Comments on: NY Times Writes Up Some Masterful Satire

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:42:40 +0000

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.

By: Williver Ollis

Williver Ollis — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:33:36 +0000

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.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:56:17 +0000

“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.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:42:35 +0000

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

By: anotherbozo

anotherbozo — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:58:40 +0000

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

By: Repack Rider

Repack Rider — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:23:51 +0000

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

By: Scott Erb

Scott Erb — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:11:56 +0000

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.

By: Jay Tea

Jay Tea — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:10:03 +0000

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…

By: jerry

jerry — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:35:10 +0000

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.

By: Michael Markman

Michael Markman — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:10:59 +0000

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.