Saturday, July 08, 2006
First, we mount a frontal attack on the castle's forward defenses.
Next we distract the flanks by sending them into a catatonic stupor of confusion.
We take out the archers with this.
And, finally, we crash through the gate and kill the entire Sadly, No clan dead. Dead I say.
JOHNSTON, Iowa - In a quiet, methodical style reflecting his Midwestern roots, Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record) is laying the foundation for a presidential campaign and prompting some Democrats to talk about a candidate with a realistic shot.
"The chatter that you hear is that he's a good guy and nice and he has that honest, Midwestern feel to him, kind of like Harry Truman," said veteran Democratic strategist Dane Strother. "That's all appealing."
In his fifth trip to Iowa in the last year, the centrist Indiana Democrat opened a three-day swing Thursday with a fundraiser in downtown Des Moines for legislative candidates. He mingled easily with about 50 party activists for more than an hour and made a point of chatting with everyone in the room.
"He's a Midwesterner and that will help him in Iowa," said state Senate Democratic leader Michael Gronstal. "It's up to him to sell himself, and so far he's been fairly impressive."
A little more than a month ago Bayh said:
Bayh said if the Iraqi factions “get their political act together — and we will know this in the next six to eight weeks… if they can form a government… then there’s something to work with there.” If not, then “we’re out.”
Since then roughly 55 more members of the US military have died, and 1600 or more Iraqis have died in Baghdad alone. Bayh was rather unclear about what his metric for success was, and he's got a couple more weeks before his time is up, but at some point I would hope that getting their act together would involve things actually getting better.
Friday, July 07, 2006
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the United States Secret Service has released to Judicial Watch new logs detailing additional visits of corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff to the White House. Judicial Watch had filed a “motion to compel” with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 17 after the Secret Service failed to comply with an April 25 court order to release all official logs detailing the Abramoff visits without redaction. The new logs are available on Judicial Watch’s Internet site, www.judicialwatch.org. (Pages 47 and 53 provide the clearest representation of the visits.)
The first set of documents released to Judicial Watch on May 10 indicated that Abramoff only made two visits to the White House on March 6, 2001 and January 20, 2004. The new documents show an additional seven data entries concerning Abramoff appointments on the following dates: March 1, 2001; March 6, 2001; April 20, 2001; May 9, 2001; May 17, 2001; December 7, 2001; and December 10, 2001. According to the cover letter accompanying the documents, “The…data reflect appointments involving Jack Abramoff, but do not necessarily reflect actual visits to the White House Complex.”
What'd I miss?
So I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops, and by the end of the next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home.
So, Lieberman says in about 18 months there will be about 65,000 troops in Iraq.
Reynolds is referring here to two posts I have written in the past regarding blatant falsehoods or hypocricies contained in posts of his which he refused to address, and I therefore encourage readers to e-mail him asking him to respond. The reason I know his e-mail address is because he publishes it prominently on his blog. The last time I did this was to point out that Reynolds' post on the Virginia Democratic Senate primary contained multiple factual errors, and by encouraging readers to e-mail him, he was finally forced to respond, and did so by retracting two separate false statements he made in his posts.
Reynolds' "point" here is that what I "did to him" in including his e-mail address in my post is no different than what Horowitz and StopTheACLU did in publishing, respectively, the home addresses and telephone numbers of the NYT photographer and the plaintiff-family in the Delaware lawsuit. Listing someone's email address and their home address are, argues Reynolds, indistinguishable and equally "thuggish." Is it really possible that Reynolds is incapable of seeing why this argument is nothing short of laughable? Is there really anyone incapable of understanding the profound difference between these two acts without having it explained to them?
Reynolds lists his own e-mail address on his blog. But he doesn't list his home address. Why might that be? Perhaps if he asks himself that question, he will be able to see the distinction, one that is glaringly visible to any rational person, between publishing someone's email address and publishing their home address. If he really believes that there is no difference between the two, then he ought to publish his home address on his blog right under his e-mail address, just to really drive the point home that they are the same.
As for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found and which represented the rationale for the U.S.-led invasion, Lieberman said, "I am convinced and remain convinced" that Saddam had such weapons.
"We know he used them earlier. We know he had enormous quantities that were never accounted for. And that's why we've got to continue to look for them. He clearly hid them. We'll find them eventually."
Perhaps we will, eventually. Maybe Crazy Curt Weldon has them buried in his back yard.
Last night Lieberman said:
Let me repeat. I’m not for an open-ended commitment to Iraq.
If so, that's a change. Once upon a time he said:
"We may, over the long term, with the consent of the new Iraqi government, establish some permanent bases in Iraq. And wouldn't that be a dramatic change, where we have an allied government there in Iraq, at the center of the Middle East, where we may have not a permanent police presence, but one or another military base that's working in cooperation with the government there?" he asked.
Still, the entire question of what are we doing in Iraq and how long do we plan to be there has been effectively removed from the discourse. "Everybody knows" we plan to have permanent bases there, but the connection between that little fact and what we're doing there right now remains unaddressed by all of our beautiful minds.
Perhaps this is an opening. Next journalist to get a chance to chat with angry Joe should ask: Do you think it should be US policy to "establish some permanent bases in Iraq." If the lost art of the follow up question is allowed to intrude, perhaps the next question could be whether such bases are worth the continued cost in life and treasure, and if so why...
A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.
But, what do I know.
Still, for those of us outside The Land Of Steady Habits, there was a little too much about the Greenwich Town Council and submarine bases and who said what when and to whom. But there was one quote that didn't come up, and it's the only quote that should matter to those of us outside Connecticut. It's this one:
"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years," the senator said. "We undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril."
You may recognize that final sentence as the soft outer frontier of the rhetoric that ends up in a place where newspeople are accused of treason and where roam free the eliminationist fantasies of the lunatic right. It's where we find "reasonable" people treating John Yoo's authoritarian delusions as though they had something to do with America. I couldn't care less if Ned Lamont once took a Republican stand on water rates. I saw enough last night to know he'd never say anything like that.
"I find the behavior of a large segment of the Jewish community to be reprehensible and outrageous," said John Droney, a former chairman of the state party who is advising Lieberman to run as an independent. "When he's in trouble like this, they all ought to rally to him. It's too bad that you have to listen to an Irish-American to realize that you've got to support your own home cooking."
Thursday, July 06, 2006
The mystery to me is how Lieberman was stupid enough to let this become a real race. All he had to do was play elder statesman for the past few months. I have no idea why he wasn't capable of doing that.
Here's the thread at the campaign blog.
The official debate drinking game is simple: Drink every time you hear droopy dog's voice.
Federal District Court Judge Sam Sparks just ruled in favor of Texas Democrats who sought an injunction to prevent Republicans in Texas Congressional District 22 from replacing Tom DeLay on the congressional ballot.
Texas Democrats argued that the U.S. Constitution, not State law, defines eligibility to serve in the U.S. Congress. Judge Sparks agreed.
...more, courtesy of Hesiod:
AUSTIN — A federal judge ruled today that Republicans cannot replace former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the ballot for the 22nd Congressional District race.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, a Republican appointee, ruled that DeLay must appear on the Nov. 7 ballot as the GOP nominee for the congressional seat that DeLay abandoned last month. Sparks ruling was confirmed by Texas Democratic Party spokeswoman Amber Moon.
Details of Sparks ruling were not immediately available.
Sparks ruling halts the process of replacing DeLay on the ballot, but the GOP is expected to appeal the decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If the Republicans lose on appeal, DeLay will have to decide whether to campaign for an office from which he already has resigned.
... the answer, of course, is Zengerle's publishing of a fake email which was the closest thing to any actual support for his brilliant notion, and the ethics of The New Republic which lets sources provide them with bullshit information.
My guess is TNR wouldn't out the source because it would prove incredibly embarrassing to them. Still, nice work getting the Boston Globe to overlook that rather important feature.
(Also missing, of course, are any actual examples of the claimed death threats. It's certainly possible that Zengerle got them, but everyone always claims they get them whenever bloggers get annoyed at their dishonesty and nobody ever seems to produce them. Personally I'd suggest forwarding them to the FBI and having people arrested. Oddly that never seems to happen either.)
- Stop the ACLU is not some fringe, isolated group. To the contrary, the "official blog" of StopTheACLU.org is StopTheACLU.com (h/t Hunter), a very prominent player in the right-wing blogosphere. That blog is the 14th most-linked-to blog on the Internet, and is often promoted and approvingly cited to as a source by numerous right-wing bloggers such as Instapundit and Michelle Malkin. The blog Expose the Left (which aspires to be the C&L of the Right), yesterday condemned the "nutcases on the left side of the blososphere" who "are sending unfounded attacks" against StopTheACLU for this plainly despicable thug behavior.
These self-evidently dangerous tactics are merely a natural outgrowth of the hate-mongering bullying sessions which have become the staple of right-wing television shows such as Bill O'Reilly's and websites such as Michelle Malkin's (who, unsurprisingly, has become one of O'Reilly's favorite guests). One of the most constant features of these hate fests is the singling out of some unprotected, private individual -- a public school teacher here, a university administrator there -- who is dragged before hundreds of thousands of readers (or millions of viewers), accused of committing some grave cultural crime or identified as a subversive and an enemy, and then held out as the daily target of unbridled contempt, a symbol of all that is Evil.
- Beyond merely failing to condemn these tactics, Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds yesterday deliberately defended them by arguing that they are no different than what the NYT did in its Travel article. Reynolds attacked a post written this weekend by Reason's Dave Weigel, in which Weigel condemned publication of the home address of the NYT photographer. Reynolds -- who pointedly avoided condemning Horowitz and publication of Spiller's home address -- quoted and then attacked Weigel's condemnation as "incoherent":
As so often happens with these things, angry bloggers have struck back and posted the addresses and phone numbers of the Times' photogs. (No link.)
No link? Why not? By Weigel's standards, a link wouldn't contribute to invasion of privacy. Anybody can find that stuff, right?
And if anybody can find that stuff, why's he so upset about publishing office phone numbers of public officials?
In order to avoid criticizing his comrades on the Right who are engaging in thug tactics, Reynolds actually equates discussion of the vacation homes of top government officials (who enjoy the most extensive and high-level security on the planet) with publication of the home addresses of private individuals and journalists (who have no security of any kind). By his reasoning, mentioning that the Vice President has a vacation home on the Eastern Shore of Maryland is no different than publishing the home address of private individuals who are publicly identified as traitors.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
This is rich. The rush to war was premised on the assumption that the judgment of the Bush administration (and Sullivan) was superior to that of professional weapons inspectors like Hans Blix. This turned out to be false. Now, the foot-dragging on global warming is premised on the assumption that the judgment of the Bush administration (and Sullivan) is superior to that of the global scientific community.
As usual, this is an issue of judgment and trust. Put Sullivan and Samuelson down as apologists for global warming, those willing to justify inaction so that they can feel, at the end of he day, smugly superior. In other words, if you like the the people who brought you the war in Iraq, you'll love inaction on climate change.
The Iraq war is more than enough, not simply for his initial support but for his subsequent slam on people who dared criticize Bush over it, but there are so many reasons to oppose Joe.
No need to choose just one.
"My challenger is backed by a group of very zealous people and they are using me to get at President Bush," Lieberman said. "I know President Bush. I wouldn’t say he’s a friend of mine. and trust me, I am no President Bush."
Joe on friends then:
Lieberman is a study in the dangers of steroidal muscularity, becoming an outlier in his own party. (He has edged to the right as his running mate in the 2000 election, Al Gore, has moved leftward.) His fate was sealed with a kiss, planted on his cheek by Bush, just after the President delivered his State of the Union address. “That may have been the last straw for some of the people in Connecticut, the blogger types,” Lieberman told me. But he is unapologetic about his defense of Bush’s Iraq policy, saying, “Bottom line, I think Bush has it right.” When I asked if he was becoming a neoconservative, Lieberman smiled and said, “No, but some of my best friends are neocons.”
When Joe runs as an independent, it'll screw things up even more. Wanker.
"My challenger is backed by a group of very zealous people and they are using me to get at President Bush," Lieberman said. "I know President Bush. I wouldn’t say he’s a friend of mine. and trust me, I am no President Bush."
Nothing like insulting the voters of Connecticut, Joe.
This guy is such an idiot.
When it comes to Iraq there are basically two options for Democrats. They can either engage in rhetoric which, no matter what its intent, maintains the status quo. Or, they can engage in rhetoric which works to hasten our exit from that country. I keep hearing that the Democrats are divided on Iraq, and I suppose they are, but is there really a big group of them who want to stay in Iraq for the next 3 years? Is arguing around the edges about timelines versus benchmarks versus deadlines versus whatever really more important than making sure that we won't be there, as George Bush has promised, 3 years from now? Is it really so hard to stand up and say it's time for George Bush to start to figure out how to get us out of there?
I really don't understand what game they think they're playing.
So why would you, if you're Boot, remain committed to the continuation of a war whose strategy you think is doomed to failure? An awful lot of the more intelligent hawks seem to be in this position. They don't want to endorse withdrawal, but they have no good-faith belief that continuing the war on any realistic course will produce a positive outcome. That, to me, is near the height of irresponsibility.
I don't know why people remain committed to this, but fortunately (warning: black humor alert) we'll have many more Friedmans to discuss this subject. As Greg Mitchell writes:
One deluded president plus an army of paralyzed editorialists = many more years of a war that is one big atrocity.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, said Tuesday she will not back the Connecticut Democrat's bid for re-election if he loses their party's primary.
"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.
"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," the New York Democrat added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."
Ideally leading Democrats would be rather repulsed by Lieberman's "have it both ways" strategy, but I recognize that right or wrong supporting incumbents is so ingrained in Washington culture that it's almost impossible to dislodge. Given that, this rather unequivocal statement by Clinton is quite refreshing.
If Lieberman was a noble man, he'd have made his choice: run in the primary or run as an independent. Instead, he's decided that all incumbents in Connecticut should leave themselves the opportunity for a "do over." Pathetic.
It would of course be funny if they were just lunatics ranting from soapboxes, or even just lunatics ranting from their virtual soapboxes, but these are people our "respectable" mainstream media have regularly given a platform to and will continue to do so.
Congrats, Attaturk. You win a free subscription to this blog.
More than that, Joe's going to find out real fast that his true loyal base - Republicans - are going to disappear even faster. I have no idea why he imagines that the NRSC and the gang will sit by and happily watch that seat remain with a guy who claims he'll keep caucausing with the Democrats when, in a 3 way race, they'd have a realistic pickup opportunity. Joe'll find out real fast that he doesn't have any friends left.
Lieberman's only got himself to blame for this. He's played everything exactly wrong since Lamont jumped in, and we thank him for it.
Still gotta win the primary. More than donating money, make sure you reach out to everyone you know in CT. Not everyone pays much attention to these things. Not everyone bothers to vote in primaries.
With President Bush leading a charge against this "disgraceful" newspaper, and a conservative talk show host, Melanie Morgan, suggesting that maybe The Times's executive editor should be executed for treason, we face a fundamental dispute about the role of the news media in America.
At stake is the administration's campaign to recast the relationship between government and press.
Take Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Roberts has criticized The Times, but he himself is responsible for an egregious disclosure of classified intelligence. As National Journal reported in April, it was Senator Roberts who stated as the Iraq war began that the U.S. had "human intelligence that indicated the location of Saddam Hussein."
That statement horrified some in our intelligence community by revealing that we had an agent close to Saddam.
No responsible newspaper would risk an agent's life so blithely. And The Times would never have been as cavalier about Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as the White House was. The fact is, journalists regularly hold back information for national security reasons; I recently withheld information at the request of the intelligence community about secret terrorist communications.
More broadly, the one thing worse than a press that is "out of control" is one that is under control. Anybody who has lived in a Communist country knows that. Just consider what would happen if the news media as a whole were as docile to the administration as Fox News or The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
When I was covering the war in Iraq, we reporters would sometimes tune to Fox News and watch, mystified, as it purported to describe how Iraqis loved Americans. Such coverage (backed by delusional Journal editorials baffling to anyone who was actually in Iraq) misled conservatives about Iraq from the beginning. In retrospect, the real victims of Fox News weren't the liberals it attacked but the conservatives who believed it.
Historically, we in the press have done more damage to our nation by withholding secret information than by publishing it. One example was this newspaper's withholding details of the plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion. President Kennedy himself suggested that the U.S. would have been better served if The Times had published the full story and derailed the invasion.
Then there were the C.I.A. abuses that journalists kept mum about until they spilled over and prompted the Church Committee investigation in the 1970's. And there are secrets we should have found, but didn't: in the run-up to the Iraq war, the press — particularly this newspaper — was too credulous about claims that Iraq possessed large amounts of W.M.D.
Monday, July 03, 2006
What should Joe call his party of one?
...ah, wait, I see. He doesn't have to choose a party affiliation - he can just run as an individual - but he can do so. Still what to call his party?
missy's brother says...take the poll (click the Survey button under Joe's melon head).
The most interesting part, though, is where this resistance comes from. The more often you go to church, the less likely you are to vote for a Mormon.
28% of those who never/barely attend church say they wouldn't.
35% monthly attendees.
50% more than once a week.
I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party.
I'm not quite sure what the word for "loyalty to yourself above all other considerations" is, but that's usually not what we think of when we think of loyalty.
We won a round. All hail blogofascism!
Throw some coin to defeat the Wanker Lieberman.
Members of a party abide by primary results. There is no such thing as an "petitioning Democrat." If there was, Joe could accept the Republican endorsement and run as a "Republican Democrat."
Joe has also clearly stated he thinks he will lose the primary on August 8th. His internal polls must look even worse than I thought.
Just like when Joe ran for Vice President and Senate at the same time in 2000 - meaning that if he and Gore had won, Democrats would have lost a senate seat to a Republican appointment - he is again putting his own career and self-interest ahead of his constitutents and his party (or now ex-party).
In addition, Joe has just created a world of shit for his supposed friends Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney, and Chris Murphy. I wonder what they all think of this.
This is how he treats his friends. This is how he treats his party. On the slowest news day of the summer.
These are the actions of a very weak candidate, and a selfish and cowardly man.
What a sorry sight to see an 18-year incumbent senator running scared from a little primary challenge like this. No backbone. No courage. No integrity.
Joe's trying to have it both ways, taking out his little insurance policy, but this disloyalty to both party and the voters of Connecticut should cause every good Democrat to distance themselves from his actions and endorse Ned Lamont.
Joe's gonna jump...
...confirmed. In typical cowardly Lieberman fashion, he's going to continue running in the Democratic primary while simultaneously pulling petitions to get himself on the ballot as an Independent.
More than that, he's going to claim he's not going to be trying to run as an independent, but instead as something Made Up, a "petitioning Democrat."
With that, Joe gets the coveted Wanker of the Day award.
They're wrong about almost everything all the time. They make shit up, invent fake "scandals," and generally piss on any notion of truth or ethics all of the time.
And Howie Kurtz loves them.
Howard Kurtz puts Hinderaker on CNN virtually every weekend. Malkin and Horowitz are treated like respectable pundits on Fox and other stations. And yet their standards for what they assert are no different than Star Magazine or the lowest, bottom-feeding liars who literally invent facts at will. They spent the whole weekend trying to inflame hatred against the NYT by telling their readers that the NYT article deliberately endangered Don Rumsfeld's security in order to retaliate against him - even though that could not possibly have been true based on known facts, and even though Don Rumsfeld himself authorized the use of those photographs. What possible defense is there for this behavior, and what rational person would consider Malkin, Hinderaker, Horowitz, Red State -- all of them -- even the slightest bit credible in the future?
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Well, the good news is that Supes would now find it just about impossible to get access to Medicaid, should some sort of kryptonite exposure make that necessary. No valid legal birth certificate.
I don't think this is the most important issue in the world, but as I said I'm really sick of standards being applied to bloggers that don't apply to anyone else in the universe. Three years ago a presidential campaign that nobody knew about paid a tiny bit of money to a blogger that practically nobody read, something which was fully disclosed at the time, and years later it still gets held up as some sort of questionable ethics issue. Meanwhile, millions of dollars get sloshed around Washington, with people seamlessly shifting between pollster, consultant, media figure/source, etc. The whole town operates on people buying each other off, one way or another, and now bloggers are somehow tainted if they so much as talk to a political candidate. There are genuine ethics issues to be explored, so explore them.
Here's a hint, guys and gals. They hate you. They will always hate you. They will hate you if you help them transmit their slanders and they will hate you if you don't. Look at the last week if you don't believe that. Judy Miller's newspaper haled before the public bar for treason. You owe them nothing. You owe the country more courage than this.
There has been substantial media coverage recently about the crazed, fringe radicals who fuel the "liberal blogosphere" (apparently, some use curse words in their posts and like Russ Feingold!). Just for a change of pace, if for no other reason, the Times might want to consider examining the dynamic in the right-wing blogosphere that causes the home addresses of their photographers to be published on the Internet along with calls that their reporters and editors and their children be "hunted down." None of this is aberrational; quite the contrary.
“Any payola allegations or some quid pro quo deal involving Markos and myself are complete fabrications,” Armstrong responded on the web last week. The two bloggers believe it is revenge for their success as opinion-formers, which in the words of a friend “has freaked out a lot of people”.
Moulitsas himself has said little about the controversy, short of rubbishing The New Republic and other critics. In an e-mail to supporters, he suggested: “It would make my life easier if we confine the story . . . let’s starve it of oxygen.”
The email in question had absolutely nothing about any "controversy" regarding "payola allegations" or "quid pro quo" deals, and was only about Jerome Armstrong's SEC issues.
My favorite bit was this actually:
“It’s the French revolution on the internet,” remarked Walter Shapiro, Washington bureau chief of the online magazine Salon, who believes Moulitsas has a poor record of picking winners. “These people were nothing a few years ago and now they’re being courted. Of course they’re supporting those who suck up to them the most.”
"Of course" says Walter Shapiro, because in his world people "of course" end up "supporting those who suck up to them the most." Washington types continue to imagine a hierarchical top-down world where it's all about the money, access, and political star fucking because that's their world. If that's the world Markos wanted to live in he'd sell his new Berkeley home for a nice Washington condo so he could have his ass kissed 24 hours per day.
One doesn't even know how to begin to really defend against this kind of crap. Markos's never tried to be the best at "picking winners." If that's what he tried to do he'd head down to Vegas and make some bets. If the goal was to pick winners I'd ask you all to contribute to the re-election camapigns of Senators Kennedy and Clinton. Those who keep imagining "Kosola" should take a gander at Kos's ad rates and notice that he's imagined to set up an incredibly lucrative business which doesn't really require skimming a few grand from politicians.
Today James Carville and Mark Penn write an op-ed in support of Hillary Clinton. Good for them. I have no problem with that, though I do have to say that Clinton supporters apparently think they can hold a 2008 presidential campaign without mentioning the war. Mark At the end Penn is identified:
Mark J. Penn was a key strategist in Clinton's 1996 bid for re-election and in Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign.
Penn is a pollster and the May 29 New Yorker describes him as (present tense) Clinton's "chief strategist."
A 2005 Roll Call article says:
But, perception does matter, and winning a fight for a sought-after consultant or firm lends momentum to a candidacy in the inner circles of political Washington.
Even though few firms dealing with cross-pressures from the 2008 presidential contest publicly acknowledge the decision they face, several consultants have already made choices.
Mark Penn, a partner in the Democratic polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland, parted ways earlier this year with Bayh to devote full attention to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And, a December 2005 2005 Washington Post article says:
But Penn said in an interview that he will continue to work for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), as well as do corporate work for other clients. PSB will be a division of Burson, and Penn will remain its president; partner Mike Berland becomes chief executive of PSB.
Here's Arianna describing a recent encounter:
Then came the post-panel Q & A, during which I asked Mark Penn whether Hillary Clinton's cosponsoring a bill criminalizing flag desecration was also the product not of polling but of her deeply held convictions.
Without batting an eye, Penn said: "You guys want to make believe that you know better what her beliefs are than she does. This is her belief. This has been her belief for a long time. She's been listening to veterans in New York, and that's what she believes." After catching his breath he added: "And you know what? She doesn't care what you think!"
"Well, if she doesn't care what we in the blogosphere think," I said, "why did she hire Peter Daou to build bridges to us?"
That one went unanswered.