The Political Chase

Uniter 2.0

In 2000, George Bush promised Americans he would be a Uniter, not a Divider. That obviously did not work out so well. Today, John McCain promised to be a Uniter.

Buyer beware.

DNC Convention Rule for Pledged Delegates

This is the rule for Democratic pledged delegates according to the Democratic National Committee Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention (p. 18):

"Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

As I said in my post earlier about Hillary Clinton’s plan to poach Barack Obama’s elected delegates, pledged (elected in the primary) delegates are not legally bound, but it is anything but ambiguous that the delegate should vote for the candidate that were originally selected for.

Nowhere does it say delegates may be deceitfully switched to accommodate a presidential candidate’s craven strategy (until they get caught) to circumvent a failing presidential campaign.

Obama Camp Blasts Team Clinton Over Delegates

David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s campaign manager, blasted Hillary Clinton’s campaign this morning over Team Clinton’s plan to hijack pledged delegates.

As it becomes increasingly clear that Senator Clinton may not be able to secure the nomination by winning the support of actual voters, the Clinton campaign has once again floated a strategy that would essentially say that the preference of Democratic voters is a mere obstacle to their win-at-all-costs strategy.

Voters are already rejecting the Clinton campaign’s say-or-do-anything-to-win tactics, and this is the latest example that it’s time to turn the page on this type of politics that could severely harm our party’s chances to win the general election."

First Read reports an incensed Obama camp followed up with an additional conference call with reporters.

Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe and surrogate David Wilhelm, who headed Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, had some choice words for the other side. They called this a “disturbing pattern” and “grasping at straws;” that this is another example of a “say-or-do-anything-to-win tactic;” that the Clinton campaign is hoping this is a “rabbit they can pull out of the hat to win;” that the latest tactic “suggests there’s trickery that can be engaged in” to win. They said they “think that will be rejected” by voters and party leaders.

Plouffe acknowledged that, “Technically, it is true that delegates could switch. Our point here is this is part of a pattern. Rather than try to focus on pledged delegates and winning, they’re focused on these alternative routes,” which “could cause huge dissention in the party.”

They added that, “Sometimes nominations are not worth having….One of those times would be at the cost of ripping the party apart.”

They also combated the Clinton electability argument to superdelegates that she’s best to beat McCain. They cited leads in polls against McCain and that because Clinton "denigrates Red states,” candidates down ballot “would be in real harm.”

Hillary’s ‘Night Shift’: A Great Moment in Campaign Pandering

On par with Letterman’s Great Moments in Presidential Speeches, Hillary’s new ad in Ohio focusing on shift-workers is A Great Moment in Campaign Pandering.

Watch it.

Hillary is obviously attempting to appeal to the working class, but let’s get real here. Working to (or through) all hours of the night as a professional, is not remotely close to “working the night shift.” One must work the night shift to be able to comprehend the toll and burden of such work.

I’ve done both, so I’m not hypothesizing here. While my time spent working night shift was short, relatively speaking, the memories have not faded. Many years ago, my first job after college required working third shift. And I can’t count how many times as a professional, with “regular” hours, I’ve worked 24 to 48 hours straight.

Hillary’s ad sounds good, but I seriously question her ability to relate to working the night shift. She’s trying to pick up John Edwards’ cause, but it falls short.

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Warrantless Wiretapping Case

(Update below)

The Supreme Court refused today to hear an appeal filed by the ACLU and others challenging the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a legal challenge to the warrantless domestic spying program President George W. Bush created after the September 11 attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU, other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove they had been affected by the program.

The civil liberties group also asked the nation’s highest court to make clear that Bush does not have the power under the U.S. Constitution to engage in intelligence surveillance within the United States that Congress has expressly prohibited.

Hardly the most welcome news nor is it surprising. George Bush will not let Congress review any documents related to the administration’s wiretapping program, therefore it is easy to see why the ACLU et al. may have not had sufficient evidence to prove they had been affected. Of course, that is broad speculation on my part because I have not read the complaint.

There are many other lawsuits is one lawsuit pending against the administration for its breaking of FISA-related laws, and this does not prevent them from being pursued on their respective merits, however it may make it harder for the plaintiffs to prevail against the administration. See update below.

Suffice it say, Bush is reaping the benefits he undoubtedly expected when he appointed Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. And they’re relatively young, hence Bush Justice will be with us for decades to come.

Update:  It was my understanding there were multiple complaints brought against the administration by various plaintiffs, but that is inaccurate according to Glenn Greenwald. (Emphasis in original.)

This decision does mean, however, that EFF’s pending lawsuits in San Francisco against AT&T, Verizon and the other telecoms are now the sole remaining vehicle for finding out what the Bush administration actually did when spying on Americans for years without warrants, and as importantly, is the last hope for obtaining a judicial ruling as to whether the President broke the law and violated the Constitution when doing so.

Report: Clinton Camp Denies Delegate Hijacking Plan

The Clinton Camp denies an earlier report that they intend to hijack Obama’s pledged delegates.

From TPM:

Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer is adamantly denying a report this morning in The Politico quoting an anonymous campaign official suggesting that the Clinton campaign will pursue Obama’s pledged delegates. Singer sends me this:

We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It’s now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.

So, they deny Politico’s direct quote and try to turn it around on the Obama campaign? Somebody’s lying, and I don’t believe for a minute Politico would stoop so low as to publish a fabricated direct quote. I don’t always agree with Politico’s spin, but lying just to create a story? Nope.

Clinton Plans to Steal Obama Pledged Delegates

What does a campaign do when it cannot win delegates legitimately in the Democratic primaries and caucuses? John Edwards graciously dropped out. According to a Politico report, Hillary Clinton intends to steal delegates Barack Obama has legitimately won. These are not the 796 super delegates that have been discussed extensively and are not committed to a specific candidate. These are the delegates that were apportioned to Barack Obama based on the votes he received in primaries and caucuses.

No delegate is legally bound to vote for a specific candidate — it’s all part of our electoral system — but the pledged delegates are expected, in simple terms, to vote for the candidate they have been pledged to by the voters.

A senior Clinton official told Politico:

“I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates. All the rules will be going out the window.”

This is an incredibly stupid political strategy and proof that Hillary Clinton is a morally bankrupt candidate. To intentionally launch an effort to rob the people of its democratic vote is reprehensible and unconscionable. Assuming Clinton is successful, it will shatter the Democratic Party and break what little confidence American’s may have that democracy exists in our country today.

It is unfortunate that Politico was not able to break this story before today’s primary election in Wisconsin. Most voters will not have sufficient opportunity to learn of Hillary Clinton’s morally and ethically corrupt plans before voting today.

Musharraf Defeated in Pakistan

From the New York Times:

Pakistanis dealt a crushing defeat to President Pervez Musharraf in parliamentary elections on Monday, in what government and opposition politicians said was a firm rejection of his policies since 2001 and those of his close ally, the United States.

Almost all the leading figures in the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party that has governed for the last five years under Mr. Musharraf, lost their seats, including the leader of the party, the former speaker of Parliament and six ministers.

Official results are expected Tuesday, but early returns indicated that the vote would usher in a prime minister from one of the opposition parties, and opened the prospect of a Parliament that would move to undo many of Mr. Musharraf’s policies and that may even try to remove him.

Early results showed equal gains for the Pakistan Peoples Party, whose leader, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated on Dec. 27, and the Pakistan Muslim League-N, the faction led by Nawaz Sharif, like Ms. Bhutto a former prime minister. Each party may be in a position to form the next government.

The results were interpreted here as a repudiation of Mr. Musharraf as well as the Bush administration, which has staunchly backed him for more than six years as its best bet in the campaign against the Islamic militants in Pakistan. American officials will have little choice now but to seek alternative allies from among the new political forces emerging from the vote.

(Emphasis added.)

McCain’s shady campaign finance arrangement

Adam at Kos has a good breakdown on the "maneuvering" between John McCain and his banker that led up to the Man of Integrity deceitfully demanding that Barack Obama accept federal campaign funds.

Suffice it say, the Man of Integrity’s demands have nothing to do with taking the moral high in the name of campaign finance reform.

Update:  Although Adam provides detail and supporting documents, Paul Kiel summarizes it well.

It’s an arrangement that no one has ever tried before. And it appears that McCain, who has built his reputation on campaign finance reform, was gaming the system. Or as a campaign finance expert who preferred to remain anonymous told me, referring to the prominent role that lobbyists have as advisers to his campaign, "This places McCain’s grandstanding on public financing in a new light. True reformers believe public financing is a way to replace the lobbyists’ influence, not a slush fund that the lobbyists use to pay off campaign debts."

Obama: Should have credited Patrick

(Update below)

Obama says he should have credited his friend Gov. Devall Patrick in his speech Saturday night.

"I was on the stump, and, you know, he had suggested that we use these lines," Obama said at a news conference a few minutes ago. "I thought they were good lines. I’m sure I should have [given him credit], didn’t this time."

But when asked whether his words were his own, Obama hit back hard.

"Now hold on a second. I mean, look here, I’ve written two books. Wrote most of my speeches," he said. "So, I think putting aside the question you just raised in terms of whether my words are my own, I think that would be carrying it too far. Deval and I do trade ideas all the time, and, you know, he’s occasionally used lines of mine…And, you know, I would add that I know Sen. Clinton on occasion has used words of mine as well."

Update: I’m probably wrong here, but it seems to me Obama should have just let this stand with the response given earlier by his campaign. He has the frontrunner status, which means staying above the fray. If he had to give an additional response he should let a surrogate handle Wolfson’s petty attacks. Wolfson is a jerk, to put it mildly, and is very good at being a jerk. He’ll throw stuff at Obama all day long if he thinks he can get in his head.

Pre-Wisconsin primary anxiety I suppose.

Obama, Clinton Tied in TX

Obama and Clinton are locked in a statistical tie in Texas according to new poll.

Clinton drew support from 50 percent of likely Democratic voters, while Obama polled 48 percent. With the poll’s 4.5 percent margin of error, that put them in a statistical tie two weeks before the March 4 Texas primary.

The poll also shows McCain ahead with 55 percent.

Clinton mudslinging shows desperation

The Wisconsin primary is tomorrow and a recent poll gives Barack Obama a huge lead (53 to 40) in the state. Result: A Clinton blitzkrieg against Obama. She is attacking Obama for not committing to public financing if he is the nominee, but she will in turn not commit to the same. Her campaign is also feverishly accusing Obama of plagiarism, but will not deny Hillary has ever used the words of others, paraphrasing or direct quote, without footnoting it.

The bottom line is the Clinton camp is proving how desperate they are and will resort to any tactic, regardless of the merits, to stop the momentum. The question is, is this the type of politics we can expect from a Hillary Clinton White House?

Yesterday on Face the Nation, Howard Woflson, Clinton’s communication director, attacked (approx. 6:20 in video) David Axlerod, Obama’s senior strategist, for not accepting John McCain’s double-standard demand to adhere to public financing of the general election, if Obama is the nominee. But Wolfson refused to do the same. McCain’s demand is ridiculous to begin with giving his flip-flopping on the position, and Woflson’s demands are even more ridiculous. Is Wolfson working for McCain? He certainly doesn’t appear to be interested in helping the Democratic Party overall, regardless of who is nominated.

Politico adeptly characterizes Wolfson’s demands.

The Clinton campaign is seizing on the issue to try to dent the halo Obama has assumed as the proponent of a cleaner, more honest brand of politics.

In a speech Saturday night in Milwaukee, Obama addressed previous attacks from Hillary Clinton that voters could “choose speeches or solutions.” Here’s the video:

Transcript:

Don’t tell me words don’t matter. I have a dream’ — just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? We have nothing to fear but fear itself — just words? Just speeches?

Today, the NYT reported that Obama’s rebuttal was similar to one that Massachusetts Gov. Devall Patrick (D), an Obama supporter, used in his 2006 campaign. But as the Times reported, based on an interview with Patrick, there was no plagiarism or impropriety involved. Instead, if anything it was collegial.

Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.

Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.

“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”

That’s not how the Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign views it. Regardless of authorization and confirmation from Gov. Patrick, Wolfson blasted Obama accusing him of plagiarism and other heinous crimes in an interview with Politico today.

Wolfson made the explosive charge in an interview with Politico after suggesting as much in a conference call with reporters.

On the call, 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.”

“When an author plagiarizes from another author there is damage done to two different parties. One is to the person he plagiarized from. The other is to the reader,” said Wolfson.

The Obama camp responded with a statement from Gov. Patrick and this:

[David Ploufe, Obama's campaign manger] argued that Clinton is not in a position to be outraged about plagiarism. This is a “curious charge coming from Senator Clinton when she has actually repeatedly throughout the campaign used the language Senator Obama has used.”

Plouffe charged several instances when he says “Senator Obama’s language has been copied by the Clinton campaign.”

When reporters asked for specific examples, Plouffe said they would be provided.

Obama campaign national press secretary Bill Burton soon sent reporters an email with Clinton quotes that he argued were copied from Obama.

Those phrases include: “Fired up and ready to Go”, “Bring our country together,” “Yes we can,” “We’ve got to turn the page on George Bush and Dick Cheney,” and “Turn the Page.”

Important stuff isn’t it? Clinton says she wants to address the issues, but instead focuses on petty and incredulous charges. Just what the country needs — four more years of mudslinging and polarization from the White House. I think fifteen years is more than enough. If this is all Hillary Clinton has to offer, it’s time for her to drop out of the race.

Heritage think tank that can’t spell

(Update below)

How ironic.

The terrorists invaded the Heritage Foundation’s spelling checker. Notice how they spelled “extension” on their FISA Overtime Clock. (Prior clock was countdown to expiration, this is post-expiration.)

H/T Phillybits

Update: From the first sentence in the Heritage Foundation’s mission statement.

The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute…

Warning! Warning! Warning!

This is one of the best challenges I’ve heard yet to Bush’s fear-mongering certain death to us all at the stroke of midnight.

If the nation is really going to be more vulnerable as the result of the expiration of the PAA (Protect AT&T Act), why hasn’t Homeland Security’s color coded threat level been raised to Magenta or Puce or some such thing?

BREAKING: FBI Receiving Unauthorized Email Access

(Update I - III below)

When FISA expires tonight, will the FBI still be able to receive unauthorized email access from an entire computer network by an “unnamed Internet provider, which mistakenly turned over all the e-mail from a small e-mail domain,” when it “set its filtering equipment to trap far more data than a judge had actually authorized.”

Mistakenly, yup.

New and improved revelations courtesy of Eric Lichtblau at the New York Times. I suppose he’ll get a grand jury subpoena from the Justice Department that’s just like James Risen’s.

Update I: Well, this should certainly add to the FISA debate when Congress returns.

The episode is an unusual example of what has become a regular if little-noticed occurrence, as American officials have expanded their technological tools: government officials, or the private companies they rely on for surveillance operations, sometimes foul up their instructions about what they can and cannot collect.

The problem has received no discussion as part of the fierce debate in Congress about whether to expand the government’s wiretapping authorities and give legal immunity to private telecommunications companies that have helped in those operations.

But an intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because surveillance operations are classified, said: “It’s inevitable that these things will happen. It’s not weekly, but it’s common.”

Update II: Interesting. How and why does the lead story of the largest newspaper in the world get buried in less than one hour?

This was the Times’ lead story on the web site when I checked it at 7:40 PM ET. And the timestamp indicated it was published “39 minutes ago”. At 8:29 PM ET, I went back to the site and the piece was not referenced anywhere on the front page. I then checked the U.S. section and there was no reference to it there, but it was listed at the top of the Washington sub-section.

As of 9:11 PM ET the timestamp says it was published “32 minutes ago,” or 8:39 PM ET. I captured this image of the front page at 8:59 PM ET.

This is an image from the Washington section as of 9:11 PM ET.

Update III:  Poltergeist. It’s back on the front page (11:07 PM ET), not the lede, but present and accounted for. Go figure.