Well Karma is a funny thing isn't it? Weeks after Clinton "went there" by claiming that Jeremiah Wright "wouldnt be her pastor." She is forced to kick Mark Penn, one of the most powerful strategists in the Clinton campaign out of her inner circle.

Why?

Because recently held talks with the Colombian government as CEO of a lobbying firm paid 300,000 by the Colombian government to assist the passage of a "free trade" deal with the U.S. Federal government. The problem? Clinton is on record opposing the deal. Whether she actually thinks the deal is a bad idea in this election she has been forced to take this position in her attempt to appeal to working class voters in rust belt states like Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

Now over the last month there has been a debate on this board about the role of Rev. Wright and "guilt by association." But what do you think voters in states directly effected by these kinds of trade deals should consider more. The offensive words of Barack Obama's former spiritual advisor? Or the long standing paid relationship between Mark Penn and Clinton?

Clearly people know what I think, but I'm curious as to the strongest anti-Wright folks which they think is worse. And how would you make a decision if these were the only two criteria you'd use.

Usual disclaimers about staying on topic and not being jerks

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

There has been lots of mistakes made by both Hillary & Obama. But the pastor disaster tops all. I doubt Pastor Wright has hurt Obama in the primary, & it looks like the Clintons are to be a thing of the past.

The general election though, Obama is going to get hurt by Pastor Wright, & this weatherman underground, whom we don't know much about yet. Bombing the Pentagon, & a police station. Who the Obama campaign said that Obama had a friendly relationship with.

Hopefully, we don't get another speech from Obama regarding home grown terrorism, ha.ha.

There needs to be a "neither" option...

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

oh oops, sorry

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

It's an understandable oversight. For me, neither is a major issue; McCain's got his share of assholes that have associated with him, as well. I think that in the grand scheme of things neither of these guys will be important.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I think the Penn deal is a simple conflict of interests between two employers (Clinton on the one hand and Burson-Marstellar on the other) and a shared employee (Penn).

There really isn't anything immoral, unethical, or dirty involved.

One boss supports one policy, the other boss represents an opposing policy, and Penn found himself in the middle and in a postion where by serving two masters he was making one of them (Clinton) look a little hypocritical at a point in time where the cost of hipocracy was greater than whatever value Penn brought to her campaign.

When you compare that to Obama's 20 year long stint worshiping at the knee of a blatant and militant racist I think the comparison becomes fairly elementary for any thinking man.

Wright will eventually prove to be an albatross. If he doesn't bring the whole campaign down he's definately going to come back and hurt it, at least to a small degree, once the Republican spin machine starts in with a concerted effort against Obama rather than the cat-and-mouse toying they're currently up to as they attempt to keep the blood flowing in what ammounts to a knife fight between Barack and Hillary.

Mark Penn will be yesterday's news by tomorrow at the latest.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

Penn and Teller, oops I mean Penn and Hillary, disagree on a specific policy. BFD. Pastor Wright hates America. How are these related? They aren't. Your application is rejected. Next time you see Mr Penn screaming from the pulpit "GOD DAMN AMERICA!!" you can reapply.

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

Make a note of those names, they'll make great trivia questions in a couple of years..................
Along with "Who ran against President Obama in 2008?"

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I dont think it will make much of a difference as either democrat is going to skate into the WH. I did vote for Penn for a few reasons, Hillary yelled and stomped about Obama when he said he was against NAFTA but may or maynot have told the Canadians something else secretly.

When it comes to Penn and Hillary Id like to know when they became aware of this conflict, did they do something about it at that moment or wait until someone called them out on it? We are talking about her top political strategist and he was paid to work in something she is adamantly against or so she says.

Plus dont we already have a free trade deal set up with the Colombians? I thought it was cash and guns for ahhh...soft drinks in powder form

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

I have chosen Penn; because I don't believe majority of Americans are all unaware of the things going on in Black churchs and Rev. Wright issue gave us a chace to settle the past conflicts by talking openly about them.

not voting......this has zero to do with one another....alex has it right imho...

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Penn. I was originally not going to vote because of the way the question was worded, with that "should" in there, and strictly speaking, I think voters shouldn't give a fart in their undies about either one. But Clinton's association with Penn does resonate with Bill Clinton's support for "free trade" agreements while in office. Let's not forget that NAFTA was not a Republican initiative.

I also think, without any equivocation, that the voters these candidates need to woo, and have a prayer of wooing, WILL care more about Penn, or at any rate about the issues Penn represents.

There seem to be a number of people on this forum who have a real problem with Wright, and toss words like "hate America" and "blatant racist" around. I would imagine that there are quite a substantial minority of American voters who will feel the same way. What I do not believe, though, is that any significant fraction of those would be Obama voters were there no such person as Rev. Wright. The people here who are so concerned about Wright and what he represents also have political views that tell me they'd have to be crazy to vote for Obama.

It isn't going to hurt him, in short.