to try to explain what they were doing, since they couldn't just come out and honestly say they were paying back the people who had bribed them."
perfetto! I almost snarfed my water laughing, it was such a good line and sooooo durn true.
"The Clinton presidency adopted triangulation as a form of political art - using the technique on a whole array of public issues including tax reform, trade, education, civil rights, and so forth. Once the right wingers figured out that the DLC centrists could be counted on to regularly marginalize the Democratic Party's progressive wing, the neo-cons were home free to advocate increasingly regressive, Neanderthal policies, secure in the knowledge that almost invariably the farther right they moved, the farther the center would tilt in compromise with their desired direction."
The Clinton administration did this with virtually every major policy initiative. The "Clinton" crime bill was the Bush Sr. crime bill, with barely any alteration. The "Clinton" health care "reform" package was actually a plan created by then-Republican-leader Bob Michel. The "Clinton" anti-terror package, post OK City--a Republican bill. NAFTA and the GATT round that established the WTO? Works of the first Bush administration, adopted wholesale by Clinton. The "Clinton" welfare reform? Largely the work of then-Republican-leader Newt Gingrich. Signing that one even got him praised by Rush Limbaugh, who called it (paraphrasing) the most conservative thing a president has done since Ronald Reagan.
Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder: A Biography of Hillary Clinton
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Great explanations of triangulation by several posters, and fabulous analysis of the Clintons by CO MARC, KIVALS & Bill from Saginaw. Sometimes commentary on this site is an energizing as dipping into cold rain forest waters newly come upon. Bravo! Thinkers exist in a nation otherwise gone to sleep!
Let me get this straight: Mark Penn and his PR firm with its loathsome track record is employed by Columbia to use his influence...somehow...to help the Columbia free trade agreement be passed.
Was the government of Columbia aware when they hired Mr. Penn that he was at the same time working to help make Hillary Clinton President, who opposes the free trade agreement with Columbia?
And Columbia was willing to pay Mark Penn money, when he was working to help elect someone president who is committed to the opposite of what Columbia was paying Mark Penn to deliver? OK....
I would love for a journalist to press the Columbian ambassador or other Columbian government representative on the logic, from Columbia's point of view, of this expenditure. Such as: how, exactly, was this expenditure to Penn in the government of Columbia's interest (to hire an advisor working to elect as U.S. president a candidate committed to the opposite of what the government of Columbia wants)? How did Penn explain to Columbia how a Hillary Clinton presidency, which Penn is devoutly pursuing, would be favorable for his client Columbia's interests on this particular matter? I think the Columbian government's answer to these questions could be very illuminating.
Scroller...Excellent point and excellent questions.
Do we think anyone at CBS, NBC, ABQ, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc will ever ask them? Ha Ha !
Another aspect of triangulation: the triangulator (Hillary) only pays attention to the ideas of the voters in the triangle in the 'center' of the universe of voters.
Accordingly, the peace movement was 'triangulated' out of her consideration for her first term in the Senate, because there were not enough people who were identified with 'peace' by the pollsters to pay any attention to them. After Jonathan Tasini challenged Hillary in the 2006 primary in New York as a peace candidate (with very little money and very little media attention, and he still won some upstate communities, including the city of Ithaca)- Hillary refused to debate him, barely acknowledged there was a primary being waged- but darn, the peace movement seemed to be a factor elsewhere in 2006 (Ned Lamont, a peace candidate who had millions, defeated Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Dem primary), so Hillary started mentioning peace in Iraq as a vague goal that she knew how to achieve.
And her major legislative initiative- a bill to criminalize burning the American flag- went on the back burner, as it wasn't quite as popular as her pollsters imagined it would be in 2002 and 2003 and 2004.
So, the goal- if a politician like Hillary stays in a position of power- is for an interest group to persist and become perceived as a majority. Then, we get her attention. Of course, it would be wise for members of the interest group to make clear to the general public that Sen. Clinton has been a consistent militarist who can't be trusted to ever truly support initiatives for peace. The ideal direction is to not allow the triangulating politician (like Sen. Clinton) to retain any position of power- vote for alternatives.
Great discussion of "triangulation". The Clinton health care plan debacle in particular evokes a verse from "My Fair Lady"'s "Ordinary Man" (which of course must be roundly denounced as sexist by sexism-denouncers, although it's about misogyny):
Make a plan and you will find, she has something else in mind,
And so rather than do either you do something else that neither likes at all!
Little Brother,
Good point about "Ordinary Man." Though the point it is making is quite middle-brow as it mocks obvious misogyny, that is too much for the US low-brow politically correct culture.
Scroller,
You must be patient. If Hillary does figure out some means to finagle her way to the nomination, the right-wing media will be all over that story, and the mainstream corporate media will follow up on it. Of course they will preface their remarks with something like "Of course 'free trade' is a good thing regardless, but the importance of the story is that it shows again that Ms. Bill Clinton has problems with the truth." And I am afraid that in this case the righties would be right.
Good comments on Clinton, COMarc and AlexLawyer.
Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog parsed the relationship between Mark Penn and John McCain's campaign in this piece from Feb. 25, 2008: "Mark Penn's tangled corporate web: Clinton is a client; McCain is a client."
http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/mark-penns-tangled-corporate-web.html
Both Penn and top McCain advisor Charlie Black receive their paychecks from parent corporation WPP Group, which owns Burson-Marsteller and Black's BKSH. As Sudbay points out, if Obama is destroyed, Penn makes out whether Hillary or McCain is elected in November.
Sudbay writes: "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." [...]
"And, Ari Berman [at The Nation, April 6, 2007] wrote about this last spring:
"'A host of prominent Republicans fall under Penn's purview. B-M's Washington lobbying arm, BKSH & Associates, is run by Charlie Black, a leading GOP operative who maintains close ties to the White House, including Karl Rove, and was a partner with Lee Atwater, the consultant who crafted the Willie Horton smear campaign for George H.W. Bush in 1988. In recent years Black's clients have included the likes of Iraq's Ahmad Chalabi, the darling of the neocon right in the run-up to the war; Lockheed Martin; and Occidental Petroleum. In 2005 he landed a contract with the Lincoln Group, the disgraced PR firm that covertly placed US military propaganda in Iraqi news outlets.
"'Black is only one cannon in B-M's Republican arsenal.'"
"Penn works for Clinton.
"Black works for McCain.
"And Black works for Penn."
[snip]
Sudbay writes: "So, again, we have to ask: Why is Mark Penn on a mission to destroy Obama? It's clear that Penn benefits if Hillary wins -- she's his client, his firm's client. His company benefits if McCain wins -- he's the client of one of Penn's top employees. Penn has an obligation to his shareholders and clients. And his firm seems to have clients on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of this fight. If Obama wins the presidency, Penn gets nothing. He was helping the other guy, or gal. But if McCain wins, Penn's firm has one hell of a contact with the new president -- heck, one of his top employees had the new president as a client and didn't even charge him! Is it a conflict of interest? Not with his clients. But how about with the Democratic party and our interests?"
And this from "A Few Degrees of Separation From Hillary Clinton's Top Adviser," by Jeffrey Birnbaum at the Washington Post, Feb. 20, 2007:
"Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.
"The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.
"To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).
"WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley)."
Talk about a tangled web; too bad the Big Media, with a few exceptions like Jeffrey Birnbaum, can't be bothered to cover this fetid tale of interconnected corruption that may affect our next election.
I have always marveled at triangulators. I admire the Democrat's uncanny ability to speak out of both sides of their mouth simultaneously. They are at once for the war and against it. They are for removing the troops from Iraq and shipping them to Afghanistan. They are against the war but for a larger military budget. They are against the war but plan to leave tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East to police "our" oil. Obama is against the war but wants an extra 100,000 troops in the military. In Obama's case, you must give him a little credit. He was against the war before he was for it. Hilary was for the war before she was "against" it. Nice job Democrats.
Thanks ALL for expanding my own idea of why triangulation has always seemed like a cuss word to me. Now I know why....my gut, unlike King George's seldom leads me astray. It is good to have such illuminating evidence for why we're in the pickle we currenmtly find ourselves. Bless you all. I feel I am in the company of mental giants at times on this site even though the conflict sometimes makes me feel abit queasy. But that is usually on acount of trolls, and instigators itchin for a fight . I am abit of a "wuss." smile.
Starofthesea (April 9th, 2008 9:17 pm) wrote: "But that is usually on acount of trolls, and instigators itchin for a fight . I am abit of a "wuss." smile."
Starofthesea, you're not a wuss, you're just smart enough, unlike me, to refrain from trying to present the trolls and instigators with something resembling the truth, which is endlessly frustrating and right up there with banging your head against a brick wall. Still no matter what the T and I babble, the truth will out, as the saying goes. At least we hope so.
Carvel , Begala , Bill Clinton , Mark Penn and the rest of Hillary's entourage are all lobbyist desperately trying to increase their governmental influence so they can make even more money . The same goes for John McCain's entourage . The real money is in lobbying . Those two campaigns are made up of Washington insiders who know how to milk the system . This upstart Obama is interfering with the normal business routine and the voters are buying what he is selling . A lot of us voters would like to make $109 million dollars of our own tax money .