Mark Penn apologizes for taking both sides on Colombia trade

Mark Penn, one of Hillary Clinton's top strategists and worldwide CEO of Burson-Marsteller, apologized this afternoon for meeting earlier in the week with the Colombian ambassador to discuss a bilateral free trade agreement.

Colombia has hired the PR and lobbying firm to help get congressional approval for the agreement, which Clinton opposes. We mentioned the conflict, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, in an earlier posting today.

Penn's apologetic statement was short and sweet: "The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated and I am sorry for it. The senator’s well known opposition to this trade deal is clear and was not discussed."

So Penn is apologizing for doing his day job -- meeting with Burson-Marsteller clients -- and presumably won't meet with the Colombian ambassador again on this issue. Was the error in judgment Penn's involvement in the meeting? Or Penn's job with Burson-Marsteller?

What will the firm do from here on out?  Send underlings to meet with  clients that conflict with Penn's role as Clinton strategist? Is that enough distance? What other clients does Burson-Marsteller represent that could lead to similar problems? And will it take media reports to get Penn to see them?

This looks like a headache that isn't going away soon.

-- Scott Martelle

Comments

[Sheila Levine]

This is clearly a conflict of interest on the part of the Hillary campaign. Mark Penn should be fired immediately.

But here's the rub: they're doomed either way. If Hillary fires him, she's admitting he did something terribly, terribly wrong. If she doesn't fire him, firestorm of the century.

Hillary is finished.

[Tom J]

The headache isn't going away soon? Of course it is - the day after the Pennsylvania primary.

[Ron M]

What he should be apologizing for is the greed that drives him to take large sums of money for doing the same job that Axelrod does for Obama for a fifth the price. Clinton's campaign is not five times better.

Clinton wastes money. She does not know how to control expenses.

[Dan in Bronxville, NY]

Penn has created a problem for Clinton. His apparent (or real) conflict of interest was already known but mostly ignored. But when he met with Colombian officials he created a story. Clinton surely knew about Penn’s involvement or was oblivious to what Washington insiders knew. Either way it looks bad for her. It gives Obama’s union supporters (and all supporters) an opportunity to challenge her integrity, credibility and judgment. Doubt about what her past role in NAFTA moves forward from questioned history to suspicion about what her real position is and how she might really represent her working class constituency should she become president.

The problem she has with voters about how truthful she is will color whatever she or her surrogates says about this. In turn, because this looks bad, this will potentially further diminish perceived peoples perceptions of her honesty. That may have some impact on Pennsylvania. But the bigger problem will be with super delegates. How does a super delegate who depends on union support and argues for protecting American jobs, endorse her without a measure of risk.

There are probably background issues that will surface as well. Who are Penn’s company’s other clients? What are the undisclosed details of the Clinton’s 2007 taxes? How well does Clinton run her campaign (how much was Penn paid?) and what does that say about her judgment? How does this expose her in a general election and does this mean that she is less electable? These may or may not be fair questions, but they will gain some traction nonetheless.

This may overshadow Bosnia.

[Ron]

There is a difference between Hillary and Barack Obama which disqualifies her from being President. She has surrounded herself with idiots.

[Colombia4Hillary]

I wonder how much fundraising money for Mrs. Clinton is coming from Colombia…let's check!! Where is a Penn when you need one?