WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's chief presidential campaign strategist is quitting his post amid criticism of his public relations firm's contacts with the Colombian government over a pending free-trade deal, Clinton's campaign announced. Mark Penn will continue to advise Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Mark Penn and his political consulting firm will continue advise the New York senator's Democratic presidential bid, but Penn will give up his job as chief strategist, campaign manager Maggie Williams said. "After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign," Williams said. Clinton did not answer reporters' questions about Penn's exit during a campaign stop in New Mexico on Sunday. Penn is CEO of public relations giant Burston Marsteller and is president of Penn, Schoen and Berland, his political consulting firm. Friday, he acknowledged he had met with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week in his role as Burston Marsteller's chief to discuss the pending U.S.-Colombia trade pact, which Clinton has criticized on the campaign trail. Penn called the meeting "an error in judgment that will not be repeated," and apologized. That prompted Colombia's government to fire the company Saturday, calling the remarks "a lack of respect to Colombians." Clinton and top aides were sharply critical of rival Democrat Barack Obama in February when reports indicated that his top economic adviser had suggested to a Canadian official that Obama was not as supportive of changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement as the Illinois senator claimed to be on the campaign trail. Penn said Friday that Clinton's opposition to the U.S.-Colombia pact, which the Bush administration is trying to push through Congress, "is clear and was not discussed" during his meeting with the ambassador. And Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said Penn's meeting was "not in any way done on behalf of the campaign." But Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell -- a key Clinton backer in his state's April 22 primary -- suggested Sunday that Penn needed to go. "I think you've got to make it very clear for someone who is a consultant, who you are representing and who you are not representing, and I would hope that Mr. Penn, when he talked to the Colombians, made that clear. And it doesn't sound to me like he did, and that's something the campaign should take into question," Rendell told NBC's "Meet the Press." Sources in the Clinton campaign said that Penn realized this weekend that he needed to step aside, and that Clinton was disappointed that he had met with the Colombians. Link
As a Clinton supporter even I agree the campaign is in shambles. That said Clinton has shown the ability to weather other bad stretches.
As an obama supporter I don't think this is a sign of how her campaign was run. its just a conflict of interest, penn took another job that was in direct conflict with one of hillary's positions. no way he could do both jobs.
How do you support a woman who's whole political career is based on being the wife of a former president? Who's currently the most divisive figure in politics second to Bush and Cheney, and doesn't even know how to lie well? Of all people, I figured you'd have the sense to read through her by now.
There's always been a big battle between Penn and the rest of the people in Camp Hillary between a "show the policy wonk/experience side of Hillary" strategy vs. a "show the human side of Hillary" strategy. Penn was definitely in the first camp. I'm not sure how/if they broke down on "destroy Obama" vs "build up Hillary". I do expect we'll see a more human side of Hillary in the next debate, though. This should make the campaign run more smoothly - the Mark Penn thing was always a huge problem for them. He was their primary pollster and strategist, meaning the internal polls were always going to show whatever the strategist wanted - not a good thing at all. It's too late, though - this move should have been made months ago.
As opposed to supporting someone who has very little experience at the national level, almost no experience in foreign policy and for all of his great oratory has little accomplishments? I've stated in several threads why I support Clinton.
The problem is that Clinton should've imposed some more discipline on her campaign staff. Something like this is more than a gaffe or a comment in the heat of the moment by a staffer.
Which kind of negates your preception of Obama in your last post. You say "very little experience at the national level, almost no experience in foreign policy and for all of his great oratory has little accomplishments?" I say if we are to judge Hillary and Barack by the way they have run their campaigns, Obama has proven that he is the better leader.
I will concede that point but a well run or poorly run campaign isn't necessarily a hallmark of a Presidency. GW Bush ran a very good and disciplined campaign but we know how his Presidency is going.
If you can't beat a guy who belongs to a racist church and isn't proud of America, then you need to step down.
Hey Jorge, did you read Bill Kristol's op-ed in today's NYTs? According to yours and his criteria, McCain should step down. LOL!!!! for your reading pleasure. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/07/david-gergen-a-clinton-campaign-without-mark-penn/ If Mark Penn had been a favorite within the Clinton campaign, it is difficult to believe that he would have been forced out over the Colombian affair. Sure, it was a dumb mistake – a “what was he thinking” moment. Still, it was a far cry from what one of Barack Obama’s top advisers did when he met with Canadian officials on NAFTA and his mistake properly set off a mini-firestorm. So, in the ordinary course of things, Mark Penn’s apology and a few days of reassuring labor unions would have been enough to quiet things down – and Penn would still be calling the shots. But it is apparent that Clinton topsiders detest Mark Penn and hold him uniquely responsible for what has gone wrong in the campaign. When he went down last week, they lunged for the jugular and he couldn’t survive. What difference will it make in the campaign, if any? Short term, it is a setback for the Clintonites because it sends super delegates yet another signal of disarray in the ranks and it will be a source of chatter in the media for a while. (From the campaign’s point of view, the Petraeus hearings can’t start soon enough to take attention away from Penn.) As far as Pennsylvania is concerned, it is doubtful that one voter in 100 will be directly affected by his departure. “Mark Who?” But his departure could indirectly impact not just Pennsylvania but the rest of the primaries to come. Only a few days ago, Carl Bernstein reported on CNN that the Clinton campaign was sitting on some nasty stuff about Obama – stuff they thought the media should have featured a long time ago – and the campaign was preparing to go hard negative with it. We have heard rumors of this kind before and nothing has materialized, but there was a sense that perhaps in a desperate, 11th-hour bid for the nomination, the Clintons would throw the rest of the kitchen sink at Barack, and maybe the bathroom, too. All along, Mark Penn – along with President Clinton – has been portrayed as the chief advocate of going much more negative. But now with Penn gone, one wonders: has the prospect of an explosive negative attack disappeared with him? For Democrats in general and Mrs. Clinton in particular, the Penn resignation may be a blessing in disguise. A no-holds-barred, negative fight to the finish within the party would have hurt both Barack and Hillary. What is now turning off voters (especially independents) is not the length of the campaign but the nastiness. The best strategy that Mrs. Clinton can follow now – one that would preserve the chances of a Democratic victory in the fall and preserve her reputation, too – is to pursue a gracious, warm, emotionally appealing campaign that draws people to her instead of trying to drive them away from Obama. Indeed, if she had pursued that strategy more consistently from the beginning, she would almost certainly be closer to the nomination now. Mark Penn is a very bright man who has served the Clintons for a dozen years, often brilliantly; he was a guiding force in the re-election of Bill Clinton in 1996. But for reasons that are unfathomable, he has not seemed to grasp how much good a more positive, uplifting campaign by Hillary would have done. - David Gergen, 360° Contributor
