Quit Picking on My Harriet!!!

Workout notes Nothing yet; I’ll probably walk and easy 3 miles on the treadmill. Right now my head is pounding like a jackhammer due to all the goop that is in it. Otherwise I feel stronger, though I get, yes, “hot flashes” from time to time during the day.

Oh yes, we got dumped on again last night; another couple of inches. Runners have been joking that they have cursed the recent weather forecasts, though the weather is supposed to be decent this weekend.

Political:

Those meanies in Congress! Will they ever quit picking on my Harriet?

February 28, 2008

The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
The Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

In accordance with 2 U.S.C. § 194 and the attached House Resolution 979 (adopted on February 14, 2008), I have today sent a certification to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, advising him of the failure of former White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, to appear, testify and produce documents in compliance with a duly issued subpoena of a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee and of the failure of Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff and custodian of White House documents, to produce documents in his custody as required by a duly issued subpoena of the House Judiciary Committee.

Under section 194, Mr. Taylor is now required “to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” The appropriate grand jury action is a criminal charge for violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, which provides: “Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers . . . willfully makes default . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor” and shall be subject to a fine and “imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.”

According to the testimony of your predecessor, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and your recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department intends to prevent Mr. Taylor from complying with the statute and enforcing the contempt citations against Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten. You claimed that “enforcement by way of contempt of a congressional subpoena is not permitted when the President directs a direct adviser of his… not to appear or when he directs any member of the executive not to produce documents.” Hearing on Oversight of the Dep’t of Justice Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 87-88 (Feb. 7, 2008). You purported to base your view on a “long line of authority,” but cited no court decision that supports this proposition.

There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury. Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a President to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents.

Your press spokesman has stated that you will “act promptly” to review this matter and reach a final decision. We will appreciate your acting with appropriate dispatch on this important matter. [...]

This isn’t fair; why are they picking on her like this?

So, I’ve decided to do a good deed. You can donate to the Harriet Miers Defense Fund here.

Friction between Obama and Clinton supporters: not one sided.

I’ve heard a few complaints that some of Obama’s supporters have been rude. I believe that has happened.

But the rudeness and petty barbs have flowed both ways; the difference, as I see it, is that the venom directed at Obama supporters have often come from those higher up in the campaign.

Here, Obama supporters are ridiculed as being naive:

Bill Clinton dismisses caucus goers:

Of his wife’s recent travails, he said, “the caucuses aren’t good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.”

And then there is this president of the Machinist Union:

Note: being on the Harvard Law Review is something to be held in contempt?

This is the longer version. Note: Galesburg: Obama brought it up as what is wrong with trade agreements that don’t have adequate protection. Oh yes, Galesburg happened in 2004, and Obama didn’t take the oath until 2005.

Note the venom directed at people like me. But I don’t mind; he isn’t really talking to me; he is rather talking to low information voters who won’t fact check what he says.

But I wonder if this guy gets a heart attack; will he still have the contempt for all of that knowledge that was developed at those college and universities that he has so much contempt for?

But remember this: Obama and his campaign have never ONCE ridiculed Clinton supporters.

Obama and Public Financing, Feminist Clinton Supporters, Bollywood and more

Ok, now for some fun political stuff

Bollywood Obama (fluff, but fun fluff)

I am the only one in America that likes this photo?

Ok, I like this one too:

To me, this means that we have candidates that want to experience the world, and maybe, just maybe, see how others see things?

Yes, I know; there are those (especially on the other side of the political fence) that don’t see “being a citizen of the world” as a good thing.

[...]There is another opinion about this, however. It is held by some traditional conservatives who oppose Bush’s Iraq and Iran policies, those most open to supporting a Democrat if the Republicans, as seems likely, promise a foreign policy of more of the same. In a nutshell, this view is that Hillary would face a difficult race, but would probably prevail, as could have Edwards or Joe Biden or a fairly generic Democrat in a year when the Dems have a major tailwind. Obama would be their weakest candidate, who could lead his party into an electoral disaster.

This is not because of Obama’s race, which—other factors held equal—probably attracts more voters than it puts off. The weakness is the other major quality that progressive intellectuals find appealing in him: his cosmopolitanism, his relative unrootedness, the sense that he is harbinger not only of a new America where race doesn’t matter but of a globalized world where national sentiment is on the way out. He would not only be the United States’ first black president, but, to borrow immigration activist Mark Krikorian’s useful term, its first post-American one as well.

In his foreign-policy address before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last April, Obama asserted that America’s security is “inextricably linked to the security of all people,” a recipe for global interventionism so promiscuous as to make neoconservatives almost prudent by comparison. He is a proponent of global free trade and high levels of immigration. Much of his memoir is devoted to his quest to connect with an extended family in Africa. This world-man aura is not without appeal, especially after eight years of a president deaf to what foreigners think and feel. But taken as far as Obama does, it would be an electoral liability. [...]

Good, good; I hope that the Republicans continue to underestimate him. That is a real good idea, isn’t it, Clinton backers???

Obama: gets in touch with his “nerd side” in Austin, Texas:

I was lucky enough to find out about the economic town hall here in Austin with Senator Obama and get tickets for it. Even though the event began at 9:30 this morning my boss was more than happy to let me attend as long as I brought her a button or a sticker or something. [...]

The diary author goes on to describe the questions and some of the answers (in detail) and then concludes:

All-in-all, the session was informative and substantive. Before he entered the building the chants of “Yes we can” “Si se puede” “Fired up/Ready to go” etc. fell flat after a few repetitions. This group seemed to support Barack but was really interested in what he had to say. I found it amusing and touching when the older black lady in a seat near mine would raise her hand when he mentioned how difficult it is to get ahead when you’re dealing with predatory credit card debt, medical expenses, wages that have not caught up to inflation and tuition, gas prices and health care that have never cost more. I found myself quite touched that someone is echoing things I’ve heard from Bonddad, Jerome a Paris, and even myself say. It was like a long long DKOS diary with good commentors and a lot of replies.

Truly, in this campaign, I get a feeling of “What hath the netroots wrought?” This isn’t a campaign so far that we can pick apart and criticize every aspect of since many of the things we’ve wished a candidate would do or would talk about are being done by this guy. I think he’s unstoppable and it’s not at all because of the force of his personality but because he is running a tight ship, keeping a tight and positive message, and focusing on all 50 states. I feel so honored to be seeing such a great election follow the two horribly flawed elections of this millenium.

Obama, Clinton Supporters and Feminism There seems to be a nasty undercurrent going between many Obama and Clinton supporters. Many of the older women who support Clinton almost feel betrayed that many of their younger sisters, daughters, nieces and friends support Obama. A Kossack commented on this and I’ll feature some comments that one of my comments drew out:

Because I have a Y chromosome in my genes I’ll keep my opinions to myself.

But I think that the following interview from PBS (about 15 minutes) is well worth it; one of the cofounders of Ms. Magazine and her daughter discuss their choices. The daughter backs O whereas the mom backs HRC and feels betrayed by her daughter.

Also on the show, NOW Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa talks to a prominent feminist and her daughter who agree on lots of womens’ rights issues, but are totally opposed in their choices for president.

Writer Letty Cottin Pogrebin, one of the founding editors of Ms. magazine and a co-founder of the National Women’s Political Caucus, supports Hillary Clinton. Her daughter Abigail, who supports Barack Obama, is an author and former producer for Mike Wallace at “60 Minutes.”

scroll down; the video is on the right hand side (15 minutes).

Drew the following couple of comments:

This one:

This whole controversy has been very instructive for me. I read the reactions of Clinton’s supporters, and I see echoes of myself in the way I’ve behaved during arguments with Mr. Elmo over the course of nearly 25 years of marriage. I’ve accused him of sexism, of not listening and/or not hearing me. Now I’m starting to understand that at least some of the time in those arguments all he was doing was just not agreeing with me, just seeing things differently from the way I saw them.

And this one:

I notice in the video (thanks for the link) that Letty Cottin Pogrebin says several times that Clinton “deserves” the presidency, and (toward the end) that she doesn’t understand why Obama can’t wait to run next time. She may have even said it’s Clinton’s “turn”.

This country is at a critical juncture and people are clamoring for leadership, not entitlement. Anyone who’s judging a candidate’s leadership abilities has only to look at how the respective candidates have lead/managed the campaign. Is it any surprise then that the last 11 contests have gone to Obama?

Both of these women point out some good things. First, “hey, vote for her because she “deserves it” or “is entitled to it” ” is not a strong case for most of us. Frankly, this is the first election that Clinton has ever had to work for in her life (Obama has had three rough primaries in his life prior to this one, and he lost the one in 2000).

The second issue is that I am seeing two very different kinds of feminists. The first kind of feminist are the ones that assume that a male is sexist until he proves otherwise. These are the ones I usually think of when I hear feminist, and feminists of Barbara’s generation tend to be this way. These sort of feminists usually back Clinton.

The second kind of feminist are those who assume that you aren’t sexist until you prove otherwise; these are the kinds that will give you suggestions and corrections, and I have better luck learning from this kind. These tend to be the younger ones, and many of these back Obama.

Speaking of a younger female Obama backer:

Also at the Elton party: We asked Dixie Chick Natalie Maines, “Hillary or Obama?” and she told us, “Obama!”. .

And she is backing that up with her checkbook too.

Obama: backtracking on his “pledge to use public financing?”

Uh, no. The issue is far more nuanced than the debate moderators and the Republicans would want you to believe.
First, what did Obama sign to anyway?

I described this a few weeks ago as a “pledge” to participate, but I should not have. Obama’s precise statement was, and has always been, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” That’s an artful statement, and it’s not artful in a “meaning of ‘is’” sense — it’s exactly the right answer. A commitment to “preserve a publicly financed election” would have to mean much more than whether both participate in the system. It would require some significant agreement about how to handle outside money, 527s, “Swift Boat”-type attack groups, party money, etc., and other factors that have undermined the last two publicly financed elections, from both sides. It is hardly an evasion to describe this as an agreement to be negotiated, rather than a simple pledge.

There you have it. Obama is saying NOW what he said THEN.
True, he was probably surprised that his small donors (such as myself) would come through as well as we have. But still, he is sticking by his word.

So, what about McCain and his situation? Evidently, to quote Obama, “the wheels have come off of the straight talk express”:

[...]regarding McCain’s ability to drop out of the public matching funds system for the primaries, it seems to be the consensus of experts that a candidate can drop out of the system, even after being certified to receive funds, as long as he or she hasn’t used the certification as collateral for a loan. And McCain specifically excluded the prospect of public funds from the section on collateral for a loan he took out in November. While I think such an in-again/out-again dodge violates the spirit of the law, which calls for a firm choice between public funds and unlimited spending, it appears McCain hewed closely to the letter of the law. But on Saturday, the Washington Post reported that there was a second loan for $1 million on December 17 that pledged “incoming contributions” as collateral but did not exclude public money.

The story quotes McCain’s lawyer as saying that the bank asked, ” ‘You’ve explained how you can pay us back if things go well. What happens if things go badly?’,” and that the campaign explained, that “McCain could reapply in the future for federal matching funds,” but that the existing certification was not used as collateral. [...]

Do you follow that? Because McCain didn’t say “this is collateral” but instead “gave his word”, he didn’t break the law.

So, should Obama, at this stage when he is still in a tough primary, make a firm pledge with someone who does stuff like this?

What is the other side saying?
Recall that Dick Morris used to work for Bill Clinton. He is enjoying this primary; let’s just say that his parting with the Clintons was not friendly. So you have to take what he says with a grain of salt, but still it is funnier than all get-out.

Clinton repeats the same mistakes:

Whether one likes, dislikes, loves, hates, admires, fears, despises, or envies them, all Clinton watchers have this in common: They are dumbfounded both by the incompetence with which Hillary has run for president and her intransigence at sticking to a failed message.
[...]

Incredibly, both Clintons are harping, once more, on the theme of experience to carry the day. No matter that it hasn’t worked since before Iowa; they repeat the same mantra endlessly that Hillary can hit the ground running on Day One. It seems they will never realize that voters grasp two essential facts:

# One, Hillary’s experience is derivative of Bill’s and her claims to his achievements are largely invented and spurious; and

# Two, the real edge she has in experience is her ability to repeat the strategies, tactics, message, fundraising models and campaign style of the 1990s, something modern voters reject emphatically.

Why, after losing 24 states, do Hillary and Bill fail to get these messages? Are they saving up these insights for their memoirs? And why do the Clintons persist in running a negative campaign even when they can’t find anything to be negative about?

Alienating voters with their abrasive attacks without attracting them with their content, they throw pitty-pat punches accusing Obama one day of plagiarism for borrowing speech lines from his close and consenting friend and the next day for accurately describing Hillary’s healthcare plan as requiring sanctions to make those who do not wish to sign up do so against their will (albeit for policies Mrs. Clinton deems to be affordable).

If you are going to pay the price of going negative, throw real punches.

Hit Obama with big negatives. You take the backlash for going negative in order to pass the lethal message on to the voters. But if you don’t have any negatives to throw and your detectives have, indeed, come up empty, then stop trying to go negative. Stop alienating people for no purpose.

What many don’t get is that Obama has already been run though the Chicago press again and again; there is no “there” there. People don’t seem to get that.

Note that in another article, Morris claims that Obama is showing his “experience” by running a good campaign.

Rush Limbaugh In this weird election, Clinton has already gotten support from Ann Coulter. Now Rush Limbaugh is telling his Texas listeners to vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton! (the idea being to make the Democrats have a longer primary).