NY Times Writes Up Some Masterful Satire

12:18 am EST June 9th, 2008 | Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Usually when I want cutting edge satire I turn to The Onion, but this Sunday’s New York Times takes the cake. Apparently those zany kids at the Grey Lady wrote up an “op-ed” by “Mark Penn”. In the rollicking good column “Penn” claims that the reason Sen. Clinton lost was because of money and not message! That’s right, the creator of the message that Sen. Clinton was inevitable and we should just do away with primaries and caucuses claims that the only failure of the campaign was fiscal, and not that the voters rejected an incumbency campaign from a non-incumbent.

I mean, if the real Mark Penn really wrote something like that it would clearly be the work product of a highly delusional and deranged mind. It must be satire, because not even a 47th level nimrod like Penn would write something that bizarre.

Right?

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

10 Responses to “NY Times Writes Up Some Masterful Satire”

  1. Michael Markman says:
    June 9, 2008 at 1:10 am

    Nope. This is genuine Penn. Making stuff up and hoping you’ll believe it is his stock in trade. It’s what he does. And people pay him handsomely for it. Or in the case of Hillary’s campaign, promise to pay him handsomely for it.

    If any Obama supporters balk at helping Clinton pay what she owes to Penn’s firms, think of it this way: his advice handed the nomination to Obama. That’s gotta be worth something.

  2. jerry says:
    June 9, 2008 at 1:35 am

    I guess his message was fine and all, the problem was Clinton’s for failing to be able to generate enough money for him to finance it with.

    Having raised more than $100 million in 2007, the Clinton campaign found itself without adequate money at the beginning of 2008, and without organizations in a lot of states as a result

    Topsy-turvy world? I assure you Oliver, give me $100M and I’ll get you an organization in all 50 states.

  3. Jay Tea says:
    June 9, 2008 at 5:10 am

    Funny, I seem to recall one particular commentator who kept touting Obama’s fundraising successes as an indicator of his success.

    Come to think of it, I think it was our fine host here who was doing that…

    J.

  4. Scott Erb says:
    June 9, 2008 at 9:11 am

    Well, to be fair, the outcome was very, very close, and if Clinton had had Obama’s money, she could have competed better in caucuses and the like. She got really outspent…BUT that raises the question of WHY Obama was able to raise so much money. That was because of the message. So Penn’s part right, but he needs to answer the question of why Obama was able to raise so much money.

  5. Repack Rider says:
    June 9, 2008 at 9:23 am

    One reason Obama had more money to spend was that he didn’t have Penn on the payroll.

  6. anotherbozo says:
    June 9, 2008 at 10:58 am

    Reading Penn: there is some s**t I will not stick my nose in. Frank Rich, BTW, was good Sunday.

  7. Oliver Willis says:
    June 9, 2008 at 11:42 am

    Is Jaytea really this stupid or is it more brilliant satire?

  8. Quaker in a Basement says:
    June 9, 2008 at 11:56 am

    “I seem to recall one particular commentator who kept touting Obama’s fundraising successes as an indicator of his success.”

    Bwaha! Allow me to help, Mr. Tea.

    Penn says – CAUSE: not enough money raised; EFFECT: poor primary results.

    OW says – CAUSE: outstanding campaign message; EFFECT: money comes rolling in!

    Normally, I would assume that this elementary elucidation would suffice. I will make an exception in the present case.

    You have confused cause and effect.

  9. Williver Ollis says:
    June 9, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    My theory about Mark Penn has been that he’s a GOP mole, set up in her campaign to be of service to the Republican cause during the general election. But he was too effective in the primary and eliminated Clinton too early. The fact that the NYT now has him writing on the op-ed page is further evidence of Penn as GOP operative.

  10. Duros62 says:
    June 9, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Williver, I thought so as soon as it was disclosed he didn’t know the Dem primary system was different than the Repub’s system.