When That Gay Conservative e-mailed me to inform me that Mark Penn had resigned from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, I thought the former First Lady’s senior strategist was acknowledging that her campaign was in a tailspin, but when I read the article, I realized the campaign was in a different kind of spin.
Penn wasn’t stepping down because he thought the New York Senator’s presidential bid was doomed to failure, but because he had “met with representatives of the Colombian government to help promote a free trade agreement Clinton opposes.” His candidate who once tried to run in the center was embarrassed that one of her staffers had met with representatives of the government of an American ally.
And the agreement he advocated was similar to NAFTA for which Mrs. Clinton lobbied while First Lady, an agreement which helped foster the economic growth of the 1990s, which helped her husband gain the record on which she has been running. Despite Hilalry’s past support for free trade, a Clinton campaign official said that the candidate “was disappointed that [Penn’s] meetings with Colombians had occurred. She is a strong opponent of the trade deal.â€
WOW! How far Mrs. Clinton has come from the politics of her husband, a man who moved to the center on trade and other economic issues in order to bring disgruntled “Reagan Democrats” back into the party. A sign of how much a candidate has to pander to the left to win the Democratic presidential nomination. And how Hillary has been foiled in her attempt to win the White House by running as a reasonable moderate.
Let’s hope the American people are paying attention.
UPDATE: ABC News has more, showing how much sway the unions have over the Clinton campaign. (Via RealClearPolitics.) I mean, heck, they refer to the Colombian government as a “controversial client.” Since when are allied governments controversial clients? And hey, hasn’t Ms. Hillary been faulting the Bush Administration for undermining our image abroad?
Seems that just like her rival Barack Obama and his stand on the trade deal with Canada, she’s doing a better job than the incumbent of damaging our relationships with our allies. And neither has even won his party’s nomination yet. Amazing.
UP-UPDATE:Â Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker observes: “It is deeply ironic that Obama and Clinton both vow to restore America’s standing in the world, while in fact impairing our relations with allies to a degree that is remarkable for candidates who haven’t even been elected yet.“Â Echoing my point, but more eloquently.