Must read. Why Hillary won't take a stand on anything. Her top Advisor.

Here's a guy with ties to Lee Atwater, Willie Horton, Dick Morris, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Union Busting, Republican lobbying firms, and also a major DLC sponsor. I found the original link to the Nation article at TPM, where there's a lot more.


The Nation, posted May 7th. Larger print article coming in May 16th issue.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/berman

(snip)

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.

Penn kept his foot in the political world through the Clintons. In 2000 he became the chief architect of Hillary's Senate victory in New York, persuading her, in a rerun of '96, to eschew big themes and relentlessly focus on poll-tested pothole politics, such as suburban transit lines and dairy farming upstate. Following that election, Penn became a very rich man--and an even more valued commodity in the business world (Hillary paid him $1 million for her re-election campaign in '06 and $277,000 in the first quarter of this year). The massive PR empire WPP Group acquired Penn's polling firm for an undisclosed sum in 2001 and four years later named him worldwide CEO of one of its most prized properties, the PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M). A key player in the decision to hire Penn was Howard Paster, President Clinton's chief lobbyist to Capitol Hill and a top executive in the WPP firmament. "Clients of stature come to Mark constantly for counsel," says Paster, who informally advises Hillary, explaining the hire. The press release announcing Penn's promotion noted his work "developing and implementing deregulation informational programs for the electric utilities industry and in the financial services sector." The release blithely ignored how utility deregulation contributed to the California electricity crisis manipulated by Enron and the blackout of 2003, which darkened much of the Northeast and upper Midwest.

Burson-Marsteller is hardly a natural fit for a prominent Democrat. The firm has

(snip)much more

TPM today

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/may/09/the_real_case_against_mark_penn

The Real Case Against Mark Penn
mschmitt's picture
By Mark Schmitt | bio
I predicted a few weeks ago that we would start to see more stories about the bizarrely conflicting roles of one Mark Penn, who holds down the job of "Worldwide President and CEO" of the fifth-largest public relations firm in the universe (Burson-Marsteller) while also apparently being the de facto campaign manager for Senator Clinton's presidential bid. Ari Berman of the Nation has now opened the bidding with a superb article revealing much of what it actually means to be Worldwide President and CEO of Burson-Marsteller, including presiding over more than one Republican lobbying operation and a union-busting outfit that was once prominently featured on the Burson-Marsteller website but was quickly given the "Commissar Vanishes" treatment after I mentioned it in passing. I wasn't actually that interested in Penn's conflicts of interest as in the nature of his advice and his polling, and its influence on American politics. (I'm told that Berman will have more about Penn-as-pollster in the print edition of the Nation.)

(snip)

There is another kind of polling that can be useful to campaigns and which appears to be Penn's specialty, which tries to understand the population by breaking it down into different groups based on demographics and values. This can be hugely revealing and extremely valuable. The Pew Research Center's periodic studies of "Political Typology" are a premiere example of this work, creating categories such as "Upbeats" and "Pro-Government Conservatives" that generally share attitudes on policy and have much in common demographically. Such an analysis is highly complex, as you essentially put all the data together and try to find natural "clusters" of demographics and values that emerge, trying not to impose categories on the data. You can't do it without a fairly large sample size (2,000 in the Pew poll) and a long questionnaire. Pollster Stan Greenberg did a similar analysis, explained most fully in his book, The Two Americas, in which he created such memorable categories as "F-You Boys" -- poorly educated white men under 50, a key part of the Bush base. If these categories are real and robust, it can help a political strategist figure out how to construct a majority -- for example, if you know you're going to capture very few of the "F-You Boys," then what do you need from other categories?

When Penn markets categories such as "soccer moms" and "office park dads," he seems to be doing the same kind of analysis. But it's hard to know, because unlike almost any other Democratic pollster, he never shows his work. Indeed, my first criticism of Penn was here in TPM Cafe last July, responding to an op-ed he co-wrote with James Carville making broad assertions such as that "Democratic and even independent women are thrilled with the idea" of Senator Clinton running for president, all without a single piece of data to support them. It is telling to compare the web sites of Penn, Schoen and Berland and that of Greenberg's firm, Greenberg, Quinlan & Rosner: Both firms do plenty of work that is proprietary, and both have corporate clients. But Greenberg's site is full of actual data -- the link above goes to a page with 192 reports on U.S. politics, eleven since the beginning of this year alone! Penn's site has nothing; a link to "read samples of our thinking" goes to a page with links to those same data-free op-eds! In short, we have no way of knowing whether Penn's demographic analysis of the electorate is as rigorous as Pew's or Greenberg's or whether he, if you'll forgive me some technical jargon, pulls it out of his ass. (see update below)

(snip) much more, and lots of links to follow at TPM

:hide: :popcorn: :popcorn:

thank you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

absolutely 100%. There are an awful lot of us too which makes her a loser.

I'll vote 3rd party over Hillary. Status quo just isn't gonna cut it anymore.

I will never vote for her and
most likely will actively work
work against her.
Besides, '08 is not the time for a "novelty" candidate.

Sorry to say it but maybe maybe if we actually strategized (like the republicans) and put the country and the world ahead of us nad our own egos we'd win.

I could care less about Hillary's ego and the belief of some that she is somehow entitled to the nomination. If I believed she would put forth policies I would support, she would have my vote. If she doesn't, and some one else better represents what I believe in, I will vote for that individual and not just get in line. Why should we go from hard right to soft right?

Nader Supporters:
"Both parties are the same."
(Now, I guess this administration has proved that one wrong!)

Hillary haters:
'She is the same as the current administration. She is no different.' -Heard by a Barack supporter co-worker of mine and others on DU.
(Do we have to repeat the 2000 election here or can we actually put someone in the WH who knows the terrain, has the best handle understanding the military

has the best handle on understanding the military. I'm not sure what alternate universe you came from, but I hope you remember where the door is.

"Regardless of how the vote plays out, Clinton must portray several images in her campaign. She announced her candidacy from her living room, a move that virtually invited prospective voters into her home. She has won praise from top military officials who say she has a firm grasp of wartime needs and strategy."

Women candidates face high standards
A woman McCain's age or with Obama's experience would have a hard time

...of wartime needs and strategy", IOW she sits on the Armed Services committee and has been a good little lady and kept her mouth shut while we've pissed away trillions on ineffective and unnecessary systems while the troops don't have the resources and equipment they need to do the job.

Puhleeze :eyes:

It has nothing to do with her chromosomes and everything to do with her complicity in the crimes of the last 6 years.

exactly.
Condi has the same type of a firm grasp of oil companies, the muddle east, national security, and diplomacy.

She is completely different from Senator Clinton.

and that coin is the coin of the ruling class, the root of all our problems.

HRC is the flip-side of CR. They are both overlords that believe they are entitled to rule over the "little people" (us).

herself with and I don't get much out of what she has to say on the issues in the campaign. Nothing virulent, just a trust issue. I've told Hillary supporters they are free to try and expose her positions in detail to curtail any fears any of us may have. We're just not for her, not virulently against her. We chose others presently.

I think Bill Clinton is doing incredible things right now (AIDS drugs) he would be person to have negotiating in the middle east - she surrounds herself with him. NOW has endorsed her. She is a feminist (something we need in the WH)

Her voting record on Global warming is very very good.

that would be good (ambassador?). I wouldn't have to worry about the supreme court appointments (that is good). I could probably be ok with any enivironmental position she may try to engage us in as well. Those points are well taken. If I could feel more comfortable on her overall foreign policy and any who still want variations on the empire project that could advising her is where I have the most problem. I think on healthcare, she will produce one of the less ambitious plans as far as that goes in comparison to some candidates. But it's mainly those right leaning foreign policy connections and the desire to be "tough" that bothers me. Of course I'll have little choice if she is the nominee.

I used to like the guy, I really did. I had my first wake-up moment when he signed the Communications Decency Act in 1996 - at that time I was under impression that the freedom was under siege online. I did not yet understand that freedom was under siege everywhere.

Today Clinton poses for photo-ops with the old criminal Bush 41, and it has become clear that looting Iraq is a fully bipartisan effort. I only hope for no more delusions.

(as much as we can) will help the overall movement to save our planet/civilization. They can't be fighting us all the way. at some point they have to come over to our side.

They might like the idea of a woman for pres but they are skittish about her wobbly stance on choice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/26/whill26.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/01/26/ixworld.html

Gasps as Hillary woos the anti-abortion vote
By Francis Harris in Washington
Last Updated: 3:57am GMT 26/01/2005

Senator Hillary Clinton, seen by many Democrats as their best bet to recapture the White House in 2008, has made an extraordinary appeal for support from Right-wing religious groups.

The wife of the former president Bill Clinton said she sought common ground on abortion and described herself as a "praying person".

Her words represented an attempt to repackage her image for American conservatives, many of whom despise what they see as her radical feminist views. During a speech on Monday night to mark the anniversary of Roe v Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalised abortion, Mrs Clinton drew gasps from an audience of hundreds of pro-abortion activists.

The New York Times reported that others shook their heads during the speech in Washington, especially when she cited statistics designed to show that pro- and anti-abortion groups could unite over the need to prevent unplanned pregnancies.

"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate. We should agree that we want every child in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," Mrs Clinton said. "We can all recognise that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic, choice to many, many women."

She also praised religious groups which have run chastity campaigns for young people, encouraging millions of teenagers to pledge sexual abstinence before marriage. Last week in Boston, Mrs Clinton spoke of God more than a dozen times and stated that she had always been a "praying person".

<more>

Many people are uninformed about her actual positions, because she takes great pains to obfuscate them. Try calling her office to ask where she stands on something (gay marriage, for instance) - you will not get a straight answer.

and all I can go is go down the list of the potential new presidents and I keep coming up with her as the one who can best solve the problems.
She does ride the fence. Although everything from her background (from working for the Children's Defense Fund and her work with children's rights) points towards a pretty liberal person.
The last real liberal that got elected in this country was Jimmy Carter and he got four years that led to a plump 8 years for the right wingers.
Could the Clinton's have survived riding on a platform that highlighted her work with children's rights and his work marching against the war?
It's just a thought.

NARAL

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
U.S. Senate
New York
Pro-Choice Score: 100%

It's hard to picture Hillary as a victim.

I would LOVE to REPEAT the 2000 Election. Al Gore won that election. I have often wondered why the voices of both Bill and Hillary were silent when the SCOTUS "awarded" Little Lord Pissypants OUR White House.

You have no problem with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? Do you realize that's more than 28 years (back to back) by two families? We are NOT a monarchy.

Alll I every heard was "Why can't I vote for who I want to...whine whine." Well, we actually have to think and strategize. The republicans do it.

Nader, with his flippant self-serving rhetoric that swayed a lot of people siphoned votes away from Gore - things were cut incredibly close - and now we are stuck with irreparable problems environmentally and with our civil rights.

WHy do dems have to keep whining about who they don't "trust" hillary or "She is the same as them" instead of adding up what each candidate is actually going to do and give to the country. I added it up and it all points to her.

The stakes are so high now there are no second chances.

Hillary, not so much.

Never mind that that's what the corporate media wants to pour down our throats.

Anyway, if Hillary really could "handle" the problems so masterfully, maybe she should start NOW- by trying to string together a cogent, morally consistent answer on what will undoubtedly be the most pressing issue of the 2008 election- namely, Iraq.

She can't do that, and instead thinks she can win on big money donations, non-issues like flag burning and video games, and the fact that her last name is "Clinton". It's not going to work this time around-- get it? The DLC "Conventional Wisdom" about what it "takes to win" is WRONG. 180 Degrees wrong.

We need someone who is unafraid to take brave, even unpopular stands- even though clearly articulating why we need to get out of Iraq represents an extremely POPULAR position. What would help, however, would be having a candidate who doesn't have a vote FOR the IWR hanging around his or her neck like an albatross, or barring that, at the very least someone (like Edwards) who has done a fairly decent job of admitting the error and speaking in favor of duly correcting it at the earliest possible opportunity.

:thumbsup:

Totally agree on all points.

Which is why they will get the government they deserve-
Unfortunately, we will get that government too.

BHN

some influence on the decision making - democracy and all that.

Anyone thinks the "poor" will replace the "rich" as the decision makers is a "loon".

I'm even more of an Obama person (by no means exclusively; I think Hillary is up there too), but the anti-Hillary rhetoric is largely ridiculous and VERY similar to Naderite bullshit which I have been putting down for years.

in an attempt to shut down more meaningful discourse.

"There is no difference between the parties" is basically like saying "I can't be reached".

I mean, it's called Progressive Politics...maybe Progressives tend to support people like Nader, but that is a bit inconsequential to the essence of the reasons behind such a decision.

permitted to support anyone besides Hillary in the primaries???

ahead of their egos?

To quote Monty Python, "you are a loon".

Of all of oour current candidates...
she doesn't have the most experience
she doesn't have the best voting record
she doesn't appeal the most to independents
she doesn't appeal the most to party activists
she underperforms most Dems in most general election polls
she has the worst fav/unfav ratings
she has the highest "would never vote for" scores
she doesn't excite the youth the most
Repubs would love to run against her
she wasn't ahead of the curve on the war
etc, etc, etc

Shit, let's just coronate her and be done with it. After all, she's entitled. :eyes:

"Strategize like the Republicans"? The ONE thing the GOP does- for better or worse- is keep their BASE happy. And what, pray fucking tell, is so STRATEGIC about Hillary's refusal to stop shilling for an Iraq War that MOST of the Country wants us to END?

Give me a break. The DLC "Conventional Wisdom" that worked for Bill Clinton, bless his heart, 15 and 11 years ago is NOT Gospel-God-Damn-All-Time Truth. The American People are FAR MORE LIBERAL (and far more socially libertarian) than the Dick Morris waterhead crowd is ever going to want to admit. The way to win is NOT with more mealy-mouthed Republican-lite ism that doesn't stand for anything, but rather bravery and MORAL CLARITY on everything from getting out of Iraq and a SPHC system to ending the drug war and letting citizens make their own decisions about their bodies and lives. The "Conventional Wisdom" crowd in BOTH PARTIES is WRONG about ALL OF THAT. (Remember Terri Schiavo?)

But barring a major change in the situation, the biggest issue of the 2008 election is not going to be flag burning or video games, it's going to be IRAQ. And Hillary has proven herself completely incapable of articulating a concisce, clear, morally cogent answer on that issue.

She would be a DISASTER as the nominee.

I won't participate in the annointing of Hillary. I want * & Cheney impeached, and Pelosi to step in. In the absence of that Obama, Kuicinich, Gravel, or any one else that will not pander to the war god is higher on my list. DLCers are not the answer.

deadly they are.

Then you get to be pres for 8 more years and cover up the latest bushite genocide and the corporatemediawhores still excoriate your sell-out ass.

k/r

Which is why he would work for the Clintons while also having ties to Microsoft during the failed anti-trust case.

I'll probably be flamed for this but I really can't stand HRC. She comes across as packaged in the worst way and now I understand why. To know that she's the one who hired the slimy toe-sucker and adheres to that triangulation crap just adds more fuel to my ire.

I always disliked her stance on IWR which she voted for "with conviction" (there's a recent thread on that citing those very words in Harpers). I also always felt her "if I had known then, what I know now" excuse was crap since the information was there and many of us weren't fooled. No, HRC was either too lazy to do her own homework, too callous to care (or even listen to the impassioned words of Robert Byrd about ceding such power to the executive or raining hell and destruction on another people), or too craven -- a political coward more concerned with her safe NY Senate seat and potential presidential bid than with the welfare of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis!

Heaven help me if she gets the nomination.

BTW I hold the IWR votes against Biden, Edwards and Dodd, too

she is a politician in the worst sense of the word: shaped, triangulated, polled, and measured to with in an inch of her political life.

I don't trust her as far as I can throw her. And I used to be a huge fan. Thankfully, the scales have been pulled from my eyes...

But, as much as I despise her, I think of Justices Ginsberg and Stevens, hanging on for dear life over at the Supreme Court. A Clinton presidency will pass in my lifetime -- a Supreme Court packed with right-wing theocrats will be with me forever. :cry:

2008 could be a Sophie's Choice for me....and just as painful...

Even though he's her chief fucking strategist.And that was the BEST defense I saw. :eyes:

Someone else simply doesn't care who works for a candidate.Charming.

Hillary supporters seem to be avoiding this story like the plague.

I think he does her more harm than good, and I wish she'd fire him, frankly. I find it disappointing that she employs him but, frankly, my vote isn't riding on it.

Unfortunately he's the one who seems to the guiding force.Doubt she'll be firing him.In fact,if she wins it's a safe bet he'll be on her staff somehow.

America and the world need better people than that.He is not a good man,and her support of him speak volumes,in my opinion.

I can't bare the sight of her anymore. x(

Edit: left out a word

is an excellent statistician and pollster - and he does not determine positions

Indeed the pollster in any campaign does not determine positions.

But focus grouping the wording of how you express your position is standard operating procedure - both in politics and in business (where it is called branding and protecting the brand) - so it makes sense that someone good at this job has a foot both in politics and in business.

I have no clue as tp Penn's politics - and do not need to know. I do believe I need to know the saleability of the personality, and public policy positions of the candidate. And the maintenance of and even increase in Hillary's lead over the others appears to settle saleability - and I'll judge her policies on each topic over the next 9 months in the lead up to the vote. At the moment Edwards has the most detailed policy ideas, while the others say they are on listening tours and will release positions over the next few months. When Obama and Hillary have a health care position at the same level of detail as Edwards I'll compare them all.

Meanwhile to - as the Nation has done - try to paint the candidate as the product of their pollster is nonsense.

Answer: He hasn't posted any to date.

He could come from the witch doctor school of polling, for all we know. In fact that is a distinct possibility.

what you sed.

:-)

so's the white count. LDL and HDL levels are where they should be. But my humor is always infected, not infectious. Communicable, not communicating. More femoral than humorous.

n/t

After all, Penn's one of HRC's top advisers, and she's basing nearly every move on his polling results.

Zogby, Gallup and other polling companies at least provide some materials related to methodology, the wording of the questions, and so on.

If a pollster I hired provided *nothing*, in addition to having ties to right-wing interests, I'd be very suspicious.

In fact, I am very suspicious of any DUer who tries to defend this character...

until I have had consultation with my public policy advisors

:yourock:

sw

excellent!

:)

Very depressing...both articles. But, it explains alot about why the Clinton presidency was so disappointing in that we lost Congress and so much deregulation and privatization begun then.

For Hillary to use a person affiliated with a group that started the attack on "liberal media" is really hypocritical given how she and Bill were hounded through the whole presidency.

"started the attack on "liberal media" " was done in the 70's - the attack last year done for the Mag National Standard was done by the B-M firm with someone other than Penn on the contract.

Penn's (B-M) business done for business seems to be the real complaint of all the posters in this thread - as if that is disqualifying for them - no one can be a progressive liberal and work in business. Indeed doing the job that makes his business money - educational and branding campaigns for the other side of issues - makes his employment for our side of the issues an evil decision.

A bit like a lawyer representing a client accused of evil being disqualified from being hired ever again as they are now tainted. Or better - like working for an oil firm meaning you should be shunned at move-on meet-ups.

Jesus,the defense of Hillary on this is beyond fucking pathetic. :puke:

Nice guy you're defending there.She obviously relies on the man a lot,and that says a lot,no matter how many crap defenses are thrown up to obfuscate his dealings.

packaging and promotion is how America works.

To pretend Mark Penn had anything to do with Bhopal - heck he was not even on the contract - is nonsense.

Better to focus on the advisers - not the pollsters.

But that is not that much better.

The only real thing that counts is the candidate and their policy positions and personality - would you want 4 years of Rudy or Mitt or McCain on the TV every night compared to 4 years of Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards, or Richardson, so indeed any Dem?

I still like the Economist, and I drag my way through endless pages of ads in two daily papers, but the Nation is top notch.

Anyone who has not seen a copy, I strongly recommend it. Great investigative journalism still exists. This article is just one fine example.

To all those hillarians who claim that she does NOT poll shit to death, try to explain away this article and research.
To those supporters who claim that the company she keeps is just fine, and we who dislike her (and them) are victims of swiftboating, try to describe why Penn is so good to have on board.

excessive polling or changing position rather than wording of how the position is expressed, we have only Morris's self esteem boosting claim about the Clintons - and a Washington Post article that uses that claim for an assertion of of their own - and that was back in 1996 (although the GOP have been selling that read of how they use polling data forever - which got Morris his Post and Fox news income).

As to "To those supporters who claim that the company she keeps is just fine, and we who dislike her (and them) are victims of swiftboating, try to describe why Penn is so good to have on board." - it is good to have those trained and accomplished in math, in polling, and in branding on your side. Penn is one of the best (and I speak as one trained in math, with 45 years watching "bosses" prove the value of branding).

The GOP lie always has a bit of truth - and this time it is that Democrats poll - that Hillary polls - as they sell "flip/flop" no convictions in one way or another.

To have DUers buy the construct shows how good the GOP's own pollsters/branding folks are at this game.

Anyone we nominate will have something about = "no convictions - tool of the special interests - moveon - antiwar - etc" being sold against them as the GOP tries to stick them with a "brand".

It is great the Hillary is out there with someone who knows how to fight back - how to sell a brand against those trying to sell a different image.

Love the integrity on display there. :eyes:

It's the GOP's fault that Penn has done what he's done.

Give it up already.One Hillary supporter on this thread has demonstrated the ability to think critically about this.The rest would defend Satan working for her if he was good at math apparently.

You did get one thing right though.Hillary is most certainly selling a brand.

Everyone is selling a brand - that is what selling is all about.

But I think we have shown that in the primary season, no DUers is ever convinced by another of that which they did not already believe. In any case DU is a great spot to let your opinions be known!

peace

:-)

Just because I have disagreements with you doesn't mean I don't respect your right to have those opinions.

:-)

i.e. how to take on the very mega-corporations that are doing so much damage to our government, our nation, and the planet, but that also fund most of the political campaigns . . .

"we have met the enemy, and it is us" . . .

She's running the general all the way through.
It's risky, it's alienating some of the base.
If she wins the primary, it may pay off.

for her than other candidates posturing and apologizing left and right and running against their own record
Although I still hope I'd have a candidate I'd want to vote for.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Penn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn,_Schoen_&_Berland

Penn, Schoen and Berland (PSB) has played a pioneering role in the use of polling operations, especially "exit polls," in facilitating coups. Its primary mission is to shape the perception that the group installed into power in a targeted country has broad popular support. The group began work in Serbia during the period that its principle, Mark Penn, was President Clinton's top political advisor

"This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message.
This article has been tagged since November 2006."

One of the reasons for the flip-flop label was the advisers he had would hardly let him take a position on certain subjects... I don't think that is helpful for a candidate.. Americans are tired of the double speak coming out of both sides of our candidates mouths...

Of course, they were in their 70s back in the 70s...

That's where this propaganda is heading, straight back to the "Clinton Death List!!" and "Pornographic Christmas Trees in the WhiteHouse!!!" chain emails of the late 90s...

TPM and The Nation hate the Clintons. And the squishy public eats up tabloid yellow journalism.
Nothing new here, same shit, different decade...

Or do you just have insinuations worthy of the "Clinton Hit List"?

I'm more worried about the head in the sand public,who seem to abound in defense of this.

This is exactly why any "D"LC candidate is so threatening: because when it comes right down to it, they are not members of the Democratic Party first, they are aligned with their corporate sponsors and lobbyists first. Remember when the Clintons were called "Wal-Mart Democrats" during Bill Cinton's term--the people were not where their interests were. There was Hillary Clinton's "health care plan," which pushed people from traditional coverage to HMOs that gouged them on premiums, restricted their list of doctors, then denied coverage they had gotten before. Hillary Clinton's only connection to feminism and women's issues is to give lip service to it from the corporate boardroom, and as mentioned, they gave us NAFTA, GATT, cutting people off of welfare and leaving them with even less, "too liberal for America," "let's be bi-partisan," and "a new kind of Democrat"--anti-union, anti-Roosevelt. The only way Hillary Clinton would be a non-threat, is if the Democratically-controlled Congress forced her to do the will of the people and checked her at every turn. There have been other articles posted here, on what the "D"LC really is and how it operates: it is a rich lobbying firm, not a branch of the Democratic Party. It is more closely aligned to Republicans than to us.

Let's nominate someone who really will work for us

Even if it's the flintstones guy

Gravel

Leo says, "I'm tired of, year after year, having to vote for the lesser of who gives a damn".

leaving her as someone not appealing. That is a huge mistake as it turns people off and leave the impression of someone cold and calculating.