Mark Penn Resigns from Left-Leaning Clinton Campaign
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.
7 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Since when are allied governments controversial clients?
Since they started battling the drug cartels and FARC, which are supported financially by their buddy Hugo Chavez, and taking their country back. Colombia is even pushing to get people to travel to their country.
 And hey, hasn’t Ms. Hillary been faulting the Bush Administration for undermining our image abroad.
I’ve been asking pretty much the same thing since last summer. I had read several articles in the WSJ on how the liberals were telling Colombia, Peru and SoKo to burn in hell when, it comes to trade, apparently to spite the Bush administration.
Even Algore snubbed President Uribe. They were supposed to meet in Miami last August, I think it was. Uribe showed, Algore didn’t. Nice, eh?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 6, 2008 @ 9:17 pm - April 6, 2008
I can see where the Democrat Party would be ashamed to meet with the head of a government that’s fighting terrorists.
Because they definitely fall all over themselves in getting to Damascus and Caracas to meet with those who support them — and they’re dying to fly to Tehran.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 6, 2008 @ 9:41 pm - April 6, 2008
"and they’re dying to fly to Tehran."
In my opinion, they can stay there for all I care. The USA would be better off without them in Congress.
As I’ve always said, if it’s good for America, it’s bad for the Dhimmicrats. And vice versa.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 7, 2008 @ 10:07 am - April 7, 2008
"Only in the Democratic party do you get canned (or demoted) for meeting with an ally." – Rich Lowry, NRO
Comment by V the K — April 7, 2008 @ 12:07 pm - April 7, 2008
Another example of how Clinton1 was sui generis electorally. Perot aside, Clinton had NO chance as a hard Lefty in ’92. His free trading and welfare reforming talkie-talk was music to MY ears and when he castigated old Daddy Bush for coddling "aging dictators" overseas, well, it wasn’t hard to pull the lever for Slick. But of course he truly meant none of it and he was only able to centrize himself so thoroughly in public because all the other candidates had bagged, Bush 41 seeming unconquerable. Hillary is, like Rev Wright, speaking private truths but out in the klieg lights. At this point it looks like McNasty could walk to office. If he can still walk…
Comment by megapotamus — April 7, 2008 @ 4:57 pm - April 7, 2008
#5
Who did what now?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 8, 2008 @ 2:22 am - April 8, 2008
Um, not sure what’s unclear except perhaps that I IMPLY that I voted for Clinton in ’92 and that is the case.
Comment by megapotamus — April 8, 2008 @ 1:24 pm - April 8, 2008