SkepticRising

I heard about this on the Thom Hartmann show this morning, and I could not believe what I was hearing. This was also posted on a DailyKos diary a few weeks ago and I find it amazing that it hasn't been all over the media, or at least that the Obama campaign hasn't picked it up.

At best, this is the operational definition of conflict of interest. At worst, it explains why the Clinton campaign has been campaigning for John McCain for the last couple of weeks.

Let's walk through this: Hillary Clinton's chief strategist is the redoubtable Mark Penn. He's caught a lot of heat lately and there seems to be even some internal strife on the campaign about him. His day job is being the CEO of a global public relations/public affairs company (ie. lobbying corporation) Burston-Marsteller.
I'll leave going back through Penn's history as an exercise for the student. One has to wonder, though, how it is that Hillary picked him to be a leading strategist on her campaign.

On the other side of the aisle, we have fightin' John McCain, the Bush wannabe Republican party offering for the presidential election. Described as a "senior adviser"
on the McCain campaign is one Charlie Black. He's been defending McCain from charges of being too tight with lobbyists. In his alter-ego, Charlie Black is ... wait for it ... a lobbyist. A big league lobbyist. His day job is working for the lobbying firm BKSH. They work a lot for firms in, oh say, the telecom industry, defense industry, stuff like that.

Now for the punch line. BKSH, the lobbying firm of which Charlie Black, McCain's top adviser is chairman, is a subsidiary of Burston-Marsteller, the public relations firm of which Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, is the CEO. That would seem to make Mark Penn Charlie Black's boss.

This is so bizarre that I'm having trouble just coming to grips with the implications of it. But it would seem to be emblematic of what is broken in our political systems. And it is also the spin of the merry-go-round of whether to support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I have, for a while, been supporting Obama (actually, since Edwards dropped out) including my abortive attempt to vote for him in the California primary (more on that in another post). My complaint about Clinton was summed up with the phrase "Republican Lite".

So the arithmetic is still looking like Obama has a serious advantage in the delegate count and the ability to get the nomination. One has to wonder if Clinton is so ambitious that she would be willing to sign on as the VP on the Republican ticket with McCain if she doesn't get the nomination. One has to wonder because she could not have picked Mark Penn for this significant role in her campaign without knowing his background, his relationships and where he is coming from. Especially since he's never won a primary campaign. Why else would she pick him?

The implications of this are staggering. And they deserve a lot more looking into.

..SR..

At least, I agree with how his comments are expressed in a Huffington Post headline from today: "'Peace and prosperity'" at stake in election".

It's true. If you vote for Republicans, you won't get either peace or prosperity.

-SR-

Why is it that when the gun guys go off about the right to bear arms, they never seem to mention the "well regulated" part of the amendment?

Just askin'.

SR

So Hillary won the New Hampshire primary. This was a shock only to the pundritry who were amazed that Barack won the Iowa caucus. Hillary has been the inevitable anointed appointed frontrunner for the last six months and actually (as Keith Olbermann pointed out tonight) hit the poll numbers pretty closely. So now everyone is amazed and discombulated at her phenomenal upset.

It's not an upset, okay? This is like saying USC winning a football game is an upset after they lost to Stanford. Get some perspective. There are still 48 states and a convention to go.

Sheesh.

Peace out. SR

Welcome to SkepticRising, yet another politically oriented blog. You may ask "What does the world need with another freaking blog?" Well, arguably, the world doesn't need one. On the other hand, there may be an idea presented here, and it may be seen by someone who may pass it along, and it may spark a thought that may change a mind that may solve a problem. Somewhere. Hey, it could happen! And who am I to prevent that process from occurring?

Anyway, here it is.

Now, the simplest way to do things would just be to open up everything to everyone and go have a beer. But since reality is that there are childish and destructive people in the world, and since I really would like to have a cohesive platform of ideas here as opposed to vitriol and thoughtless noise, there are going to be some rules and policies.

First, you are going to have to be registered to post comments. Registration is going to need a working email address. Your identity and email address will not be published, so if you don't want your name out, make up a nickname.

Second, we are not going to tolerate any threats to anyone for any reason. None. Any users who post threatening comments or who expose other people's private information will be banned and if the threat is actionable, we'll cooperate.

We're also not going to suffer gladly trolls. We reserve the right to delete any comment that seems to be provocative for the sake of provocation, or is hateful and offensive.

That doesn't mean that we're against opposition argument. Not at all. But argument does not have to be spiteful or hateful to be expressed or effective.

This site is intended to promote critical thought, reasoned discussion and thoughtful skepticism. Oh, and there may occasionally be humor. And irony, don't forget the irony. And satire. Definitely, satire. Be forewarned.

Now, go to your corners, stay clean, stay fair and come out skeptical.