The Political Chase

Poll: Clinton trouncing Obama in KY

SurveyUSA has a new poll out showing Hillary Clinton with an overwhelming 58 to 29 lead in Kentucky. This is the first poll of the state’s Democratic Primary, which has long since been considered Hillary’s to lose.

Details: "Clinton leads narrowly in greater Louisville, but leads decisively in other parts of the state, including 4:1 in Eastern KY. Obama trails by 20 among men, trails by 37 among women." The margin of error is 4.1 percent. 10 percent chose other and only four percent were undecided.

Kentucky’s primary will be May 20, which is the same day as the Oregon primary.

Reflection on Supreme Court ruling in Jefferson case

What relevance or significance might the Supreme Court ruling against the Justice Department in the William Jefferson bribery case have on lawmakers’ claims they could not expose Bush’s breaking of FISA laws because they would be violating the law?

The Court denied a Justice Department appeal of a lower court ruling that the FBI raid of Jefferson’s office had violated his rights under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. This would seem to be in context, at least somewhat, with a post I wrote a few months ago, where I quoted a law professor’s posit that lawmakers were not at risk of jail or fines if they blew the whistle on George Bush breaking of FISA laws.

To reiterate, Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution states:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

(emphasis added)

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and others have claimed numerous times they were incensed when initially told by Cheney et al. in classified settings about Bush’s illegal wiretapping programs. But the Honorable Lawmakers claimed they were unable to publicly express their Righteous Indignation because they would be guilty of Treason or other Heinous Crimes if they adhered to their Oath.

Professor Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami School of Law disagreed. He writes:

The Speech and Debate clause has been interpreted to extend beyond floor speeches, e.g. to committee statements, but it unquestionably applies to floor statements. Thus, it would have been possible for Rep. Harman, or Senator Rockefeller, or the others allegedly briefed to go to the floor, either during the times when members may speak on topics of their choice, or under one of the extraordinary mechanism for privileged statements, and denounce the Bush administration’s determinate to torture helpless captives in secret offshore detention facilities.

Although Eric Lichtbau debunked Harman’s Righteous Indignation claims in his recently released book, the question remains – do lawmakers have more assurance of immunity considering the Court’s ruling today. My hunch is Professor Froomkin’s posit may have been further validated, but since I am not a constitutional lawyer, I am at best speculating.

Bushed Booed at Nationals Opener

President Bush was booed last night at the Washington Nationals’ opener last night in National Park. The crowd loudly booed Bush as he walked to the pitcher’s mound to deliver the opening pitch and continued taunting him until he left the field.

Watch it (h/t - ThinkProgress).

I’m surprised he agreed to make the appearance. I can’t remember the last time I saw Bush appear before anything but a select crowd where he was assured a positive reception.

MN Senator and NC Dems to endorse Obama

(updated below)

The Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is expected to endorse Barack Obama today. But more significantly, the Journal reports the entire NC House delegation is "poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group" before the May 6 NC primary. How often is a state’s entire House delegation going to make a unanimous decision on a primary candidate?

Their individual endorsements are important if for no other reason than increasing the number of Obama’s superdelegates, but the collective decision seems to say much more than mere endorsement. It sends a strong message about moving the party in a specific direction and it will certainly be influential on NC Democratic Primary voters.

It also makes a statement about the perceived viability of Sen. Clinton’s campaign. At some point superdelegates are going to rally behind one candidate and it will be the candidate viewed as more electable. At the end of the day, they’re politicians and they will be looking out for their own interests — what will serve them best overall in the long-term. Siding with a loser has zero advantages.

Update:  Sen. Amy Klobuchar has announced her endorsement of Obama. Also, the Obama campaign denies they have the NC House delegation locked up:

"We’re pleased to have the support of Rep. Butterfield and are working to earn the endorsement of his colleagues in the NC Congressional delegation. Despite the Wall Street Journal’s optimism, none of them has told our campaign that they are ready to announce their endorsement of Senator Obama — so we’ll keep working on it."

Another Hail Mary Pass from Team Clinton

How ironic is this? As I detailed the other day, Hillary Clinton has received overwhelmingly more money from special interests than any of the 535 Members of Congress. But today Team Clinton criticized Obama for allegedly taking chump change.

Hillary leads the pack in 36 of the top 50 industries (a 72% majority) that have contributed to Members of Congress. However, the Clinton campaign released a statement criticizing Barack Obama for allegedly receiving more than $160,000 from oil and gas companies.

Whether Obama received the money in the negative context Team Clinton strongly implies is one issue, which I doubt will stand the test. But for Clinton to do mudslinging about special interest contributions is about as hypocritical as it gets considering her record.

To put in perspective, as of Dec. 31, 2007, the top 50 contributors, had given $466,051,475 to all Senators and Representatives. The alleged $160,000 from various contributors is a whopping 0.03% of the total.

Ana Marie Cox at Swampland has some of details, but what was not clarified is how the money is associated with Obama. At the time of her post, Ana Marie did not appear to know whether the funds were personal contributions by people who worked in the industry or whether it came from a legitimate PAC, which Obama has vowed not to take.

Sound logic or Bush-think?

Time has a piece on what purportedly motivates Hillary Clinton to remain in the campaign, most of which is not logical if not downright delusional.

Clinton believes Obama’s support is largely a mirage–a bunch of true believers whose passion might help him cinch the nomination, but that may prove an insufficient bedrock for winning a general election when the spell might be broken by tough questions about national-security credentials, economic-policy plans and rich experience. She can’t stop from shaking her head in disbelief when longtime friends who are elected officials inform her that they are going to endorse Obama and were chiefly convinced by their children’s enthusiasm for his candidacy.

Put aside whether Obama can win the general election for a moment. If Hillary, or any candidate for that matter, cannot win their party’s nomination (national - not like Lieberman in CT), what reasonable logic can possibly lead that candidate to believe they can win the general election? I recognize all the arguments about what the GOP can and will throw at the Democratic nominee. But its not as if Hillary has been running a campaign for the leading lay position in her church (e.g., vestry, deacons, stewards, elders, etc.).

Clinton has thrown everything she could possibly get her hands on and I’m sure her opposition research is anything but weak. But, according to Time, she is basing her logic on yet-to-be-discovered fodder for mudslinging that would be the equivalent of a nuclear meltdown.

According to those close to her, she is hoping that as spring becomes summer, the potential for finding another skeleton or two in Obama’s closet will prove him ultimately unelectable in the fall.

That possibility exists regardless of the candidate.  It can never be completely ruled out. But how likely is it to happen if it has not been revealed after more than 15 months? Furthermore, is basing her campaign on that single possibility reflective of sound judgment?

It sounds much more like win at any cost than it does, as Time reported, "an obligation to her supporters to fight on." Worst of all, it is dangerously indicative of George Bush’s thinking.

(H/T to Greg Sargent)

Obama takes substantial lead in poll

There is more evidence that Barack Obama has weathered the Wright dust-up and Hillary Clinton’s continuous personal attacks. Today’s Gallup Daily has Obama with an eight-point advantage over Clinton — his best lead in a month, and better than before the  Wright controversy.

  
Click image to enlarge

Furthermore, the results (50% to 42%) have Hillary in a tie with her lowest showing in the poll in almost a month. Therefore, not only is Obama moving back up, Hillary appears to be sinking under the weight of her lies about sniper fire in Bosnia. The question then is, what correlation can be made, if any, between Obama’s rise in the poll and Hillary’s Pinocchio Awards?

Dean wants decision by July 1

Interesting timing. On Fox News yesterday, Hillary Clinton was absolutely euphoric over the idea of a bloodbath at the Democratic convention, and today Howard Dean declares he wants superdelegates to make a decision by July 1.

This morning on CBS News’ The Early Show, Dean said:

"I think the candidates have got to understand that they have an obligation to our country to unify. Somebody’s going to lose this race with 49.8% of the vote. And that person has got to pull their supporters in behind the nominee…

"Because in the end this is not about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it’s about our country…I want to make sure this campaign stays on the high ground…

Although not included in the video below, Dean also said:

"There is no point in waiting. [The Democratic Party's organization] is as good or better as the Republicans’, and we haven’t been able to say that for about 30 years. But that all doesn’t make any difference if people are really disenchanted or demoralized by a convention that’s really ugly and nasty."

Watch the video.

(Ed. Note: Post revised at 1:04 PM ET to correct quote)

Leahy calls on Clinton to quit

Citing the damage caused by Clinton’s campaign, Sen. Patrick Leahy has called on Hillary Clinton to get out out of the race.

In an interview on Vermont Public Radio, said "There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that’s a decision that only she can make frankly I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate."

What will Leahy do with his 30 pieces of silver?

Obama’s economic speech high on macro-theories & missing energy implications

(Update I and Update II below)

Barack Obama gave a major speech in New York today on the economy. He called on sweeping changes in the regulatory system and posited that "what was bad for Main Street was bad for Wall Street." Focusing on the disparity between people and large corporations, Obama said, "we’ve lost that sense of shared prosperity."

Striking major themes Americans hear daily on the evening news  — housing foreclosures, failing financial institutions, and concentration of wealth and power — Obama said changes in industry over time "warrants regulatory reform." He blamed Washington and the current and past administrations for "dismantling the regulatory framework," which was "aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight."

Obama highlighted three major elements of his plan, but I am surprised he made no reference to energy other than a passing comment on its rising costs. The three areas are:

1. Modernize the financial regulatory system.
2. Help homeowners facing foreclosure and ease the credit crunch.
3. Enact a second $30 billion stimulus package to address the mortgage crisis, protect vulnerable families, and strengthen the economy.

His address was understandably not laden with details, therefore a fact sheet was provided. I have not read the fact sheet yet, but I did a quick search for energy-related words. Again, energy is not explicitly addressed other than two passing references to rising energy costs.

Maybe the issue is addressed implicitly within the fact-sheet details under modernizing the financial regulatory system. But if not, I would find that to be a point of concern. I’m not an economist, and sometimes I question if the economists are indeed economists, but with energy costs being a substantial part of the economy and a national security issue, I don’t see how it cannot be addressed in an economic context.

Maybe there’s a logical reason for it not being discussed in his address and economic plan, but I would like to understand why. My best guess at this point would be, since Obama has an energy plan, maybe he deemed it covered already. But the two are so closely intertwined, I don’t see how one cannot reference the other at least at some level.

Bottom line — good macro-theory words, but no conclusions until the fact sheet is read. If the fact sheet is not substantive and is void on energy, Obama’s got some ’splainin’ to do.

Read the fact sheet (pdf).

Read the entire speech.

Update I:  It takes a little time for some of this to sink in — proof I’m not an economist. This part of Obama’s plan is rather striking.

Fourth, we need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. It makes no sense for the Fed to tighten mortgage guidelines for banks when two-thirds of subprime mortgages don’t originate from banks.  This regulatory framework has failed to protect homeowners, and it is now clear that it made no sense for our financial system. When it comes to protecting the American people, it should make no difference what kind of institution they are dealing with.

Indeed that is breaking the conventional mold. Contrary to conventional wisdom, square pegs do fit in round holes as evidenced by the current credit crisis.

Obama’s perspective does turn the regulation theory not on its head, but instead upright. It’s what service or product is sold/provided rather than what mold the legal, corporate charter states. Robbery is robbery regardless of where it occurs. Owning and servicing a loan is the same regardless of who owns it, when they acquired it, or where the loan originated.

This may also have some positive implications, or at least a more level playing-field, with respect to taxes.

This is a bit of an aside, but… Industries have long since been regulated by who they are — Billy Bob’s Electric and Gas, Ma Bell, etc. — and the original premise, I believe, was to to protect consumers from unfair gouging by a monopoly. However, I would venture to say it is more the opposite today — regulated (viz. ensured margin of) profit and providing Billy Bob protection from encroachment by Acme Electric. I have never heard of residents or businesses having more than one option for purchasing electricity. If you don’t get it from Billy Bob, you must create your own, and even that has regulations tied to it (utilities are often required to buy any "excess" you may produce — a cogen at a business is a good example).

Update II:  Here’s the video of Obama’s speech.

Hillary and Jacko - All in ‘The Family’

I wasn’t going to mention this, but upon reflection, it only seems fair. Kind of like when one lawyer objects to another’s line of questioning in court and the judge overrules with a curt, "Sorry Counselor, you opened the door." 

Hillary Clinton publicly attacked Barack Obama and his religious affiliations, however some find Hillary’s affiliation to be of interest and outside "the norm." Of course, that’s a very personal matter and voters will just have to decide what’s best for themselves.

Jeffrey Sharlet at Harper’s has a superbly written piece on "The Family" that seeks to avoid being "a target of understanding."

The Los Angeles Times has a piece on the "deeply strange" and secret group, "The Fellowship," which also included the super-strange pop star Michael Jackson, and the notorious Lee Atwater, whom I have written about previously.

Clinton Donors Threaten Pelosi and DCCC

Chutzpah, indeed. Twenty prominent supporters of Hillary Clinton blasted Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a letter for her public statements that super-delegates should vote for the candidate that has the most pledged delegates and "urged" Pelosi make a public retraction of requests. TPM obtained a copy of the letter sent to Pelosi.

"[T]his dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

"We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

"During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier…"

In addition to admonishing Pelosi for her public position and urging a retraction, the donors and fundraisers strongly emphasized their contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters."

Hmm….that sounds like special interests demanding quid pro quo on behalf of Sen. Clinton. Interesting timing too. Sen. Clinton just released an ad in Pennsylvania vowing to stand up to special interests.

Roll Call reports (sub. req.) a Pelosi aide "seemed unruffled by the threat to Democratic Funding." Specifically the aide said, Speaker Pelosi "is neutral and she has always held that opinion regarding superdelegates, even when Clinton was ahead."

A full copy of the letter is available at TPM.

Contributions from special interests

Standing up to special interests has been a major topic in the Democratic primary campaigns. John Edwards was particularly vocal on the issue and repeatedly challenged Hillary Clinton for the vast sums of special interest money she received. His premise was: how does a candidate take money from special interests and not be obligated to give something in return? And obviously the more one takes, the greater the probability a quid pro quo exists.

Considering Hillary Clinton released an ad yesterday on standing up to special interest, I thought the following information was rather instructive.

Here’s a list of the top industries contributing to members of the 110th Congress during the 2007-2008 election cycle. The first list shows the overall 50 biggest industries. The Top Recipient listed is the individual member of the 110th Congress who received the most from the industry. Data reflected is through December 31, 2007 and does not include 2008.

Hillary Clinton came in first by an overwhelming margin. Out of 435 Members of Congress, Clinton was the Top Recipient from 36 of the 50 industries, or 72%. Barack Obama came in a distant second by leading in 8 industries or 16%.

Source: Center for Responsive Politics

Of course, using Senator Clinton’s words, "everyone will have to decide these matter for themselves."

Hillary Clinton’s Dangerous Religious Test

George W. Bush has consistently violated the Constitution, but at no time has he ever gone so far as to even suggest violating a principle the Founders were so passionate and adamant about. Today, Hillary Clinton strongly suggested the American people should judge Barack Obama’s candidacy on what church he attended, what specific cleric he sought counsel from, and what doctrine and theology said church adhered to (or not).

From the AP (emphasis added):

Clinton was ready for the question [about Jeremiah Wright] at her news conference, and read much of her response from notes, unlike her handling of other questions.

"We don’t have a choice when it comes to our relatives," she said. "We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend. Everyone will have to decide these matters for themselves. They are obviously very personal matters."

If Wright were her pastor, she said, "the choice would be clear."

From USAToday (bold emphasis added):

Clinton said Wright has been guilty of "hate speech" and said — the Tribune Review writes — that:

"I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that…. I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving…"

Clinton said after that speech that she was glad Obama gave it, but also that "in the end, the test is not the speeches a president delivers. The test is whether the president delivers on the speeches."

Article VI of the Constitution specifically states, "…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

It is a reprehensible and unconscionable act for a Presidential candidate to make such bold assertions and abominable attempts to persuade voters to cast their ballots based on a religious criteria.

In his first Inaugural Address, James Madison, the primary architect of our Constitution, said:

If I do not sink under the weight of this deep conviction it is because I find some support in a consciousness of the purposes and a confidence in the principles which I bring with me into this arduous service…To support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system; to avoid the slightest interference with the right of conscience or the functions of religion, so wisely exempted from civil jurisdiction; to preserve in their full energy the other salutary provisions in behalf of private and personal rights…"

Of course, it is far too much to expect Hillary Clinton to recognize or adhere to the values and principles of our Constitution when her campaign strategy is to "break [Obama's] back," and kneecap him with "the Tony Harding option."

Frontline: Bush’s War

Just a reminder. Part 2 of PBS’s new Frontline series “Bush’s War” is scheduled for tonight.

If you missed Part 1 and want to watch it before tonight’s show, the entire program is available for viewing online. I’m sure they will run numerous schedules of the show, so its not as if you can’t catch it later.

I did not know the program was airing, but found out just in time to catch Part 1 last night. It’s a very well done documentary on the prelude to war and the war itself.

Part 1 is the prelude to war; the Bush administration (viz. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.) trumping up its bogus case to invade Iraq, beginning on 9/11, and then successfully selling it to the American people, Congress, and allies.

Lots of focus on the CIA, Darth Vader Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other influential neocons in Part 1. Bush has little significant show time in Part 1 other than as Stooge-in-Chief.

Part 2 is broadcast tonight and begins with the actual invasion and goes to ???

Catch it if you can, it will be well with your time.