Apr 3, 2008 at 8:22 PM by Political Chase
I was reading a piece in Time about all the work Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell does in his office for Hillary Clinton, and this question came to mind. Do any states have laws comparable to the Hatch Act (restricts political activities on government facilities)?
If PA does, Big Ed has a big problem. The first two grafs in the piece:
"I don’t think any endorsement for President means jack," Ed Rendell will tell you. But if you spend a morning watching the popular governor of Pennsylvania work the phone for his favored candidate, Hillary Clinton, you quickly see why he is the exception to his own rule.
On one line in his Philadelphia office, he is pondering real estate for a Clinton news conference the following week; the West Philadelphia YMCA has a room that would be just the right size. Then comes a call to Sandi Vito, the state’s acting secretary of labor. "Could you do a quick, down-and-dirty memo for me on [the federal Trade Adjustment Assistance program] for Mrs. Clinton?" Rendell wants to know. "On your own time," he adds. Of course. The next order of business is a Clinton fund raiser in western Pennsylvania. "I want each of you to come as close to or exceed $100,000 for your guys," he tells Pittsburgh mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Allegheny County chief executive Dan Onorato. "If you need me to make any follow-up calls, I will."
Apr 3, 2008 at 5:07 PM by Political Chase
Speaker Nancy Pelosi emphasized her position on superdelegates today, and in effect, rebuked a recent brazen attempt by 20 big shots to influence (viz. buy) the Democratic nomination.
From Roll Call (sub. req.):
Pelosi reiterated that it would do “great harm to the Democratic Party” if it were perceived that superdelegates were prepared to “overturn the will of the people” by voting differently from their states in Denver.
“Let me be really clear about this,” she told reporters, indicating that she has been against ex-officio voting for “my whole life.”
Pelosi said she wanted to “remove all doubt on anyone’s minds” that her previous comments about superdelegates voting their conscience are inconsistent with them voting in line with their constituents.
She noted that she has made this point when Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been ahead as well as when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has the lead.
Last month, 20 of the largest contributors to the Democratic Party — and Clinton supporters — demanded in a threatening letter to Pelosi that she retract her public position on superdelegates.
"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."
Apr 3, 2008 at 2:09 PM by David Pleasant
4/4/08 at 2:00 PM ET
Correction: I misquoted Lieberman in this post. I watched the video two times before posting it. Moreover, before posting, I checked the transcript at Fox (subsequently updated) and it matched what I, and obviously Fox, thought Lieberman said. However, as reader TM appropriately points out:
When I roll the tape, to my untrained ear there is a very distinctive “d” sound between “Qaeda” and “Iran” that would be utterly stray unless he said “and”; obviously, views differ.
However, a mere paragraph later Lieberman does suggest his familiarity with the controversy with when he is asked about McCain\’s mis-speaks on that very point…
After closely listening to the video, I must agree Lieberman does say “al-Qaeda and Iran.” As I commented to TM: “When scrutinized, Lieberman does say *and*. It seems to me, if one is in a ‘normal’ listening mode, and not closely focused on each word and syllable, it is easy to hear *in*.”
Therefore, Lieberman does not make the same gaffe as McCain did recently, but the in/and correction does not have any bearing on Lieberman’s perception that the Middle East is a sprawling Madinat Jumeirah Resort.
My apologies for not scrutinizing the video adequately and disparaging the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut in that regard.
———
4/4/08 at 12:38 PM ET
Note: I have misquoted Lieberman in this post. In the video, Lieberman actually says, "al-Qaeda and Iran" instead of "al-Qaeda in Iran." Detailed retraction to follow soon.
———
How revealing. Al-Qaeda in Iran is the real problem and the Middle East is in fact a garden spot today because the surge is working.
KELLY: So, OK, it goes on and on. What about Obama’s refined position that McCain supports a 100 troop presence in Iraq is inaccurate?
LIEBERMAN: Well, I think that - let me say generally that Sen. Obama doesn’t come to this debate with a lot of credibility. Basically on the question of Iraq, John McCain has had the guts to stand out on his own arguing for what he thought was right. And it turned out that he was right about the surge working to improve conditions in Iraq.
If we did what Sen. Obama wanted us to do last year, Al-Qaeda in and Iran would be in control of Iraq today. The whole Middle East would be in turmoil and American security and credibility would be jeopardized.
On the specific question of the 100 years, I think that’s an unfortunate example of the way Sen. Obama has used it, of playing political gotcha with a national security question…
[snip]
LIEBERMAN: I mean John McCain knows that the Iranians are supporting Shia extremists, and that’s different from Al- Qaeda…
Apr 3, 2008 at 1:27 PM by Political Chase
Greg Sargent reports Howard Wolfson was asked on a press conference call today "whether it’s the Hillary campaign’s official position that Obama can’t win a general election against McCain." Wolfson said "No." But, Sen. Clinton told Bill Richardson emphatically, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."
This is precisely why I vehemently stated earlier that Clinton had to prove her allegation. Either Wolfson just made Clinton a liar or he lied in the press conference. Where’s the credibility? They can’t have it both ways.
Apr 3, 2008 at 4:27 AM by David Pleasant
Was this before or after they went to happy hour?
Former President Bill Clinton told a crowd in Columbus, Indiana, today that his wife had tried to join the Army.
"I remember when we were young, right out of law school, she went down and tried to join the Army and they said ‘Your eyes are so bad, nobody will take you,’" he said, after heralding her record on issues of concern to the military, such as body armor and access to health care.
This is getting way beyond ridiculous.
Apr 3, 2008 at 4:10 AM by Political Chase
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos reports Hillary Clinton strong-armed Gov. Bill Richardson before he endorsed Barack Obama. She "told him flatly, ‘He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win.’ " Indeed, her statements are firmly grounded in the alethic and declarative moods. If her case is that overwhelmingly bullet-proof, then I want to know, specifically and precisely, what quantitative and irrefutable empirical evidence Clinton has to support her profundity.
If she indeed possesses such damnable evidence, it is incumbent upon her to provide the American people with that information. We have the right to know the unequivocal facts if they are so compelling. The same would apply for Sen. Obama if he were to make similar statements, ad nauseam.
Dispense with the 3:00 A.M. ads that are only suitable for marketing NyQuil, and simply tell Americans the truth. If it is as bad as she presents to Gov. Richardson and other superdelegates, then would her not informing the public be a great disservice to the country?
We’re adults. We can handle the truth. But, can Clinton tell it?
