Destroy Obama -- No Tin-foil Hat Required

Getting his "perception management" groove on, Clinton chief-strategist, Mark Penn, today lobbed the meme-theme of their triangulation strategy: "Senator Obama really can't win the General Election."  And it's pretty clear that destroying Barack Obama's presidential bid is a project Mr. Penn has undertaken not only in the interests of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, but in service to any number of his other clients.

Other bloggers and diarists here have done more than I will attempt here to unmask the power-brokerage at work, behind the scenes, to put "our candidate" in the Oval Office.  Mark Penn is but one of the players.  But you don't have to dig very deep, or very long, to shutter at who is doing what in order to take Barack Obama out of the picture and get Hillary Clinton elected.

Mark Penn's tangled corporate web: Clinton is a client; McCain is a client, by Joe Sudbay

Blackwater PR firm aided Chalabi; Works to polish AT&T's image, by Muriel Kane

Hillary Inc., by Ari Berman

Wikipedia entries: Mark Penn, Burson-Marsteller

SourcWatch entries: Mark Penn, Burson-Marsteller

CorporateWatch entry: Burson-Marsteller

All this underlying influence peddling aside, it now increasingly clear that courting and welcoming the votes of racists and bigots -- the "Archie Bunker" strategy -- is but one of Penn's "kitchen sink" ploys bent upon destroying Barack Obama's candidacy, and delivering the goods -- the Oval Office -- to his clients.

•  Forgot one

  Karma element.... http://www.dailykos.com/...

  and the Questions, that will be answered (soon I think)http://www.newsindia.com/...

  by Shhs on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:23:49 PM PDT

  •  thanks for Carlyle link; other link broke n/t

    by manonfyre on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:29:36 PM PDT

    •  site is down which is weird n/t

      by Shhs on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:33:02 PM PDT

  •  Okay here they are again, should work now

    Questions,
    http://www.newsindia.com/...
    And then this odd Carlyle related article
    http://www.newsindia.com/...

    by Shhs on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:37:10 PM PDT

    •  got it! n/t

      by manonfyre on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:38:57 PM PDT

      •  Odd huh? But they do need to show us the taxes!

        by Shhs on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:40:21 PM PDT

        •  I am more intrigued by Hillary Clinton's Finance

          Committee...a woman who worked there recently resigned just before the Geraldine Ferraro spat..

          The woman says that Hillary's campaign was maxing out peoples' credit cards without the knowledge or permission of the credit card holder..and the maxing was way over the legal limit for campaign contributions..on her Schedule B at the FEC..towards that last pages are pages and pages of refunds going back to people .. thousands and thousands of dollars..

          Another thing that is curious is Geraldine's husband, John Zacarro is alleged to be Gambino connected..remember that he rented a building to a pornography company..??  that is curious because the Emperor's Club that Spitzer frequented was a Gambino enterprise..just curious .. I think..

          by RubyGal on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:02:39 PM PDT

          •  Link?

            pages are pages and pages of refunds going back to people .. thousands and thousands of dollars..

            by Catte Nappe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:11:08 PM PDT

            •  Here is her Schedule B Disbursements

              http://query.nictusa.com/...

              What I like about looking at raw data is that you can see the checks cut for Penn's group in January for instance...millions..and Grunwald Communications..that one is really weird..there are 10 pages of checks cut for Grunwald or Grumwald..however it is spelled..that take up 10 pages for just January 2, 2008..Why couldn't the campaign have cut one check for Grumwald instead of a couple of hundred..??

              by RubyGal on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:06:20 PM PDT

          •  Oh, stop, this is making me hot...

            More. I need more. More I say!

            by Apphouse50 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:38:01 PM PDT

•  Tell Clinton "Enough!"

  http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...

  by xrepub on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:56 PM PDT

  •  her blog is "moderated"

    Tried, politely, to submit a blog comment there, asking candidate Clinton to explain her ties to Monsanto.  

    My comment didn't appear.

    Also searched yesterday's blog entries at her site for any mention of Keith Olbermann's Special Comment.  Not a mention one.

    by manonfyre on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:34:19 PM PDT

•  I really tried to like Hillary Clinton

  I did (even diaried on this very thing the day after the NH primary, when she won). But the people she surrounded herself with, to run her campaign, are scum. And her behavior lately disgusts me.

  Imagine who would be in her cabinet? Fergeddabowdit--I'm not a big Obama fan either, but he's a way better choice than she is.

  by o the umanity on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:29:58 PM PDT

  •  The Clintons lost me in 1993

    I was a supporter of Jerry Brown in the primaries, but once Bill got the nomination he started to grow on me (though I've always thought he's a little like a used-car salesman).

    Anyway, as you may remember, Bill ran as a progressive. And the first thing he did in office? Moved right. Got rid of any plans to fund mass improvements to infrastructure and triangulated on gays in the military.

    Later on, he did welfare reform and Hillary botched Health Care (the effects of which we are still feeling today, as no politician has the balls to really go after the issue anymore).

    I haven't trusted either of them since. I didn't vote in '96 (didn't register at my new address in time; calm down); I voted for Nader in 2000 (before Gore became the Gore we know now) and tepidly supported Kerry in '04. But I vowed to never support another Clinton.

    And I won't.

    by Slatersan on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:46:34 PM PDT

    •  Oh boy

      you'll be the first to turn on Obama when he move to the center in the GE or as President

      by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:54:14 PM PDT

      •  So will I... n/t

        by rubine on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:22:23 PM PDT

  •  o the umanity, I suggest your read Obama's books,

    DREAMS FROM MY FATHER and THE AUDACITY OF HOPE and you may discover he's the real deal and you may indeed become a big Obama fan.  I sure am now, after begging Al Gore to run, praying for John Edwards to get some coverage in the media to make a real run and then embracing an Obama candidacy after reading his first book.

    GOBAMA!!!

    by Little Lulu on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:48:38 PM PDT

    •  I read them

      did nothing for me, sorry. I like him and everything, but, I'm still hoping the delegates to go to Denver and vote Edwards.

      by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:55:19 PM PDT

      •  nrafter530, that sounds like a Ralph Nader plan

        to me.  How'd that work out the last time, eh?

        by Little Lulu on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM PDT

        •  No, I'll vote for him

          but I'll vote for her too...I don't expect much for either.

          by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:15:49 PM PDT

        •  It was the demos that screwed it not Nader...

          and they've continued to screw up since then.  How's that worked out?

          by rubine on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:24:44 PM PDT

          •  how so?

            what was wrong with Gore?

            by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:31:30 PM PDT

            •  His campaign adopted the Clinton...

              strategy of triangulation, attempting to  build centrist support and attract big money donors.  He abandoned, as did Clinton, the democratic base, particularly the progressives, essentially giving them to Nader.

              Both Obama and Hillary shifted their rhetoric to the left when Edwards began to threaten their base.  This, combined with the media shut-out of Edwards, undercut his campaign.  Gore could have done the same thing to Nader.

              Also Gore won the popular vote and then allowed Bush to steal the election.  Nader was the least of Gore's problems.

              by rubine on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:40:36 PM PDT

              •  Nader WAS Gore's problems

                600 Nader voters in Florida would've swung the election in his favor, but yeah, I guess Bush was better than "triangulation"

                God forbid the Democratic nominee should look for votes beyond the Democratic base...I mean, they could win with 30% of the vote, right?

                by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:49:28 PM PDT

                •  You don't think the Bush machine could...

                  have neutralized 600 votes?  Did you notice that the Clinton presidency lost the congress to the rethugs?  Do you actually think that the demos have not screwed up consistently, in terms of galvanizing and serving their base, in terms of standing up to bush's attacks on the constitution?  All these mistakes on the part of the demos points to their inability to address the issues of their actual base; progressives, labor, minorities, the middle class and the poor.  They have CONSISTENTLY taken their base for granted while passing welfare reform, NAFTA, and then being weak on labor laws and regressive taxation.  Clinton damaged the democratic party and Gore was one of his victims. If you don't believe this check out how Hillary is treating her party, it is the same old shit.

                  "Triangulation" and the Clintons lost the election not Nader.

                  by rubine on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:58:55 PM PDT

              •  This is exactly why

                Democrats will never win a presidential election.

                by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:49:47 PM PDT

      •  but that is not going to happen so now what?

        what is your plan "B"?

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:41:01 PM PDT

        •  Plan B

          is to vote for whoever the Democrats nominate and hope the Republican smear machine isn't as bad as what's being threatened.

          I prefer Obama because if he loses, then the liberals can look at themselves and say "Gee, why did our guy lose?"

          by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:48:02 PM PDT

•  Up Next: Repealing the 14th Amendment

  by Pangloss on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:34:38 PM PDT

  •  That is just so wrong on so many levels

    So why am I smiling?

    by CA Libertarian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:15:46 PM PDT

•  Yikes

  We all might need a tinfoil hat if she gets the nomination.  

  by Sun dog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:36:34 PM PDT

•  A part of me is hoping that all these lies thrown

  at Barack Obama now will just make him that more prepared to face the horrors of the Rethuglican opposition and their corporate-owned and operated MSM once he is officially our nominee.  

  If all these folks of Hillary Clinton's can come up with is that racists won't vote for a black candidate at this late date in their pathetic campaign, then they must (as Randi Rhodes has said) have nothing on the man.  And this racist meme is appealing to the lowest common denominator of the electorate, which doesn't appeal to very many voters.  It's a loser strategy for a loser candidate.

  Hillary Clinton has a big, fat, red "L" on her forehead.  She keeps losing to the clear winner who doesn't need to change the rules in the middle of the game in order to steal it.

  GOBAMA!!!  This Hillary stuff is just a training session, IMHO.

  by Little Lulu on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:44:15 PM PDT

  •  regret that i have but one "rec'd" to give!

    great thought!

    by manonfyre on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:49:07 PM PDT