Any lawyer who works for a large firm will have as colleagues people whose specialty is labor relations, working the company side. I don't really know the lobbying world all that well, but I strongly suspect the same is true there as well.

Do you propose that all those lawyers and lobbyists be stricken from the rolls of persons eligible to advise a potential candidate for the Democratic nomination? Or do your refined sensibilities only operate for people who work at large PR firms?

And you think that's the same as being the CEO and President of such a company...how?

And yes, if a lawyer heads a law firm that works on union busting, I don't think he should be the top aid to a Democratic candidate. My McCarthyism is consistent.

I don't get it. The only "union-busting" in that screen capture is a mention of "coordinated campaigns." If you think that unions don't run coordinated campaigns, perhaps Andy Stern and John Sweeny can enlighten you when you call them to ask about Mark Penn.

The tone of that passage from BM's webpage is clearly designed to appeal to the firm-end of the labor relations spectrum, not the labor-end. But that's OK! Whenever there is a labor dispute, workers and owners hash out their opposing views in seach of a reasonable compromise. That is not union-busting. Perhaps the tone of the webpage could have been softened with some bromides about the "concerns of workers everywhere" or some other boilerplate, but besides that, I fail to see the Andrew Carnegie-like nefariousness to it.

I hear the Chi-coms like unions, maybe they're perfecting their tradecraft with Cindy in Beijing.

I think the fact that they scrubbed the page is pretty good evidence that they realized there was damning stuff in there.

Let's say that BM (and Penn) are only one-half as involved in union busting as this appears - for Hillary (or any other Dem. candidate) to trumpet that their chief campaign strategist is currently the CEO of such a "PR" firm involved against the unions, is just outrageous. Talk about conflict of interest on Penn's part!

As for Hillary, at least she should have the decency to keep that association with Penn very low key. She's slapping the face of progressives and labor generally.

Some things just can't be compromised. Taking money from corporations who break unions at the same time as taking money from unions themselves is way beyond the Dem. pale.

We've just had six years of a President who does anything Rove thinks is necessary to protect his right-wing base - and see where that has gotten the nation. Hillary has a real problem with this but I suspect she thinks there is no problem. That is why she's a old school pol, and certainly not a progressive.

[BY THE WAY: where is the preview button on commments?]

Where's Mickey Kaus to herald Mark Penn as the reincaranation of christ who will expell the union leaders from the democratic temple?

Maybe I am naive but I hope those commentors defending BM and Penn don't pretend that they are good progressives. Companies don't hire, and BM would not offer, services that are not bare knuckle, hard edged, unabashed union busting. BM is not offering tough negotiations, they are offering advice and services intended to keep unions out and where they exist, bust them. A Democratic candidate who hires the CEO of a firm offering such services is not qualified to be our nominee. I would say the same for the managing partner of a union busing firm.

I wish the democrats would come to their senses and not vote for Clinton. Bush and clinton dynasty has destroyed the country. And yet people insist on voting for the same broken record.
I will never vote for Clinton. Period.
I don't vote for corrupt people who have no ethics at all.
And, I will do whatever to end the prospects of Hillary and hope to get thru to people that it would be a disaster to vote for her.

"Big tent", people. Know it. Love it. Embrace it.

TAPPED's The new colors BURN MY EYES.

Ezra

Thanks for fighting the good fight on this. Having a union-buster run your campaign tells us exactly where HRC's priorities are. The normalization and naturalization of union-busting as "no big deal" is an egregious assualt on everything this party once stood for, and any afl-cio official supporting HRC is spitting on their own members.

Liberal moronousity knows no bounds:

“In 2006, with Penn at the helm, the company gave 57 percent of its campaign contributions to Republican candidates.”

A mega corp gave a total of $64,000 to pols. If only every mega corp gave so little.

Open secrets:
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates (list recipients) (43% to Democrats, 57% to Republicans)
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00201863

That’s about A $9,000 difference. If only every mega corp gave so little what a wonderful world it would be.

“Back in 2003 two large unions, UNITE (which later merged with HERE, the hotel and restaurant union) and the Teamsters”

Penn did not work for the Burson-Marsteller in 2003. penn was named CEO in dec 2005. Does that matter? Does it matter that the article goes back to 1986 to find horrible things the corp did and then mentions penn’s names like maybe he was responsible for something that happened 20 years before he worked at the company? Does it matter that “liberals” use hate filled lies against a dem nominee? Does any of the matter? I’ll answer that one for ya: Yes.

The article is crap from top to bottom. Hate Hillary crap must taste mighty sweet to klien. He keeps eating it up.

Hate filled “liberal” lies helped put bush in the white house in 2000 and 2004. Now the moronic idiots are at it again.

The tapped article is the same kind of moronousity that put bush in the white house. Twice. Those Hillary lies are soooo sweet aren’t they klien. You just have to eat them up.

I would bet every dime to my name that Hadenough collects money from someone close to the Hillary campaign.

Seriously, the guy has no real consistency. He clearly claims to be a Hillary supporter, and then gloats about how GWB won the white house "Twice". He has paid shill written all across his forehead.

Could not agree more with vwcat:
The Clintons have done nothing for organized labor other than destroying hundreds of thousands of union jobs with NAFTA.
An Arkansas labor leader who knew him best once said that Bill Clinton could "shake your hand and piss down your leg at the same time."
Hillary has absolutely nothing to recommend her other than a silly and disasterous attempt to reform the U.S. healthcare system with a plan that no one understood, including herself.
We should be pursuing a serious and dispassionate examination of all the Democratic candidates focused primarily on their qualifications for the presidency.
This is supposed to be a democratic process, not a coronation driven by the over worked emotions of vapid-brained Hillary cheerleaders.

Besides the deliberate and gratuitous insults to large Democratic constituencies, Hillary's choices make you wonder whether she bothers to notice contemporary reality. She seems to be stuck in 1992/1996, as if nothing had happened since Bill was elected the second time. That's 11 pretty dramatic years that have escaped her attention.

You know, this all reminds me of the Armando issue when it broke at Kos, and people like me got flamed by Kossacks. Penn's guilty, just like Armando was.

Hilary and Mark Penn and their ilk are moderate Republicans in drag.

I worked for PSB for two years and Penn cooks data and writes questions that are guaranteed to produce his desired result. He starts out with the conclusions and creates data to fit his hypothesis.

Just goes to show, Hillary may be running as a Democrat, but she is not a "democrat". She is just another corporate candidate.

anemia:renders.inscribing glistened salesmen?Deneb .

anemia:renders.inscribing glistened salesmen?Deneb .

radicals invaluable Newman pastors,Weinberg relink Reich

caverns?respite hustle flares?Araby lacerates apportioned theatrically.

caverns?respite hustle flares?Araby lacerates apportioned theatrically.

where can i find seo for better ????

come on…