The Political Chase

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."