The Political Chase

Conyers schedules torture review with Addington, Ashcroft, Feith, Daniel Levin, and Tenet

Prompted by ABC’s recent exposure of the White House torture review program, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers invited five top Bush administration officials (former and current) to a hearing to review the administration’s "torture policies and other potential abuses of executive power."

Conyers sent letters to David Addington, John Ashcroft, Doug Feith, Daniel Levin, and George Tenet informing them of the May 6 hearing. While each letter is specific to the recipient’s role in the administration, he stated (directly or indirectly) a common interest:

"Among the subjects likely to be explored at the [May 6] hearing are the United States policies regarding interrogation of persons in the custody of the nation’s intelligence services and armed forces, issues on which you appear to have played an important role."

In his letter to David Addington (Cheney’s current chief of staff), Conyers specifically referenced Addington as a "principal author of the…memo justifying torture" and his participation in the "preparation of the key legal memorandum concluding that the protections of the Geneva Conventions are ‘obsolete’."

Writing to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Conyers conveys his intention to explore "issues regarding the nature and scope of Presidential power in the time of war and the current Administration’s approach to these questions under U.S. and international law."

It is not unreasonable to presume George Bush will invoke Executive Privilege. Surely by now, Fred Fielding’s assistant has a Word template that only requires adding the applicable name(s). 

Richardson received 8 or more calls per day

It’s recycle day for the Clintons.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson tells the L.A. Times he was "really ticked off" when the Clintons "questioned his honor" and suggested "he owed Hillary Clinton his support." And the "3 a.m. TV ad" upset him.

Richardson justifies his endorsement of Obama — it wasn’t simply a matter of the Clinton’s thoroughly pissing him off, but they appear to have been Richardson’s tipping points.

While those may have been the threshold for Richardson, being called more than eight times per day would have been more than enough for me.

Obama preferred the soft sell, calling Richardson every three days or so — "dialing the phone himself, no operator" — for long discussions about policy and campaign issues…Clinton was more persistent and tactical. There were eight or more phone calls a day, Richardson said: "Bill calling. Hillary calling, friends of mine that were in the Clinton administration, Clinton operatives, Clinton Hispanic operatives, New Mexico Clinton Hispanic operatives."

Bill Clinton’s Falsehoods on Electoral Votes and Bosnia

Everybody’s all stirred up over the lies Bill Clinton told yesterday defending Hillary’s lies about sniper fire in Tuzla, Bosnia. However, I have not seen any media reports discrediting another lie he told yesterday. In his stump speech, he declared hypothetical victories for Hillary in West Virginia and Kentucky, and then the former president said she will have “won the largest number of electoral votes.”

"And then we’re gonna come to Indiana and ask you to give her a chance to go on. If you do that, she’ll win big victories in West Virginia and Kentucky, she will win the popular vote, she will go to the convention with the best claim having won the largest number of electoral votes, having won an enormous percentage – two-thirds at least — of the electoral votes that I was able to get in 1996. She will have the best claim to be the nominee of the party for president. You can do that. Indiana can do that.”

There is no other way to put it. That’s a lie, and Bill Clinton knows it. Electoral votes are won only in the general election. Delegates are won in primaries and caucuses.

This is all part of a baseless strategy Team Clinton is fabricating to win the nomination – argue Hillary has won electoral votes, when in fact she has not and will not win a single electoral vote before the Democratic convention. Earlier this week on Sunday, I wrote about Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell claiming Hillary would win the nomination based on electoral votes and wins in four large states.

Moreover, Bill Clinton makes the false claim about how the Democratic nominee should be determined and then starts talking about how important the rules are.

"I think it’s worth just a moment to take a little walk down memory lane to look at the future. This country was founded by people who were running away from abusive, unaccountable government power that forgot about the needs of the people. Our Constitution was set up to make sure that we all lived under the same set of rules. And one of the things that has always made me proud to be a member of my political party is that we believe that’s the way everything should operate. Whatever the rules are, we’ll suit up and play, but we should all be under the same set of rules."

Nice to know Bill expects everyone to abide by the rules, except Hillary.

For the record, this is Bill’s lie about Bosnia yesterday.

“But there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia.”

As evidenced in the video below, CBS reported on March 25, 2008, that Hillary told the Bosnia lie on December 29, 2007, on February 29, 2008, and again during the week of March 16 – 22, 2008 on March 17 during prepared remarks on foreign policy. Hillary denied she had lied until March 25, 2008 when she said, "So I made a mistake…That happens. It proves I’m human." That doesn’t seem to qualify for an immediate apology. As for the day versus night thing, that’s no big deal to me. Anybody could make that mistake after giving hundreds of speeches.

Obama drops in AP poll

A new AP/Ipsos national poll was released yesterday, but due to other activities I was unable to post it yesterday.

The poll, taken April 7 - 9, has Barack Obama dropping six points in a head-to-head matchup with John McCain when compared to the last AP poll taken in February. McCain benefited from a bump after winning the GOP nomination, and the seemingly endless Clinton-Obama slugfest. 

McCain leads Obama among men, whites, Southerners, married women and independents.

Obama lost ground in most demographic areas in the head-to-head matchup with John McCain. However, Clinton dropped seven points in her strongest demographic – women voters. Nevertheless, she gained 10 points among male voters (White male voters were moving to Obama in Feb., iirc.)

The Clinton-Obama slugfest “is creating divisions among the electorate.” No surprise there. Approximately 25% of Obama supporters say they will vote for McCain if Clinton is nominee. Approximately 33% of Clinton supporters say the will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

Although not quantitatively specified in the poll, it is reasonable to conclude a portion (substantial?) of McSame’s lead in independent voters is attributable to the Clinton-Obama slugfest. The negative atmosphere of the Democratic campaign affected Obama and Clinton individually, and to an unspecified amount, it affected the Democratic presidential race in general. Since Clinton did not increase her lead in the Democratic primary race and her strategy is based almost entirely on negative attacks, it strongly suggests Clinton should revisit her strategy.

Of all details and variances in the poll, the results among core Democratic voters are the most interesting, I believe. Among “self-described moderate Democrats” Obama took the lead with 51 percent to Clinton’s 35 percent. In February, they were 45 percent Clinton, 40 percent Obama. Several things come to mind here. Hillary has consistently done better with the Democratic base – less educated, lower income, and blue-collar workers – and Obama has done better with wine-sippers, college-educated, and those with higher income. So does this mean the base is changing? Have Democratic voters – lower-income ranges, Since Obama dropped in other areas of the poll, one might expect to see a similar effect among core Democratic voters. Does this indicate the Democratic base is changing?

Clinton and Obama are now statistically about even among households earning under $50,000. In late February, Clinton led 54 percent to 37 percent, but now it is just 48 percent to 41 percent. This appears to indicate a change in the overall Democratic base, at least for period covered in this poll.

In addition, the AP incorrectly states Obama suffered a “high profile loss in Texas.” Although Sen. Clinton won the popular vote by approximately 140,000, which does not include the caucuses, Sen. Obama won 99 delegates and Sen. Clinton won 94. Hardly a definitive win for Clinton, and an undeniable, important win in delegates for Obama.