The Nation: Spinning Hillary Centrist

Spinning Hillary Centrist

Editor' s Note: This is an excerpt of a longer article about Hillary Clinton's circle of advisers, which will appear in May 16 in the print version of The Nation.

As Hillary Clinton charges toward the Democratic nomination for President, her campaign has a coterie of influential advisers. There's her husband, of course, widely regarded as one of the sharpest political strategists in the business. There's über-Washington insider and former head of the Democratic National Committee Terry McAuliffe. There are A-list policy wonks like former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin. But perhaps the most important figure in the campaign is her pollster and chief strategist, Mark Penn, a combative workaholic. Penn is not yet a household name, but perhaps he should be. Inside Hillaryland, he has elaborately managed the centrist image Hillary has cultivated in the Senate. The campaign is polling constantly, and Penn's interpretation of the numbers will in large part decide her political direction.

Yet Penn is no ordinary pollster. Beyond his connections to the Clintons, he not only polls for America's biggest companies but also runs one of the world's premier PR agencies. This creates a dilemma for Hillary: Penn represents many of the interests whose influence candidate Clinton--in an attempt to appeal to an increasingly populist Democratic electorate--has vowed to curtail. Is what's good for Penn and his business good for Hillary's political career? And furthermore, can she convincingly claim to fight for the average American with Penn guiding strategy in her corner?

Despite the risks he poses, it's easy to figure out why Hillary clings to Penn. The Clintons (like the Bushes) put a premium on loyalty, and they credit Penn with saving Bill's presidency. After the 1994 election, Democrats had just lost both houses of Congress and Clinton was floundering in the polls. At the urging of his wife, Bill turned to Dick Morris, a controversial friend from their time in Arkansas. Morris knew Penn from his days as a pollster in New York and brought him into the White House. Morris decided what to poll and Penn polled it. They immediately pushed Clinton to the right, enacting the now-infamous strategy of "triangulation," which co-opted Republican policies like welfare reform and tax cuts and emphasized small-bore issues that supposedly cut across the ideological divide. "They were the ones who said 'Make the '96 election about nothing except V-Chips and school uniforms,'" says a former Clinton adviser. When Morris got caught with a call girl, Penn became the most important adviser in Clinton's second term. "In a White House where polling is virtually a religion," the Washington Post reported in 1996, "Penn is the high priest." He became known as the "most powerful man in Washington you've never heard of."

Penn, who had previously worked in the business world for companies like Texaco and Eli Lilly, brought his corporate ideology to the White House. After moving to Washington he aggressively expanded his polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland (PSB). It was said that Penn was the only person who could get Bill Clinton and Bill Gates on the same phone line. Penn's largest client was Microsoft, and he saw no contradiction between working for both the plaintiff and the defense in what was at the time the country's largest antitrust case. A variety of controversial clients enlisted PSB. The firm defended Procter and Gamble's Olestra drug from charges that it caused anal leakage, blamed Texaco's bankruptcy on greedy jurors and market-tested genetically modified foods for Monsanto. Penn invented the concept of "inoculation," in which corporations are shielded from scandal through clever advertising and marketing. Selling an image, companies realized, was as important as winning a legislative favor.

SNIP

Hillary's courtiers, like Penn and Rubin, are why she will continue the same class warfare against the Middle Class and the poor that the Republicans wage on behalf of corporations.

I think she will continue lifting all boats -including those of the middle class - like her husband did.

The lowest unemployment in a generation. Less poverty in a generation. Etc.

How many people will have to "voluntarily leave the work force to pursue other opportunities" for your dream to come true. Isnt the participation rate low enough for you yet or will we need to make more adjustments to the data?

:shrug:

Thats the term for when one is faced with contrary evidence but yet continues to cling to an unrealistic outcome.
Some call it FAITH but thats a whole nother topic.

when one is faced with contrary evidence but yet continues to cling to an unrealistic outcome.

:rofl: WHAT contrary evidence??

While there is no evidence to support Lakespur's claim that "she will continue the same class warfare against the Middle Class and the poor that the Republicans wage on behalf of corporations," eight years of policies and results by her husband that improved the quality of life for the middle class is more than enough to convince me that is the direction she'll go.

It irks me.
On one hand you get to site supposed positive things about Bill and then brush them onto Hillary by inference that, of course they are the same people.
But when one builds a negative case against Bill, well then naturally it is irrelevant because we are not talking about Bill, we are talking Hillary and they are different people.
So which is it?
When the Bill Clinton miracle economy gets dissected for you will that suffice in your realization that your hope is a dream, or will you then go the separate person angle rendering the Bill Clinton economy was a fraud argument pointless?
Sure Bill wasn't as bad as the current thugs, but thats not what we are talking about now, This is the primary stage and recollecting fond memories of Bill doesn't cut it. He sold us.

While Hillary has suggested that the Clinton team will be hers, as well, I have never (nor have I ever seen) an instance like you suggest involving a negative case against Hillary. :shrug:

The Clinton economy has already been disected for me. When (if) you attempt it again, will it be full of truthiness, unsupported allegations, and the like?

I would rather avoid analyzing the Bill Clinton economy. You, however site it as support for Hillary. You then go on with a maybe it is, maybe it isnt, claim attached to Hillary.
Which is it? Do you expect the same from her or not?
If the answer is No then why spend our time reminiscing about Bill.

You then go on with a maybe it is, maybe it isnt, claim attached to Hillary.
Which is it? Do you expect the same from her or not?

No, I did not.

You wrote this in reply to my last:

"While Hillary has suggested that the Clinton team will be hers, as well, I have never (nor have I ever seen) an instance like you suggest involving a negative case against Hillary"

What does that say? maybe I am just interpreting it wrong.

I wrote: "While Hillary has suggested that the Clinton team will be hers, as well, I have never (nor have I ever seen) an instance like you suggest involving a negative case against Hillary,"

In response to what YOUR wrote: "when one builds a negative case against Bill, well then naturally it is irrelevant because we are not talking about Bill, we are talking Hillary and they are different people."

And I will state again. I have NEVER seen an instance of that.

So you are saying we can expect more economic miracles like in the Bill years since she will pursue the same free trading globothin?
Vunderbar ...
Have you ever visited this website ...
Will make you look at the government stats you quote in a whole different light.

http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs?

The whole site is great for disecting BushCo's sack of lies but parts of it still are dedicated to our fond recolections of the Clinton years ...

http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=340

read some and get back to me.

So you are saying we can expect more economic miracles like in the Bill years since she will pursue the same free trading globothin?

No. I'm not saying that at all. I AM saying we can expect more sound economic policies that will produce similar results. The Clinton economic record, especially the jobs creation and lifting folks out of poverty, was not a "miracle" nor was it tied to free trade.

Ever read these books?

http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Clinton-Presidency-Elizabeth-Drew/dp/0684813092/ref=sr_1_1/102-8321722-5964144?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178736532&sr=8-1

read some and get back to me.

(A few black helicopters flew out of my momitor when I visited your site)

I find their critique refreshingly bipartisan, but then again I also believe that people believe what they see with their own eyes.
So what now ... we sling stats? Your government stats are Gods honest truth but the other guys are pure rabble? Why bother?
They are all twisted. Try convincing me that trade deficits don't matter and when you succeed I'll know its time for my meds ....
Long Live the Clintons! Chicken in every Pot, gods honest truth, just hope it doest come from china or else you will wish you had saved the money you spent bringing your dog to the vet.

When it comes to the left/right obsession with the Clintons, the one sticking point is always the economy. After all, how can you tear down the only twice elected Democratic president since FDR when the big, fat, good economy is hanging there. The answer? Discredit the government stats. And as an extra bonus to the left - to really get them salivating - wrap it up in a "shadow." Oooh... conspiracy!

But that's my take. If you want to tell everyone who prospered in the 90s they didn't really, go right ahead.

Kid was like 20, driving a Beamer and talking shit all the time about how bright he was cause he got in on the ground floor of a bunch of dot com ipo's and while the rest of us were retraining for our fourth or fifth careers as one job after another got off shored he would blab and bluster .... I went to a all hands meeting at GE and when they put up the chart of all the cost savings they would achieve through their aggressive downsizing people actually got up and cheered, because if they didn't they knew that the one glaring a hole in their back would be filing their resignation paperwork ... anyhow, that night I went home and saw the blow hard kid packing groceries at the super and it felt good .... he lost it all, most people didn't have the sense to sell, if you got lucky power to you ..... point is, very few did.

...getting numerous job offers in the 90s...

I recall myself, in the communications industry, getting calls weekly at my job with other job offers... again, nada to do with the dot-com bubble.

But the fact is, the dot-com bubble was created by Clinton policies and those jobs were real - but they were not the only jobs created in the 90s. While the rightwing (and now the leftwing) focuses on the tech bubble in the stock market, they overlook the breadth of Clinton's economic accomplishments. For example, how did the tech boom contribute to the dropping poverty rate across the board - including blacks and hispanics? Did they suddenly buy computers and start dot-coms?

My personal experiences had nothing to do with tech. I went from chemical engineering to becoming a buyer when the "lean inventory" thing got popular and companies no longer did anything in house. What you noticed as a buyer was that the press for cost saving always had you squeezing suppliers; companies already had squeezed every penny there was out of there own operations keeping one eye on wall street and the other on their bonuses.
When the suppliers finaly broke from the strain then came the term "global sourcing". Every company had a specialist and if they didnt deliver immediate results they were replaced by someone who could deliver. You started to find yourself working with more and more people who wore turbans as part of the dress code. They were the bosses. Get used to midnight teleconferences because of the time differences .... yada yada..
Now enter H1B. Know when those became popular? You get the picture.
So now this has continued another 6 years or so ....
Some adjustments are needed? Come on. If people dont know what needs scrapping by now they never will.

:)

HRC supporters want to credit her for everything good that someone else (Bill Clinton) did but want to distance her from the negative aspects of his record. The fact is that the only thing she was actually responsible during the Clinton I administration was the health care debacle, which led to 12 years of Republican control of Congress.

Obama can stand on his own. Edwards can stand on his own. Biden can. Dodd can. Kucinich can. Why can't Hillary Clinton win by telling us why Hillary Clinton would make the best president?

I see plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I don't care if she wants to "rework" NAFTA. Her husband said similar things until he got into office and fully supported it.

NAFTA should be scrapped completely - anyone not calling for a repeal is just playing it safe.

So maybe when you're not too busy telling us how wonderful things were under Clinton, you could tell us how many American jobs were shipped overseas because of NAFTA and other trade agreements detrimental to our interests.

Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.

Moving From Record Deficits to Record Surplus. In 1992, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion - the largest dollar deficit in American history. In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $455 billion by 2000. The Office of Management and Budget is now projecting a surplus of at least $230 billion for 2000 - the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation. Compared with original projections, that is over $685 billion less in government drain on the economy and over $685 billion more potentially available for private investment in this one year alone. The 2000 surplus is projected to be 2.4 percent of GDP -- the largest surplus as a share of GDP since 1948. This is the first time we have had three surpluses in a row in more than a half century, and it is the second consecutive surplus excluding Social Security.

Paying Off the National Debt. In July 2000, the Treasury Department announced that the United States will pay off $221 billion of debt this year -- the largest one-year debt pay down in American history. This will be the third consecutive year of debt reduction, bringing the three-year total to $360 billion. Public debt is on track to be $2.4 trillion lower in 2000 than was projected in 1993. Debt reduction brings real benefits for the American people -- a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments. Reduced debt also means lower interest rates and reduced payments on car loans and student loans. With the President's plan, we are now on track to eliminate the nation's publicly held debt by at least 2012.

More Than 22 Million New Jobs. 22.2 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (20 million) of the new jobs have been created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the economy has added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.8 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.5 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Household Income Breaks $40,000 for First Time in History. Income for median households rose $1,072, or 2.7 percent, from $39,744 in 1998 to $40,816, marking an unprecedented fifth year of significant growth in income. In 1999, the median income of African American households increased from $25,911 in 1998 to $27,910 -- an increase of $1,999, or 7.7 percent, which is the largest one-year increase ever recorded. The income of the median Hispanic household, adjusted for inflation, increased from $28,956 in 1998 to $30,735 in 1999 -- an increase of $1,779, or 6.1 percent, which is the largest one-year increase ever recorded.

Unemployment is the Lowest in Over Three Decades. Unemployment is down from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 3.9 percent in September, the lowest in more than three decades. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row, and has remained below 5 percent for 37 months in a row -- over three full years. Unemployment for African-Americans fell to the lowest level ever recorded, and for Hispanics it remains at historic lows.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History. The homeownership rate reached 67.2 percent in the second quarter of 2000 -- the highest ever recorded. Minority homeownership rates were also the highest ever recorded. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993. There are almost 9 million more homeowners than in 1993.

Lowest Poverty Rate Since 1979. In 1999, the poverty rate dropped from 12.7 percent to 11.8 percent, the lowest rate in two decades. Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore passed their Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999 - the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1964-1970). There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993, and over 2.2 million, or over 30 percent, of this decline occurred during the past year.

Largest One-Year Drop in Child Poverty in More than Three Decades. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore child poverty has dropped by 25.6 percent -- from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 16.9 percent in 1999. While this is still too high, it is the lowest child poverty rate since 1979 and includes the largest one-year decline since 1966, which occurred from 1998 to 1999. The African American child poverty rate has fallen 28.2 percent since 1993, and dropped from 36.7 percent in 1998 to 33.1 percent in 1999 -- the largest one-year drop in history and the lowest level on record (data collected since 1959). The Hispanic child poverty rate has fallen by 26 percent since 1993, and dropped from 25.6 percent in 1998 to 22.8 percent in 1999 -- the lowest level since 1979.

You just post all the great things that happened under Clinton while ignoring the consequences of NAFTA.

If you're going to credit Clinton for all this you might as well assign some responsibility to him for supporting NAFTA.

Or do you just ignore and whitewash his error in judgment, like you do with Hillary Clinton?

:wow:

We need a more protectionist trade policy. We needed it yesterday.

Unless you're saying Penn isn't running the campaign for the most part.

Hillary supporters have nothing on this but lame ass replies like that.You sure you're a Richardson guy? They can usually make a actual response.

Here's one from Bill you'll like;

"When you find yourself in a hole...quit digging."

...from people like Lakespur.

In 2004, it was "Wes Clark is evil because he worked for a corporation where Henry Kissinger was a board member."

The guilt by association game that the left (and right) plays is childish.

In 2004, it was "Wes Clark is evil because he worked for a corporation where Henry Kissinger was a board member."

When Kissinger signs on to run Clark's campaign get back to me.Then this utter nonsense might actually have a point.

Until then feel free to keep trying to distance Hillary FROM HER CHIEF STRATEGIST.

Um...like....hellloooo?

This total lack of a defense is pathetic,

Maybe SaveElmer can respond.At least then I could get answer worth reading anyways.

Mark Penn's analysis of why Gore lost....looking back at 2000 in light of Penn's Venezuela polling.

And more. I do not trust that man. His partner Doug Schoen followed Carville in asking that Dean be replaced by Harold Ford.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1193

One of my favorite subjects to write about because they too often discount the needs and desires of the people.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=251

Aug 19, 2004

NED Funded Group helped conduct bogus Venezuela Exit Poll

A U.S. firm's exit poll that said President Hugo Chavez would lose a recall referendum has landed in the center of a controversy following his resounding victory.

"Exit Poll Results Show Major Defeat for Chavez," the survey, conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, asserted even as Sunday's voting was still on. But in fact, the opposite was true. Chavez ended up trouncing his enemies and capturing 59 percent of the vote.

...Critics of the exit poll have questioned how it was conducted because officials have said Penn, Schoen & Berland worked with a U.S.-funded Venezuela group that the Chavez government considers hostile.

Penn, Schoen & Berland had members of Sumate, a Venezuelan group that helped organize the recall initiative, do the fieldwork for the poll, election observers said.

More about it....including their work in Serbia.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/779

"In 1999, when the U.S.-led bombing campaign in Serbia didn't get rid of Slobodan Milosovic, Washington changed its strategy. U.S. intelligence organized a $77 million effort to oust Milosovic through the ballot box. They sent in CIA front organizations funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Instead of guns and bombs, these U.S. forces were armed with fax machines, computers, and perhaps most importantly, sophisticated surveys done by the Washington-based polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland.(1) Their mission: to take down Milosovic by strengthening opposition groups."

In his article, "Coup D'etat in Disguise," Jonathan Mowat described how these "polls" work:

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/503/1

It's all part of the games we play.

They make it clear they provide info on how to fight organized labors attempts.

""'Companies cannot be caught unprepared by Organized Labor's coordinated campaigns whether they are in conjunction with organizing or contract negotiating ... That is why we have developed a comprehensive communications approach for clients when they face any type of labor situation."

Ezra Klein save the original.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2007&base_name=post_3644

"LET'S TALK ABOUT PENN. Ari's article on Mark Penn is making the rounds, and for good reason -- it's a comprehensive and well-done profile of an enormously influential figure. I want to focus on a particular part, though, which was first noticed by our own Mark Schmitt: Burson-Marsteller, the mega-PR firm where Penn serves as Galactic Leader and Imperialist Overlord "Worldwide President and CEO," has a union-busting division.

That's right, a union-busting division.

Their "labor relations" page, which Mark noticed, was immediately scrubbed of the offensive information, losing such delightful gems as "'Companies cannot be caught unprepared by Organized Labor's coordinated campaigns whether they are in conjunction with organizing or contract negotiating ... That is why we have developed a comprehensive communications approach for clients when they face any type of labor situation." The site also bragged of their close working relationship with Jarold Manheim, a George Washington university professor whose book, Death by a Thousand Cuts, was described to me as "the bible for union busters looking to understand "corporate campaigns." BM's unionbuster-in-chief was a delightful individual by the name of Wade Gates who had, I shit you not, the title, at least at times, of "Corporate Citizenship Director," and served as lead spokesman for Cintas, a particularly nasty company trying to resist a UNITE-HERE organizing campaign."

Hillary supporters DO NOT want to address this in any meaningful way,other than to suggest some real feeble excuses,like post #1 in this thread.

What about the actual OP though?

Why does no one want to discuss this? :shrug:

Seriously. Any of the candidates.

This is an election. It's go-time.

Loyalty means something to the Clintons since people on the far right and far left are trying really, really hard to knock her out. I've got no problem with her being smart and effective in running her campaign.

This is an election. It's go-time.

One of my reasons for objecting to her is her love of republican operatives. and playing the rove game. She is so republican and these are the people who would be on her staff if by the very bad luck we end up with her as prez.