• 
• 
• 
• 
by Rick Pearson
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign won’t comment on how involved Mark Penn, its former chief strategist, remains in developing strategy, but it says rival Barack Obama should be measured on how his campaign acted when his top economic strategist was found to have met with Canadian officials and discussed trade.
Moreover, the Clinton campaign is pointing to the remarks of a major Obama surrogate, Teamsters head Jimmy Hoffa, who told reporters on a conference call that Obama’s top economic strategist Austan Goolsbee should clarify what happened at a meeting in which Canadian officials said Goolsbee described Obama’s criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement as campaign rhetoric.
On Sunday, Clinton’s campaign announced that Penn had quit as senior strategist following revelations that he met with Colombian officials on behalf of his public relations firm, which had a contract to push a Bush administration trade pact with that nation that the New York senator opposes. At the time, the Clinton campaign said Penn would still provide some advice.
But questions have swirled around whether Penn has really taken a diminished role in formulating Clinton’s message strategy. The Atlantic quoted one Clinton aide as saying Penn, who has worked for both of the Clintons, remains a “key” adviser.
Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s chief spokesman, told reporters they should liken Penn’s demotion to someone who was “editor in chief of a newspaper and somebody who plays an important role in the newspaper but isn’t in charge,” a difference, he said, that was “clear to anyone in the workplace.” But Wolfson, who has had his own clashes with Penn, wouldn’t say how involved Penn was in campaign conference calls involving strategy. “That’s just not a line that I’m going to cross.”
Instead, Wolfson went on to describe Penn’s “appropriate” action in giving up his chief strategist role and compared it to the case of Goolsbee, where revelations about his meeting with the Canadians right before last month’s Ohio primary tended to undercut Obama’s calls for labor and environmental changes in NAFTA.
“In the situation of Austan Goolsbee, we know that he went and spoke with the Canadians, that he told them that Sen. Obama’s position on NAFTA was just rhetoric, that it was not something he intended to follow through on,” Wolfson said.
“The Obama campaign gave a series of shifting answers when pressed about this, first saying that the meeting hadn’t occurred, then saying that NAFTA had not come up, and then saying he had not said what he said,” Wolfson said. “And when all that was said and done, no action was taken with regard to that individual. That is not accountability and it is not candor and it is not transparency.”
Wolfson gleefully cited a conference call that the Obama campaign had with reporters featuring Hoffa, who said Goolsbee should “make a statement” about the meeting and “end this mystery about what happened.” The Obama campaign has maintained that the Canadians misreported Goolsbee’s comments about NAFTA.
Of course, the matter is a bit more muddled when Politico reported that Wolfson, Clinton’s top spokesman who has been designated to help replace Penn in message management, also has an interest in a public relations firm that also has a contract with the Colombians to promote the trade deal that Clinton opposes.
Obama’s campaign said in a statement that the Clinton team’s efforts to distance themselves from Penn were “laughable” and “typical of a candidate who has said one thing but done another this entire campaign.”
Comments
This says more about how misleading and deceitful the Clinton campaign is more than anything else.
Posted by: hank | April 8, 2008 3:57 PM
Hank, why is it whenever Clinton does something, you say deceitful and misleading but when Obama did similar thing, you said what? You need to fair especially if you were an Obama fan because he speaks about bipartisanship but provides no prove of working across the aisle in the US Congress.
Posted by: Kalli | April 8, 2008 4:58 PM
Par for the course as far as I'm concerned.
If Clinton truly opposes the Columbian deal, why is she running her campaign with two guys who are quietly being paid by the Columbian government to get this deal passed?
And if I recall correctly, it was members of the Clinton campaign that discussed the Goolsbee-NAFTA connection to a Canadian official just before that same official handed the story to CTV (a Canadian news outlet).
In my mind, there is a big difference between these two scenarios:
1) An adviser allegedly making a comment that appears undermines their candidate's public position on a trade agreement, and
2) Two top campaign advisers being paid to promote and plan ways to pass a trade deal that their candidate publicly opposes.
Ask yourself which one you feel is a smoking gun.
Posted by: Jim Jones | April 8, 2008 4:59 PM
Kalli - Trying Googling
Colburn - Obama
or
Lugar - Obama
You will find that Obama initiated significant bipartisan legislation that has passed Congress and been signed into law by President Bush.
Posted by: Jim Jones | April 8, 2008 5:11 PM
Penn should not have stepped down. There was no conflict of interest. Hillary Clinton supports all free trade agreements including NAFTA. Period.
Posted by: Matt | April 8, 2008 5:14 PM
track the money going into the Clinton campaign from the Colombian drug money via lobbyists, and President Uribe's comments against Obama...
Yes, Colombia's economy revolves around drugs...
Posted by: Colombia4Hillary | April 8, 2008 5:35 PM
With Clinton there is no truth or lying. There is only saying or doing whatever it takes to win. The same thing would hold when governing, do whatever it takes to get reelected. If that is not an issue then do whatever it takes to further their legacy. If the country benefits it is coincidental. If the country does not then lie about it.
This is apparently becoming apparent to the electorate.
Posted by: Ron M | April 8, 2008 7:06 PM
Why is Wolfson bringing up Goolsbee, NAFTA, and the Canadians? The Canadian leaders debunked this story!! Those leaders said they had received A PHONE CALL FROM THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN TELLING THEM NOT TO WORRY, THAT HILLARY WAS TALKING AGAINST NAFTA ONLY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. YET ANOTHER LIAR IN THE CLINTON CAMP!!!! Thos people are horrible, slandering, and lying creatures left over from yesteryear!!!
Posted by: NinaK | April 8, 2008 11:50 PM
Why is Wolfson bringing up Goolsbee, NAFTA, and the Canadians? The Canadian leaders debunked this story!! Those leaders said they had received A PHONE CALL FROM THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN TELLING THEM NOT TO WORRY, THAT HILLARY WAS TALKING AGAINST NAFTA ONLY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. YET ANOTHER LIAR IN THE CLINTON CAMP!!!! Thos people are horrible, slandering, and lying creatures left over from yesteryear!!!
Posted by: NinaK | April 9, 2008 12:09 AM
Why is Wolfson bringing up Goolsbee, NAFTA, and the Canadians? The Canadian leaders debunked this story!! Those leaders said they had received A PHONE CALL FROM THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN TELLING THEM NOT TO WORRY, THAT HILLARY WAS TALKING AGAINST NAFTA ONLY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. YET ANOTHER LIAR IN THE CLINTON CAMP!!!! Thos people are horrible, slandering, and lying creatures left over from yesteryear!!!
Posted by: NinaK | April 9, 2008 12:11 AM
Why did the Colombia leader chastize Senator Obama but not Hillary two days after Penn met with their ambassador? Senator Obama is against Nafta's failure to protect the American worker and Hillary is CLAIMING she is against NAFTA. Again, why didn't Hillary get chastized by the Colombia leader? Umm, could it be because, as her campaign told the Canadian leaders, that she is saying she's against NAFTA ONLY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES? Most likely.
Hillary CANNOT fire Mark Penn; he met with the Colombia Ambassador on behalf of Hillary. If she fired him, he would definitely spill the beans about just why he was there. Hillary is COVERING UP!!!! The Clintons are extremely good at doing corrupt things and covering them up. Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Futuresgate, etc., etc., and Monicagate. Fortunately, Monica saved her famous blue dress w/Bill's DNA, otherwise, Bill and Hillary's lies would have prevailed AGAIN. Remember Bill Clinton coming on TV, jabbing his finger at the world and telling us, "I did not have sex with that woman----Ms Lewinsky"???? The BLUE DRESS PROVED HE LIED!!!
Wonder if that famous blue dress is in Bill Clinton's Presidential Library?? Or maybe, the Smithsonion Institute??
Posted by: NinaK | April 9, 2008 12:29 AM