Hillary Clinton and John McCain have the same campaign bosses

[Elyse]

From Daily Kos



Let's say that the Democratic nomination battle had been winnowed down to two candidates, and that one of those two candidates (let's call him Barack Obama) was a huge favorite to win. Meanwhile, the GOP nominee has been all but decided. (We'll call him John McCain.)
Now let's imagine that Obama's opponent (we'll call her Hillary Clinton) was desperately slinging every piece of mud she could at him without regard to whether or not her attacks would help John McCain.
Finally, imagine that you found out that Clinton's chief strategist was not only her campaign's leading advocate for these attacks -- but was also the CEO of a public affairs firm whose DC-based lobbying subsidiary was headed up by John McCain's top adviser.
Would you say this posed at least the appearance of a conflict of interest for the strategist in question?
What would you think if you found out that it's all true?



Well, it is true.
Hillary Clinton's chief strategist is Mark Penn, and Charlie Black, John McCain's top adviser, is chairman of BKSH, the DC-based lobbying subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller -- of which Mark Penn is CEO.
Yes, this is the same lobbyist Barack Obama was referring to when he criticized John McCain for allowing lobbyists to conduct their business on board his bus.
BKSH is a bipartisan lobbying firm. Black, the chairman is the top Republican. The top Democrat is R. Scott Pastrick, who like Penn, supports Hillary Clinton.
Mark Penn's personal interests would clearly be best served by a Hillary Clinton victory.
A McCain presidency wouldn't be a bad consolation prize, however. It would be far better to have the head of his lobbying be tight with the president than to have a president like Obama who sought to impose new restrictions on his lobbyist operation.
Burson-Marsteller's work is primarily for corporations, ranging from Blackwater to Microsoft to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the sovereign wealth fund of the government of Abu Dhabi that recently purchased a 5% stake in Citigroup.
As Ari Berman's Hillary, Inc. details, there's every reason to be skeptical of Mark Penn's willingness to help Democrats. He's criticized Al Gore for running to far to the left in 2000 and when he was brought into the Clinton's orbit by Dick Morris, he wasn't even a political operative.


from Americablog:



Penn works for Clinton.

Black works for McCain.

And Black works for Penn.

Keep this in mind as you read some of the guiding principles for Penn's and Black's firm, courtesy of the Burson-Marsteller website:

# We, the directors and employees of all companies in WPP recognize our obligations to all who have a stake in our success including shareowners, clients, employees, and suppliers;...

# We will not for personal or family gain directly or indirectly engage in any activity which competes with companies within WPP or with our obligations to any such company;

# We will not have any personal or family conflicts of interest within our businesses or with our suppliers or other third parties with whom we do business;

So, again, we have to ask: Why is Mark Penn on a mission to destroy Obama? It's clear that Penn benefits if Hillary wins -- she's his client, his firm's client. His company benefits if McCain wins -- he's the client of one of Penn's top employees. Penn has an obligation to his shareholders and clients. And his firm seems to have clients on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of this fight. If Obama wins the presidency, Penn gets nothing. He was helping the other guy, or gal. But if McCain wins, Penn's firm has one hell of a contact with the new president - heck, one of his top employees had the new president as a client and didn't even charge him! Is it a conflict of interest? Not with his clients. But how about with the Democratic party and our interests?

[sluce]

This was already posted.

[pacific breeze]

And of course, Hillary and McCain are the only politicians in history to have ever used lobbyists. I seem to recall that Obama also makes use of them. But I guess that's different.

Last time I looked, Washington, along with every other state capital, was overrun with lobbyists of all stripes.

[Elyse]

Nope.

This is not just about using lobbyists.

This is about people on opposing teams using the SAME lobbying firm that represents Blackwater.

In other words, whether Hillary wins or McCain wins, Blackwater wins and so does the guy representing them and Blackwater.

If Obama wins, Blackwater loses.

And hence, it's in the lobbying firm's best interest to destroy Obama even if it means destroying the American Democratic party.

[kingcap72]

So, let's see. Hillary claims that she wants to end the war, even though she refuses to admit that the war was a mistake, but the same firm that represents her is also representing Blackwater, who are making millions off of the war, just like Haliburton. And since McCain is for keeping the war going, then Blackwater will keep making millions in blood money. That would put Hillary in an interesting conflict of interest position if she becomes president.

[witchcurlgirl]

Nope.

This is not just about using lobbyists.

This is about people on opposing teams using the SAME lobbying firm that represents Blackwater.

In other words, whether Hillary wins or McCain wins, Blackwater wins and so does the guy representing them and Blackwater.

If Obama wins, Blackwater loses.

And hence, it's in the lobbying firm's best interest to destroy Obama even if it means destroying the American Democratic party.

If Obama wins, Blackwater loses?

Funny, seeing as how it's being reported that Clinton and Obama have quite similar plans regarding Iraq, and Blackwater. Keeping the Blackwater mercenary's on in Iraq. Check out Scahill's writings in The Nation on this topic.

Obama's Mercenary Position

Jeremy Scahill: Obama's Blackwater Problem--Updated - Politics on The Huffington Post