It only took two days. After John McCain's vehement denial of every facet of the New York Times article regarding his relationship with Paxson Communications lobbyist Vicki Iseman, here comes the first contradiction... from Lowell Paxson!
Broadcaster Lowell "Bud" Paxson today contradicted statements from Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign that the senator did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist before sending two controversial letters to the Federal Communications Commission on Paxson's behalf.
Paxson said he talked with McCain in his Washington office several weeks before the Arizona Republican wrote the letters to the FCC urging a rapid decision on Paxson's quest to acquire a Pittsburgh television station.
Paxson also recalled that his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, attended the meeting in McCain's office and that Iseman helped arrange the meeting. "Was Vicki there? Probably," Paxson said in an interview with The Washington Post today. "The woman was a professional. She was good. She could get us meetings."
The recollection of the now-retired Paxson conflicted with the account provided by McCain about two letters at the center of a controversy about the senator's ties to Iseman, a partner at the lobbying firm of Alcalde & Fay.
Ohhhhh..... THAT Lowell Paxson....
This thing is far from over. Sniff, sniff... do you smell it?... sniff.. that's the stench of death.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
It only took two days. After John McCain's vehement denial of every facet of the New York Times article regarding his relationship with Paxson Communications lobbyist Vicki Iseman, here comes the first contradiction... from Lowell Paxson!
Friday, February 22, 2008
The next time someone tries to tell you that Barack Obama is all words and no substance, just let them know that they're lazy. If they really wanted to know what he's accomplished, all they'd have to is hit a computer and Google it.
Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings does quite nicely with the list below. I suggest you print it out and keep it in your wallet for future reference when speaking to a Hillary supporter or a McCain wingnut who comes up with the false "substance" argument.
...I follow some issues pretty closely, and over and over again, Barack Obama kept popping up, doing really good substantive things. There he was, working for nuclear non-proliferation and securing loose stockpiles of conventional weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles. There he was again, passing what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet" -- though not as strong as Obama would have liked. Look -- he's over there, passing a bill that created a searchable database of recipients of federal contracts and grants, proposing legislation on avian flu back when most people hadn't even heard of it, working to make sure that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were screened for traumatic brain injury and to prevent homelessness among veterans, successfully fighting a proposal by the VA to reexamine all PTSD cases in which full benefits had been awarded, working to ban no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, and introducing legislation to criminalize deceptive political tactics and voter intimidation.This doesn't even begin to discuss the success he's had at bipartisan legislation that most cynics think is impossible to acheive.
...bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.Definitely read the longer complete post.
This isn't what Obama does.
UPDATE: I Refuse To Buy Into The Obama Hype (now a supporter)
Never saw this video before. Great lyrics - nothing has changed since it was released in 2004. ...Maybe this year.
David Sirota's latest article about Hillary Clinton and her NAFTA position... or positions.
Read the whole article here.
When it came to sex, Bill Clinton made us debate the definition of "is." Now, when it comes to economics, Hillary Clinton wants to debate the definition of "long," claiming this week in Ohio that "I've long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA."
True, Clinton has recently criticized NAFTA — the 1993 trade policy whose lack of labor and environmental protections encourages companies to move American jobs overseas. But cheap campaign rhetoric over a few months does not make one a longtime critic — especially considering the record.
...in this, the age of stenographic journalism... Clinton simply figures that if she says she has "long been a critic" of NAFTA, then the assertion will be transcribed as truth.
That said, her U-turn is about more than dishonesty — it is about the public will.
Watching the Democratic debate tonight, I was very proud of both candidates. Either Obama or Clinton will kick McCain's wrinkled ass come November.
I personally thought Hillary's plagiarism attack and the horrible "lifting whole passages... is not change you can believe in, it's change you can xerox" line is where she lost the debate. It fell flat and the audience booed. Ironic that she would challenge Obama on plagiarism with a bad joke that obviously was written for her.
But then a funny thing happened. In wrapping up the end of the debate, the candidates were asked what moment in their life did they feel most tested. Obama went first and gave a decent answer.
Then it was Clinton's turn. She stated that most people already know what she's been through (although she didn't specifically mention the "vast right wing conspiracy" or Bill & Monica, but we knew what she meant). Then she went into a story about visiting with injured soldiers and that nothing she's been through can compare with what Joe Average people go through every day. Great line and lovely sentiment. And she ended with "You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about."
The audience got up to its feet for a standing ovation, one of a few during the evening. But in watching every pundit afterwards, they all had the impression that although it sounded conciliatory she won the debate with that last line. People were cheering, she got a standing ovation, it was great.
How did I see it? She got a standing ovation because the audience knew the thing was over. It was the last answer to the last question at the end of the night and they were applauding both candidates. So when I heard that it was her best moment (it was) but that she won on points, I did a double take.
So there I am flipping from station to station looking for the one pundit that would bring it up, just say it was the standard standing ovation at the end of all these things, and nobody did! They all got the impression that Hillary had won the crowd over. They were booing her 30 minutes earlier and now they love her? Jeebus! Okay... whatever.
I still think Obama won this debate, on his Cuba answer, on his rebuttal with the plagiarism scuffle, his thoughts on immigration and border security, flipping around the "ready on Day One" Hillary standard line with "having the right judgement" on Day One, etc.
It was a fun debate to watch. The next debate is scheduled for February 26th in Cleveland, Ohio on MSNBC.
By the way, Obama's winning streak has now hit 11.
Barack Obama has won the Democrats Abroad global primary, giving him 11 straight victories in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Illinois senator won the primary in which Democrats living in more than 30 countries voted by Internet, mail and in person. The voting took place over the course of a week, beginning Feb. 5.
Oh, and one more thing regarding Hillary's plagiarism attack. Keith Olbermann reported that Politico.com had this to say about Clinton's final lines.
From Ben Smith at Politico:
Clinton Tonight:And boy, those YouTubers are fast!
You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.
Edwards the December 13 debate:
What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Rioters attacked the US Embassy in protest today. They're not too happy about the US support for Kosovo's declaration of independence. And it looks like the guy that broke in a set a fire inside the ebassy died in the flames.
Everyone and their whore is latching on to the "who banged who" non-story in the NY Times assertion that John McCain had an improper relationship with Vicki Iseman during his 2000 presidential campaign. The real story is that Mr. Straight Talk was friendly with a lobbyist for Paxson Communications and received over $20,000 in campaign contributions from the company.
This is after Maverick being on the "straight and narrow" due to the Keating Five Scandal had supposedly had scared him "straight." Some straight talk.
RUDE PUNDIT: What's important is that, more and more, it seems like John McCain's push for campaign finance reform was to protect himself from himself - since the Keating Five scandal, the man has raked in lobbyists-and-their-clients' cash like a cheap whore on buck-a-blow night at the brothel: "In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson's chief executive, Lowell W. 'Bud' Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain's 2000 presidential campaign...McCain wrote the letters after he received more than $20,000 in contributions from Paxson executives and lobbyists. Paxson also lent McCain his company's jet at least four times during 1999 for campaign travel."
The Rude Pundit may be reading this wrong, but it doesn't seem to square with McCain's assertion today that "At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest or would favor anyone or organization." (And what a bizarro thing to say - as a member of Congress, McCain is constantly put in a position where he has to favor some individuals and organizations over others.)
Don Imus gets fired for his "nappy headed hos" comment regarding the Rutgers Women's Basketball team. Kelly Tilghman was suspended for two weeks from the Golf Channel for saying last week that young players who wanted to challenge Tiger Woods should "lynch him in a back alley." David Shuster was suspended from MSNBC for his "pimped out" comment regarding Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's presidential campaign bid. The list goes on and on as far back as Howard Cosell and Jimmy the Greek.
And now we have Mr. No Spin Zone, Bill O'Reilly with his "lynching Michelle Obama" comment regarding her misquoted statement about "truly" being proud of her country. The man is unhinged and has proven time and again that he is a racist and it's high time he should be fired or forced to resign.
Of course, we know it's never going to happen.
Bob Cesca: It's not just his flippant threat to "lynch" Michelle Obama. It's the Sylvia's Restaurant rant. It's the wetback remarks. It's the white power remarks. All of it. How many other reporters, personalities and celebrities need to be suspended and fired while Bill O'Reilly, time and time again, gets a pass? Instead, FOX News and Roger Ailes enable his prime time behavior because Bill O'Reilly's radio and TV shows are, of course, somewhat popular among similarly simplistic dolts.
Let's get this straight. This is what Michelle Obama said. "For the first time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback." Immediately, Fox News and all the right wing nuts actually edited out the word "really" to make it sound as if she'd never been proud before this statement. Take a look. Or just Google "Michelle Obama proud country" and you'll get dozens of wingnut websites and edited videos to peruse for yourself. It's so ridiculously obvious that it is outrageous to me that those who want to believe the smear actually do. And yet everyone jumps on the bandwagon including Cindy McCain without knowing the actual quote.
Well, here's an actual quote by O'Reilly. "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down. "
Unless there's evidence?! We'll track it down?! Jeebus Christ! The man is putting conditions on the idea of lynching someone. It just so happens that the "someone" is the African-American wife of the likely African-American Democratic presidential candidate.
Here's Olbermann last night:
It's time for O'Reilly the Racist to go. Fired? Angry... mob? Either would suit me fine.
NY TIMES: A missile interceptor launched from a Navy warship has struck a dying American spy satellite orbiting 130 miles over the Pacific Ocean, the Pentagon announced late Wednesday.
Completing a mission in which an interceptor designed for missile defense was used for the first time to attack a satellite, the Lake Erie, an Aegis-class cruiser, fired a single missile on Wednesday night. Officials cautioned that while early information indicated that the interceptor’s “kill vehicle” had hit the satellite, it would be 24 hours before it could be determined whether the fuel tank with 1,000 pounds of toxic hydrazine had been destroyed as planned.
Was the reason we shot this thing down really because of a possible toxic fuel spill? Or is it that now we have proven to China that we can shoot down a satellite in space just like they did last year? I always thought that inoperable satellites and falling debris from space burned up as it reentered the atmosphere.
Steve Benen at Carpetbagger notes:
...Some experts said the military is seizing an opportunity to test its controversial missile defense system against a satellite target.
But others noted that the Standard Missile-3 has successfully been tested against warhead targets, which are far smaller than the satellite.
“There has to be another reason behind this,” said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a liberal arms-control advocacy organization. “In the history of the space age, there has not been a single human being who has been harmed by man-made objects falling from space.”
An even closer look suggests most of the explanation for shooting the satellite down don’t hold up — the gas isn’t especially dangerous, and other hydrazine-filled objects have crashed on Earth to no effect.
The always-great Noah Shachtman quoted one military satellite observer saying, “Everything they said made sense except for the reason for doing the intercept in the first place.”
“The hydrazine tank is a 1-meter sphere containing about 400 liters of hydrazine. The stated hazard area is about 2 hectares, something like 1/10,000,000,000 of the area under the orbit,” he adds. The potential for actual harm in unbelievably small. Which means the hydrazine rationale just doesn’t hold up, literally not within orders of magnitude.”
“The cynic in me says that the idea that this is being done to protect the lives of humans is simply a feel-good cover story tossed to the media,” another veteran space security specialist adds. “It is true that hydrazine is very toxic and could result injury or death, but the odds of this happening are minuscule. The average person in American is many thousands of times more likely to be killed in a car accident than by any falling debris. In fact, no one has ever been killed by space debris (I have heard of one or two being struck but only minor injuries). So pretty much everything else you can think of (including getting hit by an asteroid/comet) is many times more likely than dying from this. Having the US government spend millions of dollars to destroy a billion-dollar failure to save zero lives is comedic gold.” […]
So what could that other reason be?
Our veteran space security specialist believes there are several. To him, the satellite shot is a chance for the military to try out its missile defense capabilities; a way to keep secret material out of the wrong hands; and a warning to the Chinese, after they destroyed a satellite about a year ago.
But the real kicker for me one line that gave me goosebumps in the Times article challenging Murphy's Law: "In the event that any of the hydrazine fuel falls on a populated area, the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Wednesday issued directions to communities on how to deal with dangerous debris from the satellite."
FEMA?! ...Holy shit.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
...during his 2000 presidential campaign.
NY TIMES: ...A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s clients, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
I'm guessing the other presidential candidates will steer clear of this story, as they should, at least until more facts arise. I don't know what wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham will say about it though.
Time is running out. It's now ten straight states for Barack Obama, as he easily beat Clinton in Hawaii by an amazing 52 points, 76-24! O-mentum is sweeping the nation. I don't know how the Clinton campaign can stand it.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Reporting for MSNBC at about 11:20pm, Andrea Mitchell has stated that although there were no congratulatory or concessionary words for Barack Obama in Hillary Clinton's speech tonight, that she did call Obama soon after their speeches for a short, cordial conversation.
If you were watching the returns, you witnessed that Clinton's speech interrupted by Obama declaring victory in Wisconsin at a rally in Houston, TX. Every cable news outlet cut away from Hillary Clinton to cover the Obama speech, a lengthier one than usual. The Obama camp has stated that the interruption was not intentional. They had set an approximate time and went with it. Mitchell reports that the Clinton campaign decided to go with Hillary's speech earlier than expected, and speculated that perhaps it was an attempt to preempt Obama.
Meanwhile, as John "No We Can't" McCain gave his victory speech this evening, he immediately attacked Obama. "I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change."
Great job, Maverick. Don't get the American people too excited about anything that you wouldn't be able to deliver.
Obama/Osama Screw Up
I can understand an occasional flub or slip of the tongue when you're on television and accidentally blurt out "Osama" instead of "Obama", especially if it's in the back of your mind and you pressure yourself NOT to say it. Murphy's law.
But who's the dipshit in the MSNBC Hardball control booth who put up a graphic of Osama bin Laden when Matthews was talking about Barack Obama? My other question is: has he/she been fired yet?
He apologized after the break and after the damage had been done.
NY Times: HAVANA — Fidel Castro stepped down Tuesday morning as the president of Cuba after a long illness. The announcement was made in a letter to the nation under Mr. Castro’s name, which was read on radio and television programs that many Cubans heard as they headed to work.
The desperation and panic in the Clinton campaign reared its ugly head again as a spokesman for Hillary Clinton has accused Barack Obama of plagiarism.
Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson said: “Sen. Obama is running on the strength of his rhetoric and the strength of his promises and, as we have seen in the last couple of days, he’s breaking his promises and his rhetoric isn’t his own.”
Wolfson's reference was even accompanied by video.
But is it plagiarism when the subject supposedly being plagiarized isn't the one calling foul and actually "applauds" it?
The Massachusetts governor said in a statement: “Sen. Obama and I are longtime friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Sen. Clinton, I applaud him [for] responding in just the way he did.”Governor Patrick has also been credited by Obama in the past when using an idea or paraphrasing a speech that Patrick has used. Keith Olbermann has already debunked the plagiarism swipe:
"...the purported victim of the plaigarism, Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, says he and Senator Obama use each other's wordings all the time and he has no complaint. On at least one occasion Senator Obama explicitly credited the source anyway... And the issue of the overlap of language was discussed by both men in a Boston Globe article from April of last year."He also goes on to add that if he can vet this story, then other reporters will as well. (On a side note, I'm skimming through comments sections in blogs and sadly see Hillary supporters so hungry for something positive to turn their way, they're eating up the plagiarism story like piranhas.)
But if we're really gonna play the "plagiarism" game, it really isn't all that hard to debunk. And I submit to you a couple of videos to show you just what I mean.
"Fired up and ready to go!"
The Protect America Act that made wiretapping and government spying into your home legal expired at midnight on Friday night/Saturday morning, and despite the heavy duty fear mongering by the President and his minions, we're still here.
Now I don't mean to sound glib about the whole thing, but it really pisses me off that the same people that fell asleep at the switch on 9/11 have been using the fear tactic for the last 6½ years whenever it was convenient to distract, deceive and draw the American people into a false sense of panic. Any time presidential approval ratings were down or any time another scandal surfaced, the threat of terrorism was used by the Bush administration as a form of smoke and mirrors. Pay no attention to the retarded man behind the curtain.
And then came the end of last week with Bush insisting that the House pass the "good bill" that a weak-kneed Senate voted in favor of, that not only expanded the eavesdropping that has been going on for years, but that also granted retroactive immunity for telecom companies that aided and abetted the Bush administration of conducting illegal wiretapping, and that failure to do so would allow the terrorists "to bring destruction to our shores that would make September the 11th pale by comparison."
That dirty motherfucker... he dares to scare ignorant Americans and blame Congress after he said he would veto any bill that didn't grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies and refused to grant any temporary extension to allow further debate. Watch the video (link above). Even national intelligence director Mike McConnell's jaw hit the floor when Bush spewed out the 9/11 "pale by comparison" line.
What does immunity have to do with anything? Everyone knows that normal FISA procedures would continue after the sunset of the PAA. The FISA court still exisits. All you need to do is actually follow the law and obtain a warrant, which by the way, can also be gotten retroactively.
And how ridiculous is it that the Heritage Foundation has actually put a "FISA Overtime Clock" on their website. Are they hoping for an attack so they can play the "I told you so" game? For fuck's sake! And to top it off, the time clock isn't even correct!
Sorry George, we're not dead yet.
What did you do on President's Day? As the official title of the federal holiday, Washington's Birthday was originally implemented by the federal government of the United States in 1880 in the District of Columbia (20 Stat. 277) and expanded in 1885 to include all federal offices (23 Stat. 516). As the first federal holiday to honor an American citizen, the holiday was celebrated on Washington's actual birthday, February 22. On January 1, 1971 the federal holiday was shifted to the third Monday in February by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. A draft of the Uniform Holidays Bill of 1968 would have renamed the holiday to Presidents' Day to honor both Washington and Lincoln, but this proposal failed in committee and the bill as voted on and signed into law on June 28, 1968 simply moved Washington's Birthday. It is also interesting to note that "Presidents Day" is not always an all-inclusive term. In Massachusetts, while the state officially celebrates "Washington's Birthday," state law also prescribes that the governor issue an annual Presidents Day proclamation honoring the presidents that have come from Massachusetts: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Calvin Coolidge, and John F. Kennedy. (Coolidge, the only one born outside of Massachusetts, spent his entire political career before the vice presidency there. George H. W. Bush, on the other hand, was born in Massachusetts, but has spent most of his life elsewhere.) Alabama uniquely observes the day as "Washington and Jefferson Day", even though Jefferson's birthday was in April. In Connecticut, while Presidents Day is a federal holiday, Abraham Lincoln's birthday is still a state holiday, falling on February 12 regardless of the day of the week.
I spent some time with my wife and caught a couple of movies: Juno and There Will Be Blood. Both were excellent and I recommend them highly.
Although I didn't blog on this, my normal day off, I did think about President's Day and what it was meant to celebrate. Here is the official origin of President's Day courtesy of Wikipedia. Who knew?
In the late 1980s, with a push from advertisers, the term Presidents Day began its public appearance. The theme has expanded the focus of the holiday to honor another President born in February, Abraham Lincoln, and often other Presidents of the United States. Although Lincoln's birthday, February 12, was never a federal holiday, approximately a dozen state governments have officially renamed their Washington's Birthday observances as "Presidents Day", "Washington and Lincoln Day", or other such designations.
In Washington's home state of Virginia the holiday is legally known as "George Washington Day."
As the official title of the federal holiday, Washington's Birthday was originally implemented by the federal government of the United States in 1880 in the District of Columbia (20 Stat. 277) and expanded in 1885 to include all federal offices (23 Stat. 516). As the first federal holiday to honor an American citizen, the holiday was celebrated on Washington's actual birthday, February 22. On January 1, 1971 the federal holiday was shifted to the third Monday in February by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. A draft of the Uniform Holidays Bill of 1968 would have renamed the holiday to Presidents' Day to honor both Washington and Lincoln, but this proposal failed in committee and the bill as voted on and signed into law on June 28, 1968 simply moved Washington's Birthday.
It is also interesting to note that "Presidents Day" is not always an all-inclusive term. In Massachusetts, while the state officially celebrates "Washington's Birthday," state law also prescribes that the governor issue an annual Presidents Day proclamation honoring the presidents that have come from Massachusetts: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Calvin Coolidge, and John F. Kennedy. (Coolidge, the only one born outside of Massachusetts, spent his entire political career before the vice presidency there. George H. W. Bush, on the other hand, was born in Massachusetts, but has spent most of his life elsewhere.) Alabama uniquely observes the day as "Washington and Jefferson Day", even though Jefferson's birthday was in April. In Connecticut, while Presidents Day is a federal holiday, Abraham Lincoln's birthday is still a state holiday, falling on February 12 regardless of the day of the week.
Monday, February 18, 2008
It's so nice of Bush to give a definite "maybe" regarding the independence of Kosovo.
"We'll watch to see how the events unfold today," Bush said in a live interview aired on NBC television from Arusha, Tanzania. "The Kosovars are now independent. It's something I've advocated along with my government."
I don't know about you, but I think that's pretty cool. They don't care what Bush has to say. They know they're independent.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Well... I really don't know what to say about the latest comments from Clinton Campaign chief strategist Mark Penn except that it seems Hillary should have fired his ass a long, long time ago.
In his most recent effort to garner support for his candidate, Penn came up with this gem:
“Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries.”So, let me get this straight, Mr. Penn: you are suggesting that even though Barack Obama is kicking your candidate's ass in primary after primary, winning in almost every demographic, raising $1 million a day in online donations and swinging some superdelegates over to his his side even after they've initially supported Clinton, the primaries really don't mean anything in terms of who can win in November.
Two questions: 1 - How did you get this job? and 2 - From what position were you fired previously?
The notion that Hillary has a better shot to win the general election when she can't even get a majority of Democratic voters to support her in the primaries would be a laughable one if it weren't so sad.
Bob Cesca analyzes Penn's tortured logic by stating, " [Penn is saying that] what the DNC should do is actually nominate the person who gets fewer votes/delegates/states in the primary process. Okay, okay, Mark. Bring on Democratic Nominee Joe Biden!"
Mark Penn has jumped the shark.