Black Box Report

It's been a bad few days for Mark Penn. First his PR/lobbying firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, got fired by the Colombian government after he called his efforts to push their proposed free trade agreement with the U.S. "an error in judgment." Then he got fired as Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist for supporting the agreement in the first place, as it's something the presidential candidate opposes. Philadelphia's AFL-CIO chapter, understandably, got a little peeved at someone so close to Clinton's campaign working at odds with her stated position, and as she can hardlky afford any ill will in Pennsylvania, the rest was academic. What's not so clear is who vetted this guy in the first place?

Did Hillary know about Penn’s conflict of interest and if so, how long has she known? If he wasn’t ‘found out’, would Penn still be in charge? Hillary already has a credibility problem, and this mess only adds fuel to the fire.

Did they pick Penn's PR firm out of a hat? In recent years, Burson-Marsteller has represented disgraced mortgage lender Countrywide financial, the out-of-control Iraq contracting firm Blackwater Worldwide, and Big Tobacco, to name but a few of his unsavory clients. "Conflict of interest," indeed.

But if his conflicts of interest alone weren't enough to fire him, his incompetence was:

This moron is nearly singlehandedly responsible for the mess the Clinton campaign finds itself in. As opposed to having comfortably secured the nomination last month with victories in Texas and Ohio, Penn's idiotic "strategy" of banking it all on SooperDooperTuesday, rather than laying the ground troops in January in states after the big red letter day, Penn's shortsightedness and hubris has put Hillary in the position of really having to bust humps in the last three months of the campaign in order to take the nomination in a subjective and therefore suspect fashion.

Ignoring the importance of winning caucuses; the "inevitablitiy argument"; calling smaller states "unimportant". The list of Penn's mistakes is long and impressive. You'd have to work hard to find a reason not to fire him. was disliked by other staffers and his departure is being seen as a morale boost to a campaign that hasn't had much to smile about lately. But it remains to be seen if shedding his baggage comes as too little, too late, or even if his "departure" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. He's still staying on as Clinton's pollster, and no doubt will attempt to rehabilitate himself in her eyes (behind the scenes, of course). And she may still listen. She seems to think he's been doing a heckuva job so far:

Even if you accept that Penn's strategic advice was bad…Hillary Clinton was the one to actualize it and follow it...He still retains the confidence of the Clintons and will still play a major role in the campaign. What does that tell you about the quality of advice the Clintons believe him to impart?

In fact, I'd be surprised if Hillary's latest tactic of comparing Obama to Bush didn't have Penn's fingerprints all over it. Not only is it right on par with Penn's "kitchen sink" approach, but it's a classic Rove/Penn tell: accuse your opponent of your own flaw. In this case, only listening to people who tell you what you want to hear:

Will any major presidential campaign ever again make the mistake of putting one person in charge of strategy and polling? (The conflict is absurd - Penn crafted a plan, and then provided his own data to show how right he was.)

Between a total lack of professional ethics, an abrasive, dismissive style and an ability to massage statistics like a Swedish accountant on crank, since he now has some spare time on his hands, I'd suggest that he'd make a fantastic rightwing blogger.

I am not a psychologist. I don't even try and play one on TV. All I know are the facts; facts that, no matter how you twist them, tell me lives can and have been saved with suicide prevention call boxes on bridges. This is not a news flash. As you've seen even the same authorities who fought our efforts tooth and nail acknowledge now, the lifelines work.

That, of course, brings us to the Tappan Zee Bridge. After seeing the northbound spans respond to our pressures, I gave the TZ credit. They anticipated the command and said they were following suit. I blame myself, however, for trusting and not verifying. In my defense, who comes up with, let alone implements, a plan that has help lines miles…miles!...from the center of the bridge?

As insane as that is, though, I swear the explanation is even worse. Here's the justification from Ramesh Mehta, the New York State Thruway Authority's director for the Hudson Valley: Putting call boxes where people jump will cause traffic tie-ups.

Is that really your tradeoff for a human life? I'm betting it's not.

One of two things has happened: we've appointed people entrusted with safety and security that are incapable or, worse, indifferent.

I don't know which one it is, and frankly I don't care. Some people will jump no matter what. But we don't have to make it so easy. If the thruway authority won't do the right thing, we'll shame them into it. We've done it before and we'll do it again.

So here's what were going to do. I'm going to give the powers that be a chance to defend themselves. On Thursday, Ramesh Mehta, the shot caller from the Thruway Authority - the ones who run the Tappan Zee Bridge - will join me on this set and explain why call boxes, literally 2 miles from the center of the bridge, is the best we can do. He'll explain why, if the past decade is any guide, another 60 to 90 people need to die before another bridge will address this problem. I'll give him a fair shot but frankly I don't know how he, or anyone can defend the indefensible.

It doesn't have to be this way. Lives have been saved and deaths, not all but many, can be prevented on the Tappan Zee. We can do better, and RFL will do our part to see that they do.