Archive for March 12th, 2008
Mar 12, 2008 at 11:44 PM by Political Chase
Geraldine Ferraro may have stepped down from her position as a finance committee member on Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but she has definitely not stepped down from her mudslinging post as she hurled attacks at Barack Obama’s campaign this evening.
In an interview with Ann Curry tonight on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Ferraro promptly accused the Obama campaign of depriving her First Amendment rights. When asked about prior statements Ferraro made about Barack Obama, being ridiculous…wron-headed, and divisive,” she denied it.
Ferraro expanded her role as a victim, by accusing the Obama campaign of launching a national smear campaign against her and and demanded an apology.
As the interview ended, Ferraro managed to get one final accusation in:
CURRY: You’re saying they’re playing the race card and not the Hillary campaign?
FERRARO: Absolutely! and I tell ya, if anybody was going to play…They should apologize to me for calling me a racist!
Check out how Ann Curry is noticably surprised by the racist’s accusations.
TRANSCRIPT:CURRY: Why did you resign?
FERRARO: Well, because, I wanted to get this off the news. this was not something that has been…it was …certainly, there was no connection with Hillary
CURRY: Did the clinton campaign ask you to resign. Yes or no?
No, no, no. You can just read the text of that thing. I felt bad because she was not able to speak to the issues of this campaign. And she’s very good on those issues. And she certainly is the best candidate in the race.
And I am unable to do the things that I do under my First Amendment rights, which is go out and give speeches and talk to people.
Let me just make one point. ..
CURRY: What is..
FERRARO: Let me just
[crosstalk]
CURRY: Let me just ask you this question. What is your response to Obama’s campaign? Calling this notion that he’s a front-runner because of his race. Quote. Ridiculous, and wrong-headed, and also divisive.
FERRARO: That is not what I said! What I did, I was talking about the historic campaign. Why is his an historic campaign? Is it because he is a Senator from Illinois? I don’t think so.
The problem with this is, I was talking to an audience about politics. It was a paid speech. 350 people. I didn’t even give an interview. Some reporter took up my response to a question and reported it. I’m assuming what they said I said was what I said. That’s ok, But, Ann, that was 350…What the Obama campaign does is …I’m sure they do a search as my campaign did for every piece of newspaper print that’s out with the name. I think they took it…
CURRY: You think the Obama campaign?
FERRARO: Oh, I…Who else releases to the national press? Who else?
CURRY: …releases information?
CURRY: So, you’re saying when the Obama campaign says that this is divisive …you’re saying..
FERRARO: I’m saying, yeah it is. And they’re the ones who did it. They started it. They went to the national press. They had two people on television. Both Susan Rice and Jan [xxxx] - both of whom I know, and now well — getting up there berating me and call me a racist.
I have spent 40 years fighting discrimination.
I mean it is..it is apall..it is so hurtful!
They had a campaign of over a 100 negative emails, phone calls to my office. They actually got in touch with the CEO of the firm they thought i was still with and urged them to fire me. I mean…it was crazy.
It hasn’t stopped and I want it to stop.
CURRY: If the Hillary campaign
FERRARO: It want it stop
CURRY: If the Hillary campaign is ultimately hurt, by your comments..
FERRARO: You know what?
CURRY: Will you regret them?
FERRARO: No. The thing about it is I have no connection to the campaign..
CURRY: Except you worked as a finance committee member
FERRARO: Well, I was on the finance committee, but I resigned. But let me just say to you this. That if..indeeed…if there is …I personally think that this is the last time the Obama campaign is going to be able to play this type of race card because I think that’s what it is…
CURRY: You’re saying they’re playing the race card and not the Hillary campaign?
FERRARO: Absolutely! and I tell ya, if anybody was going to play…They should apologize to me for calling me a racist!
I know. I know David Axlerod. He was…I helped him with two campaigns here at [not distinguishable]. He should have called me up if he really thought I was doing…and say Jerri, what are you doing?
CURRY: To be continued
FERRARO: And it would not have been a national campaign or a divisive thing…he is doing now.
CURRY: I’m sorry we’re out of time.
Mar 12, 2008 at 7:47 PM by Political Chase
More details surfaced today on the Florida Democrats “no primary redo” decision I discussed earlier.
Yesterday, “Democratic Party officials” (no specifics given) were “close to completing a plan” on a mail-in “redo” Florida primary. And according to those dedicated officials and fine public servants, details were to be finalized today, and “would most likely submit the proposal to Howard Dean” by the end of the week.
In fact, they progressed so well, the plan or agreement was formally announced by Dan McLaughlin, a spokesperson for Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). Nelson is a Clinton supporter, therefore one can surely assume McLaughlin is as well. (Emphasis added.)
“Unless Howard Dean changes his mind and seats the Florida delegation as apportioned by the January primary,” Mr. McLaughlin said, “this is the most fair and inclusive way to allow Floridians to have their voices heard.”
How telling was that?
Interestingly enough, all of the New York Times sources for the alleged agreement are on background with the exception of McLaughlin. he Times cites “Democratic party officials” and “several people involved in the discussions.” Hmm….why so covert?
So, some “Democratic official(s)” made a decision to publicly announce a plan, characterized as “the most fair and inclusive way” that: (i) will resolve a highly contentious national issue (significantly implies agreement); (ii) will be a substantial factor in determining the next President of the United States; (iii) will effect millions of lives, and McLaughlin is the sole person making the announcement?
Nope. Nothing strange or unusual about that at all.
These pols are not first-term county library trustees or directors. The spokesperson for the senior Senator from Florida should have more than enough experience and savvy to recognize announcing major Party “decisions” on very contentious and important national issues normally calls for more than one bloke at the podium. But that’s the point. There may have been a plan, but at best there was no consensus or agreement on the plan, other than among those with one self-serving objective.
Does anyone really doubt that an Obama or a surrogate would not be present for the announcement if Obama representatives had participated in the development or approval of the plan? Would Hillary Clinton not be there to bask in the glory of yet another successful peacemaking mission? Indeed.
Nelson’s meeting and McLaughlin’s subsequent announcement caused a dust-up with House members from Florida, and other Florida superdelegates. Terse statements, threats of lawsuits, and characterizing Nelson’s plan as “delusional” is in stark contrast to the spin McLaughlin laid on reporters during his formal announcement.
But after meeting with Mr. Nelson on Tuesday night, Florida’s Democratic members of the House of Representatives added a serious new wrinkle by announcing they were unanimously opposed to a mail-in contest. They did not elaborate, but released a statement that said, “Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.” The statement also said the delegation was committed to working with state and national Democrats and the two candidates “to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated.”
Allan Katz, a superdelegate from Tallahassee who supports Mr. Obama, said the plan was “delusional” given the tight time frame, the state’s lack of experience with mail-in balloting and its history of voting troubles.
“The likelihood of this being pulled off without lawsuits galore is, I think, very remote,” he said. “They have no chance of doing this right; only the chance of another election fiasco in Florida.”
The Times piece provides some much needed background and clarity to the rather ambiguous statement I discussed earlier today. It also arguably leads to one conclusion. There was no agreement, except maybe among those already in agreement (viz. Team Clinton). And “fair and inclusive” was applicable to only those included in Nelson’s meeting.
The piece does not indicate directly or indirectly whether views other than pro-Hillary Clinton views were represented or invited to Nelson’s meeting. But given reactions after the meeting and McLaughlin’s announcement, there is little else to conclude other than Obama representatives were not informed nor participants.
More importantly, there is a serious absence of collegial or post-partisan effort in this and many other similar matters. If a given candidate cannot or will not work collegially during the campaign, are we supposed to be so stupid as to believe and accept that the candidate(s) will be vastly different upon moving into the White House?
I firmly believe we are witnessing an accurate portrayal today of how the candidate(s) will govern tomorrow.
Mar 12, 2008 at 10:40 AM by Political Chase
(update below)
Justinb at MarcAmbinder reports the “Democrats representing Florida in Congress” have said no to a primary redo.
“We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in Florida, and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated. Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.”
I’m not sure how inclusive “Democrats representing” may be, which is critical to determining how influential that decision may be. There is too much ambiguity in the statement to safely infer they are the same as the 210 in the quote. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to take issue with justinb’s post — that may be all the info that was available — I’m just pointing out there may be much that is not known.
If it is the entire delegation from Florida, then it is substantial from a state-level perspective; not necessarily definitive or decisive at the national level.
If it is a group that merely represents one of the candidates, then it means nothing. But for the moment, let’s presume it is a substantial percentage of the congressional delegation, I don’t see it as any step forward or backwards. The Florida Dems proposed no solution for consideration. They just said what they were not going to do; it does not change anything. At best, it demonstrates position and defiance, but it is definitely not productive. Obviously, they are not practitioners of “don’t bring me a problem without offering a solution.”
A very tough and potentially volatile situation, which will definitely not be resolved appropriately with a 50/50 split. And I find myself quite ambivalent on the matter.
I do not believe the states acted properly when they just ignored the rules and knew what the consequences would be. Now the Dems are saying they had no real control because the Republican-lead legislature forced the change. If they are truly innocent victims, which I find very hard to believe, then it’s not fair for them to bear the burden of disenfranchisement. But the argument against that is simple and academic.
Florida legislators, elected by Florida residents, duly enacted a statute mandating the primary be changed (or that’s my understanding, it may be more complex). If Florida is not pleased with the decisions of its lawmakers, then they vote them out the next state election, or get the courts to prove the law is unconstitutional. That’s how it works. The DNC and RNC issued due warning. Everybody knew what to expect.
Disenfranchisement is a serious matter, just like breaking the rules is a serious matter. And if something is going to be done to accommodate the delegates, it must be fair and acceptable to all parties.
Hillary’s hijack solution bears no resemblance to fair and equitable. Many voters did not vote because they knew the presidential nomination ballot would not count. Hillary counters that argument by saying the record voter-turnout proves they wanted to and did express their will.
But Hillary, like many other things, fails to put the voter-turnout in the proper context. There was a major property tax proposition on the ballot, which generated substantial voter-turnout, and many of them voted on the property tax matter, but not for a Democratic or Republican presidential nominee.
This matter could be resolved if Clinton would consider fair and equitable solutions. The same applies to Obama, but the majority of the contention is Clinton-sponsored and produced. She might want to put some of that “working across the aisle” campaign rhetoric into action and abandon her counterproductive, five-year-old temper-tantrum “my way or no way” approach. If die-hard Hillary supporters simply focused closely on evaluating how Hillary attempts to bring about a solution (or not), it would be instructive to say the least.
Unfortunately for Clinton, that has not been her mo up till now. There is little or no evidence to suggest anything will be different.
Update: More information surfaced on the Dems statement today. See this post for an update.
Mar 12, 2008 at 4:03 AM by Political Chase
Barack Obama soundly defeated Hillary Clinton by 24 points in the Mississippi primary yesterday. With 99 percent of the precints reporting, Obama won 61 percent of the votes with Clinton obtaining only 37 percent.
Instead of the usual post-election rally speech, Obama did interviews with at least two cable networks. The video is his interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. It’s a tad different than what one normally expects with the candidate after a victory. Matthews spent very little time discussing the Mississippi win. Instead, he progressed to the next big state, Pennsylvania, asking Obama about his strategy and message for voters there (viz. how are you going to duke it out with Hillary the Prevaricator).
Matthews also brought up a report scheduled to be released today (Wed.) where hundres of thousands of documents (Pentagon I believe) were researched and there was not one single document tying al-Qaeda that attacked New York, Washington, and rural Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001.
Unfortunately the hoursis very late and I may not have that exactly correct. I will fine-tune it tomorrow if necessary, but for now, I must get some sleep.
I’m not sure what the big whoop is over the new evidence and report that al-Qaeda had no ties with Iraq in 2001. Uh, I think we already knew that. Tweety’s reasons for bringing that up may have been more related to the 15-round heavyweight fights Clinton and Obama are doing daily.
It’s a good interview, especially since Tweedy’s doing it. Not too much dribble this time. Give it a watch and I’ll be back to my normal alert self in a few hours.
Watch the video at MSNBC.
Mar 12, 2008 at 2:40 AM by Political Chase
The House passed an independent ethics committee rule, something the Dems promised back in the 2006 campaigns.
From Roll Call (sub. req.):
Despite lingering objections from rank-and-file Democrats and opposition from Republicans, the House voted late Tuesday night to establish an independent office to monitor the chamber’s ethics rules.
The measure passed, 229-182, largely along party lines.
Republicans nearly defeated the measure on a procedural maneuver, but House leaders held the vote open for at least 10 additional minutes to turn a handful of Democrats — sealing the win with the votes of Reps. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.). With their support, the bill was allowed to come to the floor.
The victory followed an intense campaign by the Democratic leadership, particularly Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), to win over wavering Members, many of who openly questioned the need for an independent ethics office.
What a novel idea. Independent investigations.
This has not been easy for Pelosi, and I doubt the repercussions are anything but over. Just getting started may be more like like it. Representatives are scared s _ _ _ tless because they will no longer have the ability to investigate themselves. And it’s not just Terrorepublicans creating a kerfuffle over the notion of independent investigations.
“Ladies and gentleman, we have a new grand jury in the House,” thundered Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). “Any referral to the Office of Congressional Ethics will be tantamount to a guilty verdict. Any other conclusion by the ethics committee will be seen as a cover-up. I guarantee it.”
The Senate is at least equally afraid of the novel idea of independent investigations. Some see it as dangerous and threatening as Hillary Clinton does an Obama rally. Kill that “good feeling all over” stuff before it overtakes somebody! If Barbara Boxer and John Cornyn are collegially working against it, you know it must be anathema to the Soul of the Senate.
Senate ethics committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the panel’s ranking Republican, Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) released a statement last night making clear that they have no intention of following the House’s lead.
“The Senate voted overwhelmingly to reject proposals to create an outside investigative body because we have confidence in our Ethics process,” Boxer and Cornyn said.
Who will be the first person kicked out of Congress by the new House Grand Jury?
Where’s Tom DeLay when you need him?
