Hillary tries to claim a Texas endorsement from the other side. (Part 2: reactions from Ann's children)

Here are some excerpts from an AP article.

Richards' Sons Object to Clinton Video

By NEDRA PICKLER

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The two sons of Ann Richards, the late former Texas governor, are objecting to an Internet video published by Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign that suggests their mother would have supported Clinton.

Clinton's campaign had permission from Richards' youngest daughter, Ellen, who said in a statement provided by the campaign that her mother was an "ardent feminist" who would be thrilled by her friend Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

"I believe that if my mom were alive today that she would be stumping across Texas and around the country supporting Hillary for president," her statement said.

*******

But sons Dan and Clark Richards, partners at an Austin law firm, say nobody can know who the outspoken and opinionated former governor would have supported in the race between Clinton and Barack Obama.

"As her children, we never presumed to know her mind when alive and we are not prepared to make a claim as to who she would endorse or what she would do if she were still with us," they wrote in an e-mail last week. "We are not granting permission for her name to be used in advertisements on behalf of either candidate."

The e-mail, provided to The Associated Press by Dan Richards, was sent to Cathy Bonner, a friend of their mother's and member of Richards' administration. Bonner is working with Clinton's campaign and sent Dan and Clark Richards an early copy of the video on Feb. 19 "to make sure you are okay with it."

Dan Richards said in an interview Tuesday that they denied permission and he's angry the campaign published the video anyway. He said the campaign contacted him again last Friday to ask him to reconsider, and he repeated his objections.

"They asked me if I would sue the campaign, and I said no, I wasn't in the business of suing the campaign, but I didn't think they should do it," he said in a telephone interview. "To try to present who she would endorse a year and a half after she died is offensive to me."

Cathy Bonner said in an interview that after Richards' sons objected the video was edited to remove photos of the family.

(emphasis added). Wow. Ann's sons expressly told Hillary's campaign that they objected to any implication that Ann would have endorsed Hillary, and the campaign felt that their objections were addressed by by removing pictures of Ann's family. What sort of sick, twisted bullshit is that?

Hillary didn't give a rat's ass that two of Ann's children found the ad highly offensive and put their objections in writing. Hillary decided that her own political ambitions were more important.

Oh, I know what some of you Hillary supporters are thinking...There is nothing wrong with this ad because one of Ann's children approves of it. Keep in mind that two of them object to it, and the other child has made no comment.

And for any of you Hillary supporters that don't see anything wrong with this, put yourself in a similar situation and ask yourself how you would feel.

Also, for any Hillary supporters who think they knew Ann Richards well enough to think she would have endorsed Hillary, ask yourself whether Ann would have created an ad like this in the first place, and then ask yourself if Ann then would have run the ad over the objections of family members. I pretty much doubt it.

If Hillary is willing to disregard a family in a matter such as this AND claim that she knows what a dead person would think, just what do you think she is going to do if she is President? What makes you think she is going to care about you? What makes you think she is going to do anything but look out for her own interests?

Coming in Part 3--reactions from someone who knew and worked for Ann Richards.

Hillary tries to claim a Texas endorsement from the other side. (Part 1: the basic story and my reaction)

...and I am not talking about an endorsement from a Republican or someone who previously supported Obama. I mean "other side" as in "from the grave."

I found out about this late last night, and I have been so stunned since then that it has taken me this long to be able to write about it.

Hillary is running an ad in Texas--and she paid for the ad--that tries to show that Ann Richards would endorse Hillary.

I don't know whether to laugh or scream.

A little background...Ann Richards was a true Texas Democratic icon. In 1982, she became the first woman in over 50 years to win a statewide election when was voted as the State Treasurer. She was reelected to that office, and then in 1990, she became Governor of Texas. She gained national attention through her keynote address at the 1988 Democratic National Convention. That was the speech where she said "Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels," and "Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth." Ann Richards died on September 13, 2006 from esophageal cancer.

So, anyway, here's a discussion of the ad, which you can see for your ownself here. The first half of the ad is a retrospective tribute to Ann Richards. And then the voiceover says the following:

So many women around Texas and around America are saying “Wish Ann was here, for us, and for Hillary."

Well, assuming that women everywhere are indeed saying "Wish Ann for here for Hillary," the facts are that Ann is not here, and she left this life before Hillary ever announced she was running for President. And that, ladies and gentlemen, means that Ann Richards never actually said she would support Hillary for President.

The ad then goes to a clip of Hillary saying the following:

I got a lot of advice from Ann about my hair...and she said "You know, really, you got to make up your mind. You either just have to do something that people forget about and pay no attention to, or you got to make a statement."

And that is the only thing in the ad which addresses anything Ann Richards said to or about Hillary. So after that clip, the voiceover comes back in:

Today Ann would be asking all of us to make a statement. She would be traveling to every small town and big city in Texas, urging us all to take a stand, be counted, to make a difference, to make history. This one’s for Texas. This one’s for our country. This one’s for Ann.

This ad is so desperate, so presumptuous, and in such bad taste.

That Hillary can conclude that advice about hair translates to an endorsement is ridiculous. I know of no evidence that Ann Richards did endorse even the idea of Hillary running for President, and this ad sure doesn't provide any. Instead, this ad follows the pattern of Hillary's arrogance as shown early on with her first national TV ad, in which she was acting like she already had won the nomination. This ad just presumes that since Ann Richards was a pioneering female politician that she would of course endorse Hillary. Forget the fact that many other trailblazing, prominent female politicians have not endorsed Hillary. Forget that Ann Richards died before Hillary declared her candidacy. Can't you see that Ann would oh so obviously endorse Hillary?

Listen, folks. Ann Richards was a true Texan, and Texans don't stand for anyone trying to tell us what we think. Ann Richards was never one to let anyone put words in her mouth or presume what she was thinking. And for Hillary Clinton to do so in this ad is just bullshit. Would Ann have endorsed Hillary? Maybe. Would she have endorsed Obama? Maybe. But we will never know because Ann's not here.

And speaking of being a Texan, I am damn proud to say that Ann Richards was a Texan and that I voted for her. This Hillary ad implies that Hillary is just like Ann Richards, and to that I say "Like hell she is!"

This ad is in such horribly bad taste. Anyone who needs an explanation as to why claiming to know what a dead person wanted without any proof as to that person's wishes while alive is in bad taste is an idiot. Or an asshole. Period.

Coming in Part 2--reactions by Ann Richards's children.

The Hillary campaign, the race card, and yet more hypocrisy

The surrogates in Hillary's campaign are getting more delusional as they get more desperate.

As reported at TPM Election Central, one of Hillary's biggest fundraisers, Lanny Davis, went on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC show yesterday, and he said that "it's very hard to criticize Senator Obama without being accused of playing the race card[.]"

For those who do not see why this claim is utter and complete hypocritical chickenshit, let me explain. It is damn near impossible to criticize or question anything that Hillary does or says without being accused of being sexist and misogynistic. Hillary and all her supporters have played the gender card so many times and in so many ways it makes me puke. And by the way, Lanny, feel free to give any examples of Obama or any of his surrogates playing the race card whenever Obama is criticized. And while you are thinking about that, don't forget that Hillary and Bill are the ones that injected race into this campaign (with their MLK and Jesse Jackson comments), and Hillary brought up race as a dismissive reason why Obama did so well in Louisiana ("These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand.").

And then, Lanny, feel free to explain why it is that Hillary her ownself and her supporters--like you, Lanny--are the first ones to play the gender card.

There is no limit to the amount of hypocrisy in which Hillary and her campaign will engage in order to win.

Superdelegates, arrogance, and hypocrisy from Hillary

Overview

People with low bullshit tolerance levels should proceed with caution as this post could send you into a rage.

Hillary is all about enforcing the rules on superdelegates even while she is criticizing rules that diminish the effect of voting, being arrogant, and dismissing the results of voting and caucusing.

Arrogance

Let's begin with the arrogance. As reported by CNN on February 11--after Hillary got her lunch handed to her in several caucuses again--Hillary thinks the democratic process known as the caucus is irrelevant:

Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

Oh, those damn activists! If only we could rid the world of those evil bastards...Seriously, let's look at the meaning of "activist." From The Free Dictionary comes this definition: "A proponent or practitioner of activism." And "Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social or political change."

Hmmm...Isn't "change" what this primary is about? It sure has been the theme of Obama's campaign, and once that theme started resonating with the public (that is, the electorate), Hillary decided to make it a theme of her campaign, too. And yet now she is complaining about and dismissing the people who, by definition are trying to bring about social and political change.

Wait--I was not specific enough. Hillary is dismissing the activists because apparently they don't agree with her. Obviously, the "change" sought by the activists is not the sort of "change" Hillary wants (which, by the way, consists primarily of Hillary being in charge). And since Hillary knows that the activists do not represent the electorate, she obviously knows better the activists what "change" is best. Bless their hearts.

But this goes beyond "activists." See, if you want change but do not vote for Hillary, then--according to Hillary--you do not represent the electorate. In other words, Hillary thinks that anyone who disagrees with her is wrong and irrelevant. That is arrogance.

Think I am overstating the case? Well, think again. Mark Penn, Hillary's chief campaign adviser and strategist, said the following on February 14, 2008:

Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states--outside of Illinois?

Wow, I'm sure all the people in all those states that Obama won--even those that voted for Hillary--are happy to know that they live in "insignificant" states. That's arrogant and dismissive and stupid. But let's get back to people who disagree with Hillary. Penn was in effect saying that all the people who voted for and will vote for Obama are "insignificant." In other words, all those people are not as important or as smart as Hillary and those who voted for her. That is arrogance, and that goes beyond criticizing only "activists."

And Penn is not the only top Hillary staffer to make such a ridiculous and insulting claim. Harold Ickes, a longtime, big time Dem party operative and Hillary ally, is in charge of the superdelegate portion of Hillary's campaign. There will be more to say about Ickes, but for now let's focus on these statements:

"Hillary will end up with more automatic delegates (superdelegates) than Obama," Ickes said, and the number of elections won by Obama is "irrelevant to the obligations of (superdelegates)."

Recall that Hillary's campaign is based heavily on superdelegates rather than pledged delegates awarded through primaries and caucuses (the democratic methods, by the way). When that fact is combined with Ickes's statements, it is clear that the delegates Obama received through elections--and thus the people who voted for him--are irrelevant as far as Hillary is concerned. In other words, if you don't vote for Hillary, she considers you to be irrelevant. And that is arrogance.

Dismissing the results of voting and caucusing

The preceding section also clearly shows that if results do not go Hillary's way, she and her supporters are completely dismissive of what the electorate has to say. According to Hillary and her top staffers, anyone who does not vote for her does not represent the electorate, is not significant, and is irrelevant.

Not only is that arrogant and dismissive, it is downright stupid. As I have said--and will continue to say--any Democrat who wants to win the Presidency is going to have to get some Republican and Independents votes. That of course assumes that such a candidate will get all the Democrats' votes. Now, how smart is it for a possible Democratic candidate for the general election to dismiss and downright insult all the Democrats who did not vote for her in the primary season? For you Hillary supporters who are high on the Kool Aid, I will go ahead and give you the answer: it is stupid as hell.

Diminishing the effect of voting and caucusing

And now we get to the real heart of the matter, namely that Hillary does not care what the electorate thinks or says. Hillary does not care about the results of democratic processes. Why? There are two reasons. First, as explained above, Hillary believes that anyone who does not vote for her is irrelevant and wrong. Secondly, she is going to try to use superdelegates to defeat the voice of the electorate.

I have already covered this to some degree in this post. Part of that discussion contains this quote from the Boston Globe:

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

In other words, if the actual democratic, direct means by which the electorate decides the distribution of pledged delegates has Hillary behind Obama, Hillary will try to use the superdelegates to defeat the publicly expressed will of the electorate. Hillary isn't running for President--she's trying to become Commissar Clinton.

But why would Hillary's campaign seek to thwart the will of the electorate? Well, we already ready that she considers people who don't vote for her to be stupid and irrelevant. And, as Ickes said, superdelegates "have a sense of what it takes to get elected," and "are as much or more in touch than delegates won or recruited by presidential campaigns." In other words, not only is Hillary smarter than the electorate, so are the superdelegates, most of whom owe their superdelegate status to the same electorate.

If you are a member of the electorate and you did not or will not vote for Hillary, she considers you to be stupid, out of touch, irrelevant, and insignificant, AND she will use the superdelegates--who she considers to be be your superiors in every way--to save you from yourselves.

Conclusion

Hillary complains that the caucuses are not democratic and yet she has declared her intention to use superdelegates to overturn the results of actual elections and caucuses. For you Hillary supporters: Is this really the type of person you want as President?

Does anyone fail to see the abject hypocrisy and power-mad arrogance of such a position? If so, you are in desperate need of pulling your head out of your ass. Think I am being too harsh? Then feel free to explain how Hillary is not being anti-democratic.

I dare you.

2 for 1 special: Hillary's campaign being negative AND hypocritical

http://faboomama.wordpress.com/2008/02/23/oh-snap/

I am oh so surprised.

This incident is just another example showing that Hillary is no different than George W. Bush.

Let's talk about superdelegates.

Overview

The role of superdelegates is the subject of much controversy and gnashing of teeth in the Democratic Party these days. The biggest potential problem is not just that superdelegates could decide who gets the nomination. The biggest potential problem is that the superdelegates could basically render meaningless the primary and caucus process.

My take? I think the superdelegate system is basically bullshit, but it is part of the overall rules, so there should be no effort to change the rules this late in the game.

What and who are superdelegates, and why do they exist?

This section is in large part a reiteration from an earlier post, but I will add some more info.

As the New York Times succinctly stated, superdelegates "are free to cast their votes at the convention as they see fit." In the terminology of the DNC Delegate Selection Rules, these people are known as "unpledged delegates."

The Delegate Selection Rules delineate some specific people who are superdelegates. These would be the "Party Leaders and Elected Officials" delegates. The name alone shows that these superdelegates are "establishment." Just to make that point clear, those listed as among this group are: DNC members; all Democratic members of Congress; all Democratic governors; and "All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee."

The Delegate Selection Rules also allow for the selection of unpledged "add-on" delegates, or superdelegates who are not elected officials or DNC members. As explained on the Democratic National Convention website, "add-on" delegates are selected by the processes already established by the state party organizations for electing delegates. What this means is that someone really needs to have connections within the party to become an add-on delegate, and that means one needs to have some "establishment" connections.

One of the problems I have with this superdelgate system is that there is no limit on the number of possible superdelegates. As I read the Delegate Selection Rules, it is possible for more superdelegates to be created by each state's party organization.

But just what is the purpose of having superdelegates? Here's an answer from U.S. News:

Superdelegates came about in 1982 because party leaders wanted to exercise more control over the nomination process. Having superdelegates would ensure that members of the Democratic Party had some weight in case the Democratic voters picked a dud, as they did in 1972 when anti-Vietnam War liberal Sen. George McGovern won the nomination and not much else. They would also prevent another Jimmy Carter, whom party leaders viewed as an ineffective president because Carter wasn't friendly with the major figures in the party, according to (Northeastern University political science Prof. William) Mayer. They hoped to force candidates like Carter to get to know the party during the nomination fight and therefore build up loyalty before taking office.

"They were a bit controversial when they were put into effect," says Mayer. "In a party that is obsessed with an appearance of democracy, they give more power to party leaders...the Democrats are not an obvious party to endorse those kinds of ideas."

(emphasis added). Two quick asides...In 1972, who else would have done better in the general election than McGovern? As for Carter, I have long felt that a major reason he was largely ineffective as President was because the Democrats in Congress actively worked against him. Now, back to the matter at hand. Basically superdelegates were created so that the Party leaders could impose their desires instead of letting the electorate make the choice. That's what I call bullshit. Why bother to have public elections of any kind if there the party "establishment" can effectively negate those elections?

What will happen with the superdelegates?

Who knows? As a practical matter, the superdelegates might not exercise their power in such a way as to thwart the popular will as expressed in the primaries and caucuses. I would certainly hope that would be the case--even if Hillary manages to regain the lead in pledged delegates by the time of the convention. Having a relatively small group of establishment players determine a "democratic" process in a most non-democratic fashion could spell disaster for the Democratic Party for years to come.

So, what should be done about superdelegates in 2008?

In my opinion, nothing. The superdelegate system was an established part of the process when this campaign started, and all the candidates knew about it. Changing the rules this late in the game is a bad idea.

As a lawyer, I have developed a certain perspective on matters similar to this. That perspective has come about as a result of practical observations and a little thing known as "due process." Even a brief discussion of "due process" would be too long for the purposes of this post, so I will describe my perspective as follows. In describing the judicial system, I tell people that while I certainly have complaints about some rules, I feel that our judicial system has the capability of being fair and reaching a high level of justice if the keepers of the rules (judges) play by the rules and enforce those rules uniformly. To make an extremely long story short, many times just the opposite happens. When rules are officially changed, such changes take place over time. They are not made hastily. Thus, the process is designed to have some fairness and uniformity. When rules are changed quickly and in the middle of the game, 1) the chances of achieving uniformity and fairness are reduced, and 2) the chances for abuse and distortion of the system increase. Consequently, I am in favor of keeping the existing rules, even though I think those rules are basically bullshit. Changing the rules at this point might resolve some problems, but it would create others that could have long-term and adverse effects.

Changing the rules about superdelegates at this stage is not a good idea. Requiring superdelegates to vote in accordance with how pledged delegates are distributed--as some have advocated--would constitute a major change very late in the process, and I am against that, even though it would hurt Hillary and help Obama at this point.

And now for a key concept: everyone should accept and abide by the rules that have been established through a long and open process. And that means that Obama and Hillary should abide by ALL the rules governing this campaign.

As will be shown in subsequent posts, Hillary is all about enforcing the rules that benefit her and disregarding the rules that do not benefit her.

Speaking of Texas, Hillary just realized something important...

...and the fact that she did not know it before now shows that she is not ready to handle much of anything on "day one" or any other day.

Thanks to Eric Kleefield at TPM Election Central for making me aware of this story. Here's the story in a nutshell: the Hillary campaign just recently discovered that the selection of approximately one third (according to the Washington Post) of delegates in Texas is done through local caucuses held on election night after the polls close. What that means is that any win for Hillary in the primary might not yield as many delegates as the Hillary campaign first thought.

These people are either amazingly stupid, frighteningly lazy, or just too arrogant to think they have to know the rules--or all of the above.

I am not anywhere close to being an active player in party politics, and even I knew that A) local caucuses are held on election night, B) those caucuses have a role in selecting some of the delegates, and C) delegates to the National Convention are finalized at the State Convention. I knew these things even before I tried to read the official Texas Democratic Party Delegate Selection Plan, which was published in August 2007. When I tried reading through those rules last week, I quickly got a case of tired head, but even a cursory review of the rules would plainly show anyone that not all of the delegates would be apportioned according to the primary vote. An even plainer explanation appears in a brochure about the process:

Texas will hold a presidential primary on Tuesday, March 4, 2008. The Primary will be open to any registered Texas voter who does not vote in another party’s primary and who does not attend another party’s political convention.

A total of 126 delegate positions (three-quarters of the base delegation) will be distributed to presidential candidates based on the results of the primary. Forty-two delegate positions (one-quarter of the base delegation) will be distributed based on the number of people attending the party’s conventions. The delegates themselves will be elected at our State Convention June 6-7, 2008, in Austin.

[NOTE: I believe that the "base delegation" does not include superdelegates.] And despite the facts that 1) this explanation existed 2) back in August 2007, the Hillary campaign just now figured this out.

I am going to reiterate something I said in Yet another way Hillary is like Bush: loyalty trumps competence and judgment, but with a few changes. Knowing how a state selects its delegates is nowhere near as difficult or important as the issues that a President must face every day. And yet, knowing how a state selects its delegates is rather crucial to a campaign for the Presidency. If Hillary puts together a campaign that can't or doesn't bother to find out such information that is crucial to the campaign and yet nowhere near as important as issues a President faces in office, how can anyone think she can make a good President?

Let me put this matter another way. If Hillary's "35 years of experience" cannot enable her to put together a campaign that knows such basic campaign matters, those "35 years" damn sure are not going to help her as President.

The latest polls from Texas

Time to go back to this site and check out the latest polls from Texas. Since my previous post on the Texas primary, Obama has gained even more ground in the polls. Remember that the poll mentioned in the previous post noted that Hillary held a 51%-17% lead in December. Here's a rundown of three of the polls.

• Survey USA

Date: February 19

Hillary 50%
Obama 45%
Unsure 2%
Other 3%

There are some aspects of this poll that I find particularly interesting. First of all, Hillary leads among Hispanics 65% to 32%. True, this is a 2 to 1 margin, but go back and take a look at the poll discussed in my earlier post. That poll showed that in December Hillary led among Hispanics 70% to 7% and that the gap was 60% to 29% at the end of January. The Survey USA poll was conducted about three weeks later. It will bear watching for later polls to see if Obama makes any gains among Hispanics.

The poll also shows that 59% of Republicans would rather vote for Obama over Hillary (37%), and that 60% of Independents would vote for Obama over Hillary (32%). These results go directly to the issue of electability. As I have said repeatedly, any Democrat who wants to be President has to get some Republican and Independent votes, and in Texas, that Democrat is Obama, not Hillary.

• CNN/Opinion Research Corporation
  

Date: February 15-17

Hillary 50%
Obama 48%
Unsure 2%

• Texas Credit Union League

Date: February 11-13

Hillary 49%
Obama 41%
Refused 1%
Unsure 8%
Other 1%

After Obama's win in Wisconsin (58% to 41%) and probable win in Hawaii, I wonder what any subsequent Texas polls will show...

Yet another way Hillary is like Bush: loyalty trumps competence and judgment

Thanks to Kevin Drum for his post which alerted me to this topic.

"This topic" is specifically about the dismissal of Hillary's now former campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle. However, in a more general sense, the topic is about another way in which Hillary is just like George W. Bush.

The source for this analysis is an article on The Atlantic's website by Joshua Green entitled "Inside the Clinton Shake-Up." The entire article is worth a read, and I plan on discussing almost all of it in other posts.

This post, however, will focus on just a few excerpts. Green discusses the arrogance displayed by Hillary's campaign in general. In his opinion it is

an arrogance that I think is the key to understanding all that has gone wrong for the Clinton campaign.

Such arrogance led directly to the idea that Clinton could simply project an air of inevitability and be assured her party’s nomination. If she wins—as she very well might—it will be in spite of her original approach.

I agree (what a shock!). I complained about this back in August after Hillary ran her first TV ad, in which she kept mentioning Bush. I said "This ad's invocation of Bush also shows a real arrogance to me because Hillary is acting like she has already won the nomination. It gives the appearance that she has already ordained herself to be the nominee." But enough about me for the moment. Let's get to the heart of the matter.

No one could have predicted Barack Obama’s sudden rise, though the Clinton campaign was slower to recognize it than most. Solis Doyle’s failure is another matter. As much as Clinton touts her own “executive experience” and judgment, she made Solis Doyle her campaign manager because of Solis Doyle’s loyalty, rather than her skill, despite a trail of available evidence suggesting she was unsuited for the role.

(emphasis added). Please, dude. Get it right--it's 35 years of experience. ;-)

Anyhoo, Green provides plenty of detail of problems with Solis Doyle and then describes some of the unsuccessful efforts by those around Hillary to get rid of Solis Doyle.

Concerns about Solis Doyle have preoccupied many in the campaign for several years. Clinton insiders say that her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, launched an unsuccessful bid to remove Solis Doyle while on vacation with the Clintons two years ago. Two top campaign officials told me that Maggie Williams, Hillary’s former chief of staff (and, as of Sunday, her campaign manager), also sought and failed to have Solis Doyle removed two years ago. Last year, some of Bill Clinton’s former advisers, known as the "White Boys," lobbied to oust her, too.

But because of Solis Doyle’s proximity to Hillary Clinton, because she demonstrated the loyalty and discretion Clinton so prized, and because no one appeared capable of challenging Clinton’s presumed status as the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, nothing was done. "What Patti has that is real power is the unquestioned trust and confidence of the candidate," Paul Begala, a veteran of Bill Clinton’s campaigns, explained in an on-the-record interview last year. "That makes her bulletproof."

And as all this was going on, and as Obama was gaining on Hillary, what did she do?

Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else.

And then Green hits the bullseye:

This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president’s than her supporters might like to admit.

BINGO! I will keep saying this over and over: Hillary Clinton is just like George W. Bush. That is the main reason why no one should vote for her. It's not about policy. It's about character and personality. Hillary operates the same way as Bush, and she will do that if she is elected. Not only will she reward loyalty, I am telling you now that if she is elected President, one of the first things she will do is set out to get "revenge" on anyone who did not support her or that she feels has wronged her in any way.

I have said repeatedly (here, here, here, here, and here) that this campaign has shown that Hillary is not as smart as people think and that she lacks good judgment. Green's reporting confirms that and provides more evidence. Choosing a campaign manager is nowhere near as difficult or important as the issues that a President must face every day. If Hillary can't show good judgment regarding a campaign manager, how can anyone think she can make a good President?

Let me put this matter another way. If Hillary's "35 years of experience" cannot enable her to pick an effective campaign manager, those "35 years" damn sure are not going to help her as President.

We are almost at the end of eight years of having a President who places loyalty above all other considerations and who lacks good judgment. We damn sure don't need another.

A recent Hillogism: Obama is the "establishment" candidate. (Part 3: Superdelegates)

Overview

"Superdelegates" are people who are delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are free to vote any way they choose at the Convention. "Pledged delegates" are determined before the Convention, and they are bound to cast their vote in a predetermined way. Given that the race for the nomination is so close, there is a very real possibility that the race will be determined by the superdelegates. Hillary currently has more superdelegates, and her campaign has said it is relying heavily on the support of those superdelegates. And superdelegates are definitely "establishment."

Refer to Part 1 or 2.1 for the definitions of "establishment."

What and who are superdelegates?

As the New York Times succinctly stated, superdelegates "are free to cast their votes at the convention as they see fit." In the terminology of the DNC Delegate Selection Rules, these people are known as "unpledged delegates."

The Delegate Selection Rules delineate some specific people who are superdelegates. These would be the "Party Leaders and Elected Officials" delegates. The name alone shows that these superdelegates are "establishment." Just to make that point clear, those listed as among this group are: DNC members; all Democratic members of Congress; all Democratic governors; and "All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee."

The Delegate Selection Rules also allow for the selection of unpledged "add-on" delegates, or superdelegates who are not elected officials or DNC members. As explained on the Democratic National Convention website, "add-on" delegates are selected by the processes already established by the state party organizations for electing delegates. What this means is that someone really needs to have connections within the party to become an add-on delegate, and that means one needs to have some "establishment" connections.

The bottom line is that superdelegates are without a doubt "establishment."

Hillary loves her some superdelegates.

Right after Super Tuesday, Obama suggested that superdelegates should follow the results from their state's primary or caucus. On Feb. 8, he backed off that position a bit, saying that

The question for those not yet committed and the superdelegates that are still out there … trying to make up their minds -- my strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the county that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters. And you know, I think that should be the guiding approach to determine who would be the nominee. I think it's also important for the superdelegates to think about who will be in the strongest to beat John McCain in November and who will be the strongest to make sure that we are broadening the base, bring people who historically have not involved in politics into the fold.

Hillary responded as follows:

Superdelegates are by design supposed to exercise independent judgment, that is the way the system works. If Sen. Obama and his campaign continue to push this position which is really contrary to what the definition of a super delegate has historically been then I look forward to receiving the support of Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry.

I have to give credit to Hillary for the line about Kennedy and Kerry. That was a valid point. However, let's look a little deeper.

Hillary had at that time (Feb. 8) a very good reason for not wanting superdelegates to vote in accordance with the primary or caucus results, namely that Obama had won more of those contests. As of today, his lead in that respect has increased.

Hillary had another reason for her position. As CNN reported on February 9, "According to the most recent CNN count, Hillary Clinton has the support of 223 superdelegates, and Barack Obama has the support of 131." On February 12, CNN reported that the totals were 234 and 156, respectively.

And the Hillary campaign has made it clear that it is relying heavily on superdelegates. As reported by the Boston Globe yesterday,

Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,'' Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.

"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,'' he added.

Contrary to what Wolfson said, Hillary has made distinctions between delegates from primaries and those from caucuses, but that's another topic for another post. The point of this post is that Hillary is relying heavily on superdelegates. That means that she is relying heavily on the "establishment." And that means her claims that Obama is running an "establishment" campaign are laughable.

A recent Hillogism: Obama is the "establishment" candidate. (Part 2.1: Hillary's lobbyists)

Introduction

This post is a continuation of the previous one and will examine the "establishment" credentials of the many of the people listed by the group Public Citizen as being lobbyist bundlers for Hillary. What I am going to show here is that these people are big time "establishment." Given that objective, I will discuss some of the people that I did not name as actually being currently registered federal lobbyists. What I am trying to do here is discredit Hillary's claim that she is not "establishment."

Reminder of meaning of "establishment"

Merriam-Webster defines the term as "an established order of society...a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class[.]"

Another definition is "A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society."

A little background on lobbying firms

According to opensecrets.org, among the top 20 lobbying firms in 2007 were Patton Boggs (1), Akin Gump (2), and DLA Piper(15). Opensecrets.org also has a list of the top 20 firms since 1998, and that list includes Patton Boggs (1), Akin Gump (3), Greenberg Traurig (9), and Washington Group (18).

Details on Hillary's bundlers

For the most part, the following information came from the websites of the firms for whom these people work.

• Matthew Bernstein

Bernstein is a partner at DLA Piper.

He regularly represents corporate, government, and non-profit clients before Congress, the executive branch, and state governments, and works closely with the firm’s international attorneys and government affairs specialists on international public policy matters.

*******

Prior to joining the firm, Mac worked in the United States Senate as Legislative Assistant to Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) and in the United States House of Representatives as a Professional Staff Member of the House Banking Committee.

Mac is active in Democratic Party politics.

Establishment.

• James J. Blanchard

Blanchard is also a partner at DLA Piper.

Governor James Blanchard joined the firm upon the conclusion of his duties as United States ambassador to Canada in April, 1996. In recognition of his outstanding performance, Secretary of State Warren Christopher presented Governor Blanchard with the Foreign Affairs Award for Public Service in a ceremony at the Department of State, making him one of only a handful of ambassadors to receive this prestigious award.

Mr. Blanchard was named ambassador to Canada in May 1993, after serving two terms as governor of Michigan (1983-1991) and four terms as a member of the United States Congress (1975-1983). In 1992, he chaired President Bill Clinton's successful campaign in Michigan. Governor Blanchard is also former chairman of the Democratic Governors Association and the National Democratic Platform Committee, as well as a former member of the National Governors Association's executive committee.

Establishment--with close ties to the Clintons.

• Timothy A. Chorba

Chorba is a partner at Patton Boggs. He was the ambassador to Indonesia during Clinton administration.

Establishment--with close ties to the Clintons.

• Geraldine A. Ferraro

Ferraro is a principal at Blank Rome.

Ms. Ferraro earned a place in history as the first woman vice-presidential candidate on a national party ticket. She was first elected to Congress from New York’s Ninth Congressional District in Queens in 1978 and served three terms in the House of Representatives. Her committee assignments in Congress included the Public Works Committee, Post Office and Civil Service Committee, and Budget Committee. Ms. Ferraro also served on the Select Committee on Aging.

From 1996 - 1998, Ms. Ferraro was a co-host of Crossfire, a political interview program, on CNN. She was also a partner in the CEO Perspective Group, a consulting firm which advises top executives. In 1994, she was appointed the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission by President Clinton and served in that position through 1996. She served as a public delegate to the Commission in February 1993 and was also the alternate United States delegate to the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in June 1993 and Vice-Chair of the U.S. Delegation at the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing, September 1995.

Establishment.

• Gordon D. Giffin

Giffin is a partner at McKenna Long & Aldridge.

From August 1997 to April 2001, Ambassador Giffin served as the nineteenth U.S. Ambassador to Canada [that's during the Clinton administration and after Blanchard].

*******

From 1975-1979, he was Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to U.S. Senator Sam Nunn in Washington, DC.

Establishment--with close ties to the Clintons.

• Matthew A. Gorman

Gorman works at Fabiani & Company.

Mr. Gorman arrived at Blaylock and Partners from the U.S. Department of Treasury where he was the Director of the Office of Business Liaison for five years. Serving in that role, he provided guidance and management strategy to senior Treasury officials in support of the Department’s priorities affecting the interests of the business community. He worked closely with Treasury Secretaries Lloyd Bentsen and Robert Rubin by communicating government policy to Chief Executive Officers, Chief Financial Officers and other senior executives of corporations, associations, and financial groups. While there, he developed a broad knowledge of U.S. economic and tax policy as well as financial institution regulations, international trade policy and homeland security issues.

Before his government service, Mr. Gorman was one of the first three professional staff on President Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, arriving in Little Rock, Arkansas in August of 1991. In addition, he worked for then-Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and the Democratic Governors’ Association.

Establishment--with close ties to the Clintons.

• Reta Jo Lewis

Lewis is an attorney at Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge.

Reta Jo Lewis has more than two decades of experience in public policy, government affairs, politics and law. Reta's practice focuses on providing government relations and strategic counsel to corporations, trade associations, individuals and non-profit organizations before Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies and municipal governments.

*******

During the Clinton Administration, Lewis was named Special Assistant to the President for Political Affairs, acting as the Clinton Administration’s political advocate to federal, state and local elected officials, constituency groups and opinion leaders during 1993-1995.

*******

Lewis is a recognized Democrat strategist, frequent speaker on political issues, with a special expertise on women national and international political participation.

*******

She has worked at the highest levels of national politics and is a veteran of state, congressional, and six presidential campaigns.

Establishment--with close ties to the Clintons.

• Garry Mauro

From Wikipedia:

At 34, he was elected to the statewide office of Texas Land Commissioner. Despite being targeted for defeat by the state Republican Party, he was re-elected four times.

Mauro became the longest serving Land Commissioner in Texas history.

*******

After leaving office in 1999, he was appointed to the Fannie Mae Board of Directors by President Bill Clinton.

In 1992, he served as the Texas State Chairman for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign. He took on the same role in 1996 for Clinton-Gore, in 2000 for Al Gore (as a co-chairman) and in 2004 for Dick Gephardt. He currently serves as the Texas State Director for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Establishment--with close ties to the Clintons.

• John Merrigan

Merrigan is a partner at DLA Piper.

Mr. Merrigan also participates actively in a variety of capacities within the National Democratic Party. From 1996 until 2000, he served as chairman of the Democratic Business Council, the leading forum for business interests within the Democratic National Party. From 2002 through 2004 he served as Middle Atlantic Finance chairman in the Kerry for President Campaign.

Establishment.

• Heather Miller Podesta

Podesta is the head of her own firm, Heather Podesta & Partners.

Most recently, Podesta provided legal and legislative counsel to health care, high tech, education, telecommunications, and financial services clients, as a partner at Blank Rome LLP and a principal at Blank Rome Government Relations LLC. Prior to that, she worked for several U.S. Members of Congress on the tax writing committees, including the late Representative Robert Matsui (D-CA), as tax and trade counsel; Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), as legislative counsel on tax, trade, and pension policy; and Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ), as legislative aide on trade and transportation issues. Podesta has also served as Assistant General Counsel at the Air Transport Association and General Counsel at the Airlines Clearing House.

Podesta is an active Democratic organizer and political adviser to many elected officials in Washington, DC and in state capitals across the nation.

Establishment.

• Steve Ricchetti

Ricchetti is one of the owners of Ricchetti, Inc.

A former deputy chief of staff for President Bill Clinton, Ricchetti worked in the White House throughout both terms. In 2001, he founded Ricchetti Inc., which CRP records show made almost $2.4 million last year.

More than 40 percent of his clients come from the pharmaceutical and hospital industries, such as Pfizer, Eli Lilly and the American Hospital Association.

Establishment--with close ties to the Clintons.

• Thomas L. Siebert

Siebert is a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig.

* U.S. Ambassador to Sweden, 1994-1998

* Chairman, International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference, 1998

* ITU is the United Nations' specialized agency devoted to telecommunications matters and is the highest decision-making body made up of representatives of governments belonging to an international treaty-making organization.

* Responsible for chairing plenary session and the Conference Steering Committee, maintaining control of meetings, working closely with the ITU's Secretary General and staff.

Establishment--with close ties to the Clintons.

• Richard Sullivan

Sullivan is a partner with Capitol Counsel.

Prior to joining Capitol Counsel, Mr. Sullivan was senior vice president of the Washington Group, a Washington, D.C. government relations firm. There he advised clients on all aspects of the federal policymaking process, including the impact of electoral politics on policy and policymaking.

Before working with the Washington Group, Mr. Sullivan served as finance director for the Democratic unity ’98 campaign under co-chairs Senate minority leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and House minority leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO). From 1994-1996, Mr. Sullivan served as national finance director for the Democratic National Committee. In that position, Mr. Sullivan became a senior member of the Clinton/Gore reelection campaign and worked closely with President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and senior members of their administration. USA Today called Mr. Sullivan, “one of the fresh, new generation of young leaders of the massive Clinton campaign effort.”

From 1991-1993, Mr. Sullivan served as national fundraising director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) under committee chairs Senator Charles Robb (D-VA) and Bob Graham (D-FL). From 1987-1991, Mr. Sullivan served as special assistant to House majority leader Gephardt. In that position, Mr. Sullivan helped formulate strategic policy for the House Democratic caucus and also served as liaison to Democratic business supporters.

Mr. Sullivan served on the fundraising leadership team of the Kerry for President campaign. He served as finance chair for the Gephardt for President campaign. He also served as co-finance chairman of the DSCC in 2002, chairman of the 2002 DSCC kick-off national gala, and DSCC chairman for the 2000 Democratic national convention.

Establishment--with close ties to the Clintons.

• Jose H. Villarreal

Villarreal is a partner at Akin Gump.

Mr. Villarreal is frequently called upon by corporate executives to offer strategic counseling in dealing with the United States Congress and executive branch agencies of the United States government. He also works closely with public officials at all levels of government.

Prior to joining Akin Gump, Mr. Villarreal served as an assistant attorney general in the Public Finance Division of the Texas attorney general’s office, where he was responsible for reviewing and approving public finance transactions. As a public finance lawyer, Mr. Villarreal represented a broad range of governmental subdivisions, financial advisors and investment banks in the issuance of public debt.

Mr. Villarreal has a broad political background as well and has served in senior roles in a number of presidential campaigns, including, most recently, as co-chair of the Kerry-Edwards Campaign. In 2000 he served as national treasurer of the Gore-Lieberman presidential campaign and in 1992 he served as deputy campaign manager of the Clinton-Gore presidential campaign. Following the 1992 campaign, he served as associate director in the White House Office of Presidential Personnel.

Establishment--with close ties to the Clintons.

Conclusion

These people have held positions within the upper levels of governement and/or been very active in the uppermost levels of Democratic Party politics. That makes them establishment.

And in case you are wondering why I emphasized "close ties with the Clintons," just keep in mind that 1) Bill--and Hillary, since she has been emphasizing this in her campaign--spent eight years in the White House at the top of the establishment food chain; 2) since leaving office Bill has been seen by many as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party; and 3) Hillary has been a U.S. Senator for six years.

Folks, you can't get more "establishment" than that. And perhaps that is the biggest reason why the Hillogism that Obama is "establishment" while Hillary is not is downright Hill-arious.

Coming up in Part 3--superdelegates.

Bill's former campaign manager to endorse Obama.

Well, this is a bit interesting, eh?

Feb. 13, 2008, 10:29AM
Bill Clinton campaign chief backs Obama

By PHILIP ELLIOTT Associated Press Writer
© 2008 The Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The man who served as national manager of former President Clinton's 1992 campaign plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama, an aide to Obama said Wednesday.

Obama's campaign planned a 1 p.m. conference call Wednesday to announce the endorsement by David Wilhelm, who later became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, according to an aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement would be made public later in the day.

Wilhelm planned to tell reporters that Obama can build a coalition of Democrats, independents and Republicans needed to win the general election.

Wilhelm is a superdelegate who was previously uncommitted in the race. His endorsement helps Obama in the race for delegates, in which he pulled ahead after Tuesday's sweeps of primaries in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Clinton remains considerably ahead in superdelegates, which are party officials, elected officials and others who can vote however they choose at the nominating convention.

If the race for pledged delegates based on outcomes in caucuses and primaries across the country remains tight, superdelegates could decide the nomination.

Obama leads the delegate race with 1,224 to 1,198 to Clinton, according to the latest count by The Associated Press.

A recent Hillogism: Obama is the "establishment" candidate. (Part 2: Lobbyists as big fundraisers)

Introduction

Check Part 1 for the content of this "Obama is the establishment candidate" Hillogism and definitions of "establishment."

Part 2 will examine Hillary's lobbyist connections. Given the levels of access and influence that the lobbying industry has achieved in the last 15 years, I consider lobbyists part of the "establishment." Lobbyists represent the big companies and industries that definitely are "establishment," and lobbying itself has become a prominent industry.

Hillary has among her big fundraisers some big time lobbyists, and Obama...perhaps not so much.

Hillary's defense of lobbyists

Back in August 2007, a get together known as Yearly Kos was held. This event is basically a gathering of the lefty blogosphere. All of the Democratic candidates were there, and at a session where they were all present, the discussion turned toward campaign financing in general and money from lobbyists in particular. After Edwards and Obama said they would no longer accept money from lobbyists, the moderator asked Hillary if she would continue to accept contributions from lobbyists, she answered with a firm "Yes, I will." She went on to explain that "You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans." And then, Hillary spokesman Phil Singer (remember him?) put everyone's minds at ease by explaining that Hillary "is committed to 'real lobbying reform' and simply skipping lobbyists' donations 'is not going to result in change.'" There is another Hillogism in there--"I'm going to make lobbyists change by taking their money." Yeah, right.

And why would Hillary defend lobbyists?

Back in August 2007, Hillary had to come up with some sort of defense of lobbyists, and not just because she was accepting contributions directly from them. In the fund raising game, people who work to bring in numerous other contributors are known as "bundlers." A bundler might, for instance, organize a party for a candidate and make sure that the invitees have money and can be persuaded to give money to the candidate. Some of Hillary's bundlers--"Hillraisers"-- are lobbyists. These "Hillraisers" have pledged to bring in large amounts of cash for the campaign (at least $100,000). And by the way, "Hillraiser" is a term used by Hillary's campaign. Calling Dr. Freud. I keep thinking there is some quote attributed to Freud that might fit here, but I just can't seem to remember it...Anyhoo, back to the Hillraisers. In August of 2007, some of the Hillraisers were big time lobbyists. As Newsweek reported, the watchdog group Public Citizen found that some of those lobbyists included:

Matthew Bernstein (whose client list includes Raytheon and Merrill Lynch), James Blanchard (Bristol-Myers and an Indian gaming tribe), Steve Ricchetti (Eli Lilly and General Motors), Richard Sullivan (Delta and Freddie Mac) and John Merrigan (Starwood Hotels).

And Hillary's lobbyists had brought in a good chunk of change by August 2007:

Figures compiled by another group, the Center for Responsive Politics, find Clinton has raised $668,250 from registered lobbyists and "government relations" officers—far more than any of the other presidential candidates, including the GOP contenders (who openly seek lobbyists' cash).

That figure differs from a current report by the Center for Responsive Politics based on reporting by the candidates through January 7, 2008, and those figures show that Hillary has received $627,800 from lobbyists, while Obama has received $80,409. I am not sure of the methodology used in obtaining these figures. For instance, I do not know if contributions made by people who were not registered as lobbyists in 2007 were included.

Another report and a comparison of the findings for Hillary and Obama

• General findings of report
  

Public Citizen has a separate site dedicated to campaign finance called White House for Sale, which published another study of lobbyists in campaigns on January 29, 2008. Before discussing the report's findings, I will comment on its methodology. The report lists the lobbyists who are bundlers for each candidate. However, some of those listed are not currently acting as lobbyists. The report includes anyone who was a registered lobbyist at anytime since 1998. With that in mind, the report lists 20 lobbyist bundlers for Hillary and 10 for Obama.

• Notes about my research

I thought I would be able to find a simple, accurate list of currently registered federal lobbyists. I have been thwarted mightily in that effort. If such a list exists, please feel free to direct me to it.

Instead what I found was a mish mash of information. The official federal government records can be found by searching the database of the Senate Office of Public Records (SOPR). There is an instruction page on how to search the database. There is plenty of info available on the site, but as of right now, there is nothing from which to determine if anyone is a registered lobbyist as of this date. Then again, it is within the realm of possibility that I simply failed to find such info. It is also possible that such records will be available as they are filed by the mandatory reporting dates. For instance, not all mandatory reports by lobbyists on activity in 2007 have been filed.

In any event, I tried some other sources. One source was another part of Public Citizen, LobbyingInfo.org. Another source was LobbySearch.com.

I have tried to determine whether a given person was a registered federal lobbyist in 2007 and/or is currently a registered federal lobbyist. Since the SOPR has the official government records, I used inclusion in the SOPR database for 2007 as my primary consideration. In other words, if a person is not shown in the SOPR database as having lobbied in 2007, for purposes of this post, I am not considering that person to be a bundler AND a lobbyist. However, since the SOPR does not have any records for 2008, I used the other two sources as a possible indicator that a person is still a registered lobbyist as of this date.

• Findings as to Obama
  

The Obama campaign issued a statement that none of the people listed are currently registered as lobbyists. However, one person, Miriam Sapiro, was not mentioned in the Obama statement. However, the SOPR database contains a notice of termination of Sapiro's lobbyist status on July 30, 2007. Also, one other person, Thomas A. Reed, was named as a lobbyist in a document dated August 10, 2007, but another document dated August 13, 2007, shows that his lobbyist status was being terminated. None of the others listed were registered as lobbyists in 2007 according to the SOPR database.

None of the ten were listed on LobbyingInfo.org. Four were listed on LobbySearch.com. The statement from the Obama campaign said that none of these four were registered as lobbyists in 2007. My review of the SOPR records confirms that assertion as to three, and the one exception would be Reed (as discussed above). However, not all reports are in for 2007, so the SOPR will need to be checked again.

• Findings as to Hillary

Of the 20 names listed, the SOPR currently has records that 12 of them were registered lobbyists in 2007. Again, the SOPR will need to be checked again as more reports for 2007 are filed. The 12 are:

• Matthew Bernstein
• James J. Blanchard
• Geraldine Ferraro
• Gordon D. Giffin
• Matthew A. Gorman
• Patricia L. Lynch
• Garry Mauro
• John Merrigan
• Heather Miller Podesta
• Steve Ricchetti
• Richard Sullivan
• Jose H. Villarreal

Of those 12, 8 were also listed on both LobbySearch.com and LobbyingInfo.org (Bernstein, Blanchard, Ferraro, Giffin, Gorman, Merrigan, Podesta, and Ricchetti). Three were listed also on either LobbySearch.com or LobbyingInfo.org (Lynch, Mauro, and Sullivan).

Regardless of how one interprets these findings, there is no question that Hillary has 12 bundlers who were federal lobbyists in 2007 while Obama had at most one.

What this further means is that Hillary has more major fundraisers who either are or were in 2007 federal lobbyists. And that means that when it comes to relying on lobbyists, Hillary is far more "establishment" than Obama.

Coming next in Part 2.1--details on Hillary's lobbyists that show they are truly "establishment."

A recent Hillogism: Obama is the "establishment" candidate. (Part 1: Endorsements)

The content of the Hillogism

Here's how this one goes...Obama has received big name endorsements. Those big name endorsers are part of the Democratic Party establishment. Therefore, Obama, not Hillary, is the "establishment" candidate.

This bullshit started on February 6, when one of Hillary's chief advisors, Mark Penn, told reporters "The more that Senator Obama has shifted to becoming an establishment campaign based on endorsements, people said, 'You know, it's really Senator Clinton who has the ideas for change.'"

Hillary then repeated this Hillogism three days later at a news conference:

Clinton is trying to turn the tables on Obama saying that he has "increasingly run an establishment race and he has increasingly relied on big endorsements and celebrities to sort of attach himself to to get the kind of validation that comes from that sort of endorsement."

Is anyone buying this? Anyone thinking that Hillary is right needs to put down the Kool Aid and keep reading.

Hillary's objective

Hillary is trying to show that she is not the establishment candidate by claiming that Obama is the establishment candidate.

Definition of "establishment"

Before proceeding, the term "establishment" needs to be defined.

Merriam-Webster defines the term as "an established order of society...a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class[.]"

Another definition is "A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society."

With these definitions in mind, let's see who is the "establishment" candidate.

First reason why this Hillogism fails: Hillary's endorsements

Go to this page and see just how many endorsements from current and former officials and celebrities Hillary has racked up. Go to the endorsements page on Hillary's website to see a chronological list of those endorsements.

Contrary to what she is trying to imply now, Hillary has received plenty of establishment endorsements. And, contrary to what she is implying now, she is making those endorsements part of her campaign. Don't believe me? Then explain why her website has a separate page listing all of her endorsements. And then feel free to go to Obama's website and see if you can find such a page there. If you find it, let me know. The point I am making is that Hillary--once again--is being blatantly disingenuous and hypocritical, this time by claiming that Obama is the one relying on "establishment" endorsements.

Hillary's problem is that Obama received high profile endorsements (many of which I have discussed on this blog) after her victory in the New Hampshire primary. That means that those endorsements have received a good bit of coverage lately. That also means that she lost out on getting some big name endorsements after her win. She tried to get Ted Kennedy's endorsement and was turned down. She tried to get Claire McCaskill's endorsement and was turned down. Since she was not getting big endorsements, she had to try to do something to minimize the effect of Obama's endorsements. And so she presently claims that Obama's endorsements show he is "establishment" and she is not.

Hmmm...This claim has come only after Hillary tried to show that Ted and Caroline Kennedy's endorsements did not mean much because she had been endorsed by Robert Kennedy's children. I guess she now thinks that some Kennedys are more important than others. I guess that the children of Robert Kennedy, some of whom went into politics, are not "establishment," while Caroline Kennedy--who for most of her life has purposefully avoided going into politics--is "establishment."

The fact of the matter is that if Ted or Caroline Kennedy had endorsed her, she would be reminding people of it at every opportunity to show that Democratic icons--"establishment" if you will--were supporting her. Anyone thinking otherwise is a fool.

Coming up in Part 2--Hillary's fundraising.

The Texas primary--and a reminder from Molly Ivins

The Texas primary takes place on March 4.

This primary is particularly important because for the first time in a long time, it will mean something. Usually by the time of the Texas primary, the race for the nomination is pretty much over. Not so this time, and for the first time in my voting life, my vote in the primary might actually mean something.

Texas has 228 delegates, and the primary will go a long way in determining how they are divided between Obama and Hillary (delegate totals will not be finally determined until the State Convention in June), and that means the Texas primary could play a significant role in determining who ultimately gets the nomination.

I really don't have a good feel for how the voting might go, but I do know one thing: I will vote for Barack Obama.

And even though I am not sure how the voting will go, some poll results are interesting.

According to this site, in November and December Hillary had a 51%-17% lead over Obama. Then in January, Hillary led 46%-28%. And in the poll taken at the end of January, Hillary led 48%-38%. Methinks there is a trend here.

Here are some notes from that last poll:

November and December polls both gave Hillary Clinton a hefty 51% to 17% lead over Barack Obama, but that has changed considerably over the last two polls. Current results give her just a ten point lead over her main rival, 48% to 38%. Mike Gravel received 3% while 12% were undecided. Much of Obama's increase has come from his increase in support among Latinos. In December, Clinton had a 70 to 7 lead in this group. The January 10 poll was 63-18. In this poll, the margin was down to 60-29. That is still a wide margin, but 2-1 is a lot different from 10-1. Edwards was at 5% among Latinos in the January 10 poll, so Obama's gain cannot be completely explained by his departure. There is a significant gender gap as Latino men under 60 were more likely to support Obama while Latinas under 60 gave Clinton large margins. Clinton easily led both sides of the 60+ group.

(emphasis added). Latinos have been among Hillary's biggest voters so far. She basically won Nevada because of the Latino vote. The fact that Obama appears to be gaining ground with Latinos in Texas could be very significant. There could be a trend going against Obama, however, among African-Americans.

Obama's support among African-Americans actually dipped slightly as the number of undecided women increased. Obama still has a large lead 55-21, with 24% undecided.

At the same time, Obama gained more support among whites.

Both candidates gained among white voters with Edwards departure. Obama gained eight points while Clinton gained five. I can't distinguish between former Edwards voters and prior movement, but my best guess would be that it was a combination of the two. Undecided was also up two points.

And now for the gender breakdown:

Clinton's support was even between men and women, but Obama had seven points higher support among men. Women were seven points more likely to be undecided.

To all the undecideds, women, and all Democrats that consider themselves Texan and liberal (and there are plenty of them here), I remind you of a few things.

There was no one that was more liberal and at the same time Texan than Molly Ivins.

And Even Molly Ivins didn't want Hillary.

Romney is out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23050678/

This pretty much means that McCain will be the GOP nominee. So who will take the VP slot on the ticket? Mitt? Could that be one reason why he is getting out now? The party establishment and many other Republicans can't stand McCain, and Romney seemed to be their choice. If Romney is on the ticket, that could help resolve the major rifts in the GOP. Just wondering...

New term for many things Hillary: Hillogism

As I noted in the previous post, I am using a new term to describe specious reasoning and general bullshit from Hillary, Bill, or anyone connected with Hillary's campaign or who otherwise supports her.

The term is "Hillogism."

It is a play on words of "syllogism."

In the past, I have attempted to show that I am oh so clever by coming up with various terms and phrases, only to discover that others came up with those terms and phrases long before I "discovered" them.

I did Google and Yahoo searches for "Hillogism" and found it used--without a definition--only once. So while I did think of the term on my own, I was not the first person to state it. Still, it looks like I might be the first to define the term, and while the definition of "Hillogism" will be ongoing, the first paragraph above will suffice for now. That is definitely what I want to be the primary meaning (and the meaning after the primaries...See? I told you I was oh so clever).

A response to defenders of Hillary's Iraq record

Lately there have been some interesting attempts at defending Hillary's Iraq record. I am going to address a few of them.

Defense 1: Obama can't criticize Hillary because of Ted Kennedy

Here's how this one goes: Obama can't complain about Hillary's Iraq record because Ted Kennedy's record is very much like Hillary's. Consequently, Obama really can't complain about Hillary's record.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

If anyone has a problem, it's Ted Kennedy, not Obama.

Under this argument, Obama's actual record does not matter because Ted Kennedy's record is now Obama's. And since Ted Kennedy voted like Hillary, that means that Obama's record is just like Hillary's. Don't you see?

This sort of "reasoning" could be termed a syllogism, but since it is so ridiculous, I am going to call it a "Hillogism." The definition of this term will be ongoing, but for now let's just say its applies to all of the bullshit presented by Hillary and her supporters.

[I just did Google and Yahoo searches for "Hillogism" and found it used--without a definition--only once. And the mention was in a thread whose contributors seemed to be Hillary supporters, so I don't think they would be using my definition.]

Defense 2: The Levin Amendment is open to interpretation.

• If it is open to interpretation, it clearly cannot be interpreted as Hillary does.
  

This defense has to be examined in the specific context of what Hillary has said about the Levin Amendment. As shown in the previous post, here is Hillary's currently official position on her website:

The Levin amendment specifically said that the "President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States" but only "pursuant to a resolution of the United Nation Security Counsel."

*******

The language of the Levin Amendment would have made it the law of the land that the President could not act without Security Council approval.

(emphasis added). The term "but only" is not in the Levin Amendment. It has been added by Hillary. The question is whether the language of the Levin Amendment could reasonably be given Hillary's interpretation. And the answer is an unequivocal "NO." Once again, here is the relevant part of the Levin Amendment:

Congress--

********

(2) urges the United Nations Security Council to adopt promptly a resolution that--

(A) demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access of the United Nations weapons inspectors so that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons- usable material, ballistic missiles with a range in excess of 150 kilometers, and related facilities are destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless; and

(B) authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate military force by member states of the United Nations to enforce such resolution in the event that the Government of Iraq refuses to comply;

(3) affirms that, under international law and the United Nations Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense; and

(4) will not adjourn sine die this year and will return to session at any time before the next Congress convenes to consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq if in the judgment of the President the United Nations Security Council fails to adopt or enforce the resolution described in paragraph (2).

(emphasis added). Subsection (2) of the Levin Amendment "urge(d)" the Security Council to adopt and enforce a resolution regarding Iraq. It did NOT say that the Security Council was required to pass such resolution before the US could act. It does NOT say that the US could not act "without Security Council approval."

Indeed, subsections (3) and (4) made it clear that the U.S. in general and the President in particular could have acted "without Security Council approval." Let's look at what the UN Charter says. The pertinent portion is Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

This provision does not require Security Council approval before a nation can use force in self-defense. However, it can be argued that Article 51 would allow the Security Council to have some effect on US actions after the fact. Even if that is true, it is irrelevant for two reasons. First, given that the US was (and is) a member of the UN, to the extent Article 51 could have been used to somehow affect US action, that capacity would have existed regardless of anything passed or not passed by the Congress. The second reason for the irrelevancy is subsection (4). Note that subsection (4) in no way said that Bush needed "Security Council approval" in order to go before Congress. Indeed, subsection (4) held that Bush could go to Congress at any time AND that Bush would have the sole discretion as to whether to do so.

Now I know what some of you are thinking. The IWR also gave Bush sole discretion, so how is the Levin Amendment any different? The difference is that the IWR gave Bush the sole discretion and authority to commit the country to war, while the Levin Amendment would have required Congressional approval. That is a huge freaking difference.

In other words, the Levin Amendment would have placed a limitation on Bush's power, but that limitation was not in the hands of the UN Security Council. Rather, it was in the hands of Congress. Under the clear language of subsections (3) and (4), the Security Council would not have been given any authority over the US in general or Bush in particular. Thus, in the context of Hillary's official position, the Levin Amendment was not open to interpretation.

• And here's another observation about Hillary's position.

Again, Hillary's official position is that

The language of the Levin Amendment would have made it the law of the land that the President could not act without Security Council approval.

(emphasis added). She does not say that the problem is that the power of the United States to act would have been limited. She said only that the power of the President would have been limited. Wow. This simply and plainly proves something I said in the previous post, namely that Hillary wants the same power to do what she wants without having to get Congressional approval, AND I noted that this is "yet another way she is just like George W. Bush."

Hillary wants power, power, and more power. That, not leadership, is her goal.

Defense 3: Hillary is just like Russ Feingold.

• Feingold's position on the Levin Amendment and Hillary's claim
  

The Hillary web page also included what Russ Feingold said during the debate on the Levin Amendment as proof that Hillary's interpretation was and is correct.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to briefly comment on Senator Levin's alternative proposal relating to Iraq. Some of my colleagues for whom I have tremendous respect have tried to address the fact that the administration's proposal is simply not good enough by emphasizing the desirability of a United Nations resolution, thus transforming this dangerous unilateral proposal into an internationally sanctioned multilateral mission. But while I recognize that international support is a crucial ingredient in any recipe for addressing the weapons of mass destruction threat in Iraq without undercutting the fight against terrorism, I will not and cannot support any effort to give the United Nations Security Council Congress's proxy in deciding whether or not to send American men and women into combat in Iraq. No Security Council vote can answer my questions about plans for securing WMD or American responsibilities in the wake of an invasion of Iraq. It is for this reason that I must oppose the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Hillary is in effect saying that Russ Feingold agrees with her interpretation of the Levin Agreement.

• Hillary has misconstrued Feingold's opposition to the Levin Amendment.
  

To the extent that Feingold was agreeing with what Hillary now says, he was and is wrong.

However, if Hillary supporters want to claim the Levin Amendment is open to interpretation, then so is the above statement from Feingold.

I will begin such interpretation by noting I think it is safe to say that Russ Feingold was and still is the greatest anti-Iraq war official in the entire Congress. And he always has been. With that in mind, let's look at some excerpts from the speech he delivered in the Senate on October 9, 2002.

An invasion of Iraq must stand on its own, not just because it is different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9-11 but because it may not be consistent with, and may even be harmful to, the top national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9-11.

*******

Will this idea of invading Iraq at this time, on this case, on these merits, help or hurt cooperation in our fight against terrorism, against the known murderers of Americans who are known to be plotting more of the same?

Mr. President, I'm especially dismayed at the weak response to the potential drain on our military capability and resources in our fight against terrorism if we go forward with this invasion at this time. The Administration likes to quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do this and fight the war against terrorism, they just simply say, "we can do both." There's no proof, there's no real assurance of this. I find these answers glib, at best.

*******

What about what we are doing in Bosnia? What about what we are doing in Kosovo? What about all the resources stretching from the Philippines to portions of the former Soviet Union to the Middle East to parts of Africa that are being employed in the fight against terrorism? What about the fact that we are using our National Guard and Reserves many times within our country to protect our own citizens and public -- at public events with regard to the challenge of the fight against terrorism? Mr. President, all of this and an invasion of Iraq, too? I wonder. As mighty as we are, I wonder if we aren't very close to being overextended.

An invasion of Iraq in the next few weeks or months could in fact be very counterproductive. In fact, it could risk our national security.

In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we've been given.

(emphasis added). So, based on the case that had been presented as of October 9, 2002, Feingold felt that 1) a war with Iraq could be counterproductive to the war on terrorism, and 2) such a war would overextend our military resources. Furthermore, Feingold was not going to vote for the IWR unless questions were answered about what would be done about Iraq's purported WMD and how the post-war period would be handled.

Now, consider that the case that had been presented as of October 9, 2002, did not change by the following day, which is when Feingold made his statements about the Levin Amendment.

Now, let's review part of what Feingold said about the Levin Amendment:

But while I recognize that international support is a crucial ingredient in any recipe for addressing the weapons of mass destruction threat in Iraq without undercutting the fight against terrorism, I will not and cannot support any effort to give the United Nations Security Council Congress's proxy in deciding whether or not to send American men and women into combat in Iraq. No Security Council vote can answer my questions about plans for securing WMD or American responsibilities in the wake of an invasion of Iraq. It is for this reason that I must oppose the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

(emphasis added). Now compare the emphasized portion of the above excerpt with the excerpts from Feingold's October 9 speech, paying particular attention to the emphasized portions thereof. Such a comparison will show very close similarities.

Based on his words from October 9 and 10, 2002, I believe that Feingold was against voting for war in any form until his concerns were addressed and his questions answered. The concerns and questions he raised on October 9 were the same ones he raised on October 10. Thus, I submit that the following:

• The overall reason he voted against the Levin Amendment was NOT because he felt it granted the Security Council the power to prevent the US from going to war, but rather because he felt it might enable the Security Council to cause the US to go to war without answering his concerns and questions.
  
• In other words, Feingold was not concerned about having to get Security Council approval before the US could use military force. What he was concerned about was the possibility of the Security Council taking action which could have required the US to use military force before his concerns were addressed.
  
• Stated another way, Feingold was not worried about the Security Council acting as a limitation on America's power to decide to go to war. Feingold was worried about the Security Council acting as a limitation on America's power to choose NOT to go to war.

I submit further that Feingold would have voted against ANY resolution which would have left open the possibility that the US could have gone to war with Iraq without first answering his questions and concerns.

Think I am wrong? Well, step up and explain yourself. And you better bring your "A" game.

• Hillary's reliance on Feingold provides proof for something else I have said about her earlier.

In my post about Wes Clark's endorsement of Hillary, I basically said that Hillary has never taken responsibility for her own actions regarding Iraq, and her reliance on Feingold's opposition to the Levin Amendment simply provides more evidence for my opinion. Instead of truly owning up to her vote against the Levin agreement, she blatantly misstates what the amendment said, and then she points to Feingold's position as if to say, "I don't have to explain myself because Russ Feingold opposed it, too." Now there's some real leadership for you. Using Feingold as a means to avoid explaining her own actions also provides more evidence for what I wrote about her back in September 2007:

Listen folks--this is not about focusing on one substantive issue while ignoring Hillary's other experience and abilities. This is about her personality and character. A Senator certainly has a duty to make decisions and accept responsibility, but that duty is far greater for the President. Hillary's refusal, as a Senator, to accept responsibility for her actions and decisions on a matter as crucial as war says to me that she is not going to accept the increased responsibility as President--not just on matters of war, but on everything.

Hey, Democrats--are you listening?