Does the firing of top Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn over his mucking around with the Columbian government over the possible passage of a bilateral trade treaty with the United States (which threatened to muddy by association Hillary Clinton‘s anti-NAFTA posturings) going to be read as a credibility compromiser by Joe Lunchbox voters in Pennsylvania, or is the story too complex to affect their understanding of things? I had to read this story twice to absorb all the angles. Working men like to keep things straight and plain and sound-bitey.
