Various Obama supporters seem to be avoiding the fact that Obama claims to have passed legislation that did not, in fact pass. Meanwhile, others are rightfully pointing out the Clinton co-sponsored the same? or another? bill on the same topic. AKA Smith linked to a somewhat helpful NYT article yesterday, but I had trouble following it (maybe not enough caffeine in the system, or maybe just bad reporting). Now here is the tangential Penn twist. Broadsheet covered the attack about "present" votes a couple weeks ago, mostly putting the matter to rest for me. Could we get a feature on the real facts with the Exelon issue? - including graphs and timelines, if possible, please? Some of us need to vote soon and still haven't made up our minds....

I'm sorry, but it appears that Mark Penn is not only abysmal at getting Democrats elected in this brave new world, but it looks like he's the bad guy behind all these negative attacks. How odd that he'd pick that piece of legislation to go after Obama on, when his own candidate helped to write and sponsor it?

I was watching Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington this past weekend. I almost laughed aloud when Smith asks Taylor, "You mean you tell these people what to do?" Boy, if Capra were alive today to see one of his finest works turned into a joke.

Penn, like his masters, is a total corporate sell-out. And now HRC is trying to sell herself as the working man's candidate - didn't REALLY like NAFTA, didn't mean to vote for the bankruptcy bill, etc. Please Texas or Ohio, save us from four more years of the spin doctors, faux populists and top-down, power-mad elitists.

It looks bad no doubt... but then again, penn isn;t selling himself as president... he is selling Hillary. One could argue that he might not have been in favor of such legislation as a poltician, but as a businessman, his job is to pursue advantageous positions.

Still, looks a tad off..

I am an Obama supporter but I'd like the facts to be gone over and analyzed a bit better. I am weary of NYTimes on this article because this and the one about his "exaggerated" drug use came out at very convenient times to damage Obama.

Of course it could be just coincidence but other people looking into this issue would be nice to see.

As far as Penn, this just shows how much the Clinton camp is beat up. They release stuff like this that seems easy and obvious yet has a lot of other connections. But if you throw out enough of this stuff, eventually some of it sticks - real or not.

Fresh from pimping for Blackwater, Mark Penn now hypocritically criticizes Obama for doing the same thing that Hillary is doing.

These Hillary folks are simply unbelievably shameless. Time after time, they critique Obama for the same problem that Hillary has, but Hillary has it worse. Rezko is another good example. While Mr. Rezko has his problems, they are the same problems that Norm Chu had. Norm Chu is now in jail, and Rezko is not. Yet the Hillary folks say "Rezko" every time they open their mouths.

When will the Hillary people admit that Hillary and Barack are quite similar in policy, proposals and experience? The main difference is that Hillary has Bill tied around her neck like a great anchor of lead. Barack is PERHAPS less experienced, and that cuts both ways. He is not as dirty as Hillary in many ways, which is a good thing. He has not failed to accomplish as much as Hillary has. So, I dunno.

I do know that Mark Penn is probably the next advisor who will discover that his family is in need of more attention, or possibly Blackwater will need more careful grooming.

Mark Penn should have been. This is the second (at least) big incident of foot-in-mouth outbreak that we've seen from Penn. I wonder if Penn or Clinton actually bothers to address the issue or if they will just hope it dies out.

Are shameless, because there's nothing to be ashamed of.

Unlike the other candidates...Obama in particular...Hillary has pledged to stand up to lobbyists (I believe the other candidates are specifically pledged to do whatever the lobbyists tell them).

So, clearly, if Hillary is to stand up to lobbyists, she has to know how they operate. That is where Mark Penn comes in. After humping around Washington with one of the smarmiest PR firms around for many years, Penn really understands the underbelly of the beast. He's helping Hillary because he wants to make sure that people like him can't make a living in Washington. It isn't unlike a mafia hitman turning state's evidence in order to help the prosecutors shut down other hit men.

Really, it shows how indipendent -- not dependent on the Washington inside powers -- Hillary really is.

Brilliant and crafty. No?

Is this how she and Bill are going to run the government? No, thanks, been there for 7 years, done that for 7 years.

I've been beating this drum for awhile, but if Obama really wanted to kick up the smackdown on Clinton, just talk about Burson-Marsteller and Mark Penn. His presence on her inner circle cost Clinton my vote; I was stunned when I read it.

Burson-Marsteller's track record is amazing -- it's like a who's who of wrongdoers as their clients over the years. If you've done something really wrong, Burson-Marsteller's your one-stop shop for spinning it right away. They've handled so many abysmal clients over the years, it's head-spinning...

Countrywide, Blackwater, Saudi Arabia (right after 9/11, to scrub the Saudi image), Romania's Ceaucescu, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Argentine junta leaders, Indonesia after the East Timor invasion, the junta in Niger, Monsanto (helping them market bovine growth hormone and biotech), working with the fossil fuel lobbies to fight global warming curbs, promoting NAFTA in Mexico, helping tobacco companies fight restrictions, helping Dow and Union Carbide emerge from the disaster at Bhopal, etc.

But then again, given Mark Penn's ham-handed performance to date with Clinton's campaign, maybe keeping him on as her senior campaign adviser is what Obama's people want.