skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Do we need more evidence Hillary Rodham Clinton is not ready for prime time?
Now she is claiming to be 'flummoxed' by the complexity of Texas delegate apportioning. According to the New York Times today --
Texas’ byzantine delegate-selection rules pose a particular challenge to the Clinton forces. Districts that produced heavy Democratic majorities in past contests get a disproportionate share of the delegates, and this favors Mr. Obama because of large turnout in 2004 and 2006 in college towns and black precincts, where he has done well in other states. Mrs. Clinton’s strength is in the cities along the Mexican border, where she is popular with Hispanic voters, but which produce fewer delegates.
Adding to the complexity, Texas holds a primary and a caucus on the same day, with the evening caucus open only to those who have already cast primary ballots, either in early voting (which began Tuesday) or at the polls on March 4. Mr. Obama has prevailed in most caucuses up to now.
Mrs. Clinton said she could not begin to explain how the Texas system worked. “I had no idea how bizarre it is,” she said aboard her plane flying from Wisconsin to Ohio. “We have grown men crying over it.”
'I had no idea how bizarre it is'?
Texas established its convoluted 'Texas 2-step' after the 1972 presidential election, according to Kenneth Molberg of the Texas State Democratic Executive Committee (see NPR story here). That means that Hillary's husband, Bill Clinton, faced the situation of Texas primary complexity twice -- in 1992 and 1996.
Where was Hillary during those campaigns, baking cookies?
-- Dan Damon
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
So it's OK for Hillary to 'lift' but not Barack?
After trying to kick up a storm about Sen. Obama's not giving credit to his friend Mass. Governor Deval Patrick for a line in a speech, Clinton's spokespersons backpedalled when put on the spot, according to ABC News.
Clinton originally tried to coyly spin the attack's impact as something the media would have to 'figure out', as the WashPost pointed out Monday --
Speaking to reporters [Sunday] night, Clinton was asked about her campaign's accusation of plagiarism against Obama. She said she had no idea what impact it will have on Tuesday's vote. "I leave that to all of you to figure out," she said, then added: "Facts are important. I'm a facts person. If your whole candidacy is based on words, it should be your own words."
However, when Clinton's team was pressed by ABC's Jake Tapper in a conference call Monday morning, this is what we got --
In a conference call just now the Clinton campaign would not guarantee that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has never used someone else's rhetoric without crediting them.
I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him.
They would not.
In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn't be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had "lifted" such language.
"Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric," Wolfson said.
Bob Cesca, posting on the Huffington Post, catches Hillary in a major language 'lift' of her own in her Jefferson-Jackson dinner speech last week where she used the language of Jimmy Carter and John Edward. Sans attribution. See it all here.
So, Hillary doesn't have to meet the same standards she is holding Obama to?
Aren't we supposed to be past double standards?
-- Dan Damon
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
The Bush White House, desperate to upstage the Monica Goodling testimony on Thursday, staged a last-minute press conference in the Rose Garden where the Great Decider decided to rehash two year old intelligence on al-Qaeda.
As WashPost columnist Dan Froomkin pointed out, journalists were sent an email at 9:24 AM giving them 19 minutes to sign up as questioners for the 11 AM press conference. Were they hoping to forestall troublesome questions, or just planning ahead in the usual fashion?
At the press conference, between the 10th and 11th mentions of al-Qaeda, as the WashPost's Dana Milbank notes, a bird let a good one loose on the President (see the video here).
Those familiar with the Bible will recall birds signifying the Divinity's blessing -- as in the end of the Noah story and the empowerment of Jesus' disciples after the Ascension.
Perhaps this bird was a sign of the Divine displeasure?
-- Dan Damon
Monica Goodling's long-awaited testimony may have had less sizzle and pop than I wanted, but there are plenty of questions to explore further --
- Did Deputy AG Paul McNulty willfully obscure in previous testimony the depth of White House involvement in the attorney firings?
- Did AG Alberto Gonzales attempt to suborn Ms. Goodling's testimony?
Next up: Paul McNulty and Rove's former aide Susan Ralston, who provides a White House connection to the Jack Abramoff bribery scandals.
Far as I'm concerned, the real meat here is recovering the Rove emails, and getting Rove before Congress under oath to answer questions about the politicization of DOJ and why he used the GOP email servers for the conduct of official business.
As the naturalist John Muir once observed, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."
Attorneygate - WP: "Goodling Says She 'Crossed the Line'"
.......... - "Officials Describe Interference by Former Gonzales Aide"
.......... - Dana Milbank: "Monica's Own Monica Problem"
.......... - Paul Kane: "Goodling's lawyer told Dems to ask about AG"
.......... - Dan Froomkin: "What Monica Doesn't Know"
.......... - David Iglesias: "On U.S. Attorney Firings, Goodling Testimony"..... - NYT: "Ex-Aide Admits Political Slant in Justice Role"
..... - Truthout: "Goodling Broke Law in Some DOJ Hirings, Testimony Reveals"
.......... - "Former Rove Aide Susan Ralston Seeks Immunity Pact"
..... - OpEd, LAT: David Iglesias (fired US Attorney): "'Cowboy up,' Alberto Gonzales"
-- Dan Damon
Will the top-to-bottom politicization of the Department of Justice under George W. Bush be this administration's undoing?
News cropping up over the weekend set Congress up to put the Bush administration in the center of a classic pincer movement.
On the one hand, we have the continued unraveling of the explanations for the US Attorney FIRINGS --
- Now we learn from Newsweek that Karl Rove was involved in coaching a Gonzales deputy, William Moschella, before his Congressional testimony on the firings. Though a White House meeting to prep Moschella was previously known of, no mention of Rove had been made before last week.
- Further, new details on the firing of the US Attorney in Seattle published in the Seattle Times are casting more doubt on AG Alberto Gonzales' account of the firings.
- Finally, the Boston Globe points out, Bradley Schlozman is emerging as a key player in the firings as part of a Rovian strategy to put political appointees in place and to gin up voter fraud cases ahead of the 2006 elections. Schlozman was sent to Missouri under the sneaked-in provision in the renewed Patriot Act allowing for placement of deputy US Attorneys without Senatorial consent.
On the other hand, there is new evidence that RECRUITMENT and PLACING of attorneys was politically guided --
- Here Schlozman appears to be the nexus of both the firings and hirings, as pointed out by the McClatchy wire service.
- Further, the Boston Globe has shown that about a third of new US Attorney appointments are administration insiders, including 10 top aides to AG Gonzales.
- Conservative Republican appointees like former DOJ attorney Ty Clevenger have told McClatchy that Schlozman advised them to doctor their resumes and resubmit them in an effort to hide conservative affiliations.
Add to this what we already know of Monica Goodling's involvement and the expectation of new and perhaps startling revelations when she testifies before Congress, and we have the makings of an enormous pincer movement.
To which the final pieces would be the recovery by Congress of the missing Rove (and other White House employees') GOP-server based emails and a public appearance by Rove before Congress and under oath.
A much-studied classic example of the pincers or double envelopment tactic is the Battle of the Cowpens during the American Revolution.
The American commander, Brig. Gen. Daniel Morgan, brilliantly exploited his forces' strengths and weaknesses as well as the unique terrain of the Cowpens and the weaknesses of the British opposing force, under Cornwallis' deputy Col. Banastre Tarleton, to wrest a decisive victory.
The victory of the colonists marked a psychological turning point of the war for the Americans, who never looked back after this moment, and a decisive blow to Cornwallis' hopes for victory over the rebels.
Will Congress have the nerve, insightfulness and execution of Morgan, or will it snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and lose in the Cowpens of 2007?
More Attorneygate reading:
-- Dan Damon
No steel magnolia she, Monica Goodling is said to have broken into sobs over the impending loss of her career, according to career DOJ attorney David Margolis. This was in 'private' testimony to House and Senate investigators on March 8, which is just being leaked.
As she prepares to face interrogation now that immunity has been offered, her attorney suggests that the DOJ cannot block her.
[Doggie Diamond**: Margolis says he was stunned to learn of the depth of the White House involvement in the attorney firings -- especially since he had prepared his boss, Deputy AG Paul McNulty, for testimony which now turns out to be incomplete and misleading.]
Meanwhile, AG Alberto Gonzales has yet to answer for the secret delegation of hiring and firing authority to Goodling, a relative nouveaux, and a political and not career appointee. This politicization of the hiring process went against prior practice.
Is there a case for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in the attorney firings?
Michael Elston, chief of staff to DAG McNulty told Congressional investigators on March 30 -- in testimony just coming to public view -- that McNulty had ordered him to call four of the fired attorneys.
Three of them have testified and given statements to the media that they felt 'threatened' and that a 'quid pro quo' was being offered: Their silence in exchange for Gonzales not 'trashing' their reputations.'
Some in Congress are now questioning whether there was obstruction of justice in the attempts to stifle public discussion of the firings.
But wait, there's more!!!
You may recall that a proposed investigation into the highly contentious domestic surveillance program devised by Gonzales when he was Bush's counsel and implemented by him as Attorney General was headed off at the pass when Bush refused security clearances to the attorneys assigned to pursue the matter.
Now questions arise as to whether Gonzales, who spoke with Bush about the matter, asked for the favor -- or whether Bush took the action as a favor to his pal the AG.
Would that be a 'high crime and misdemeanor'?
Read on --
**Doggie Diamonds: A friend who grew up in Pennsylvania's anthracite coal fields once told me that her family gathered 'doggie diamonds' -- dried dog droppings -- during the Great Depression of the 1930s. These were sold in bulk to agents of the Armstrong Cork Company, which used them in manufacturing linoleum. A case of little things, which might be thought to have no value whatsoever, contributing to larger things whose value is self-evident.
-- Dan Damon
Every war differs from every previous war, most commonly in the way technology influences the way in which wars are waged.
How is the war in Iraq different?
Technology has given the troops on the ground, the 'grunts' as they were called during the Vietnam era, the ability to instantaneously record their thoughts and actions for the world to see -- via blogging on the internet.
'Milblogging' as it has come to be called, has flourished from nearly the beginning of America's on-the-ground involvement. Do a Google on military blogging and you will immediately snag posts going back to 2004.
Lately, however, the powers-that-be have gotten nervous. New rules by the Army are intended to require prior censorship of all posts by a superior officer.
The rank and file, as you may suspect, are not taking this lying down.
Attempts to stifle self-expression by enlisted personnel are likely to mushroom into an enormous public relations disaster for the Administration.
Well-deserved, in my humble opinion.
Further reading --
-- Dan Damon
