posted
I guess I can see that. But the only AG I can think of who even aspired to the presidency is Bobby Kennedy, and perhaps it's cynical of me, but I think he was mostly appointed for being JFK's brother.
Maybe there is some history I'm ignorant of, but AG in recent times seems to be a position fraught with political peril.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's nothing special to this administration. It's the nature of being in a place where laws are weighed and measured.
I was looking over the list of AGs earlier today and remembering Janet Reno's tenure. Those were the days.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:NEW YORK (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama has won the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion rights advocacy organization that has supported rival Hillary Rodham Clinton throughout her political career.
The organization announced the endorsement of its political action committee on Wednesday.
***
Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said he was surprised by the group's decision to back Obama.
***
They said the board decided to back Obama over Clinton because he is overwhelmingly favored to win the nomination and to heal what the organization viewed as a growing rift between black voters and white female activists that the protracted Clinton-Obama contest may have caused.
posted
I was just coming over here to post that. According to TPM, Clinton's communications director said that he was surprised by the endorsement.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It's nothing special to this administration. It's the nature of being in a place where laws are weighed and measured.
I was looking over the list of AGs earlier today and remembering Janet Reno's tenure. Those were the days.
Also the AG has to represent the administration and, informally, the president himself. It's why it's traditionally given to someone with very close ties to the president, over many years. Like Gonzales with all his history in Texas with Bush. Or of course RFK and JFK.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I understand it, that's not actually the AG's job. That's the job of White House counsel.
The AG's primary responsibility is theoretically to the American public.
But it is his job to represent many of the legal positions of the administration, including defending the constitutionality of executive-branch actions. The normal ethical standards for presenting legal positions to tribunals apply.
This is a common practice by the justice department. For example, it defends the constitutionality of government actions when citizens bring Section 1983 suits, which can arise in employment, law enforcement, and many other situations. There are many cases where such actions are found to be unconstitutional but the defense of such actions is deemed ethical.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the Justice department also can be called on to take legal actions against the President and his administration, yes?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the Justice department also can be called on to take legal actions against the President, yes?
Yes. But the AG (or his delegatee within DoJ) also at times represents both the administration and the President. And it happens far more often than taking legal actions against the President or members of the administration.
It is technically correct in the legal context to say that the AG has to represent the administration and the president himself (no "informally" necessary). The former happens fairly often. It is even more correct to use a lay interpretation of "represent," because there are very few cases where the AG or his delegatee acts in which he is not representing the administration in the colloquial sense.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I understand it, that's not actually the AG's job. That's the job of White House counsel.
The AG's primary responsibility is theoretically to the American public.
But it is his job to represent many of the legal positions of the administration, including defending the constitutionality of executive-branch actions. The normal ethical standards for presenting legal positions to tribunals apply.
This is a common practice by the justice department. For example, it defends the constitutionality of government actions when citizens bring Section 1983 suits, which can arise in employment, law enforcement, and many other situations. There are many cases where such actions are found to be unconstitutional but the defense of such actions is deemed ethical.
Isn't that more often the Solicitor General's job? My understanding of the primary role of the AG is to basically be the people's lawyer of sorts, to prosecute on behalf of the American people (or local states and their people) and to give legal advice to the President. I thought it was the SG's job to argue on behalf of the Administration at the Supreme Court.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edwards is about to endorse Obama in Grand Rapids here in Michigan.
Obama was actually just down the street from where I volunteer at earlier in the day, but we didn't get a chance to go see him.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't that more often the Solicitor General's job?
I clarified more directly later with repeated use of "or his delegatee." The Solicitor General represents the government before the Supreme Court. There are thousands of other lawyers who also represent the government in court. Very little litigation goes to the Supreme Court.
quote:My understanding of the primary role of the AG is to basically be the people's lawyer of sorts, to prosecute on behalf of the American people (or local states and their people) and to give legal advice to the President.
Giving legal advice is "representation." The term is not limited to actual litigation. The AG also doesn't personally prosecute cases. Assistant US Attorneys, US Attorneys, and DoJ lawyers do that. One can say the AG prosecutes cases on behalf of the American people - which is a form of representing the administration - even though it is actually done by his subordinates. The SG isn't very different.
Every decision to prosecute is an executive decision. There is almost no way to force the executive to prosecute a particular act. This is by design, so that the act of punishing someone for a criminal offense requires a positive act by each branch of government. The legislature defines the crime. The executive chooses to prosecute. The judiciary ensures that procedural requirements are met and effectively decides that the government has met a minimal standard of proof. If a jury is at the trial, then a body of the people must perform a positive act as well.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for fleshing that out. I wasn't aware of how many people were involved in the various jobs of the AG's office and the DoJ in general.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama must have said something, a friend of mine in G-Rap texted me saying there were rumors of a major endorsement (he's at the event there), and then I saw a lot of rumors elsewhere that Edwards was on a plane to Gerald Ford, which is the airport in G-Rap, and as I was doing that I got an email from a local campaign saying that Edwards would be endorsing Obama publicly at the event.
It looks like Obama will probably pick up all 19 of Edwards' delegates. Edwards will relese his delegates and direct them to vote for Obama, and it's suspected that the majority, if not all of them, will go along with his direction and do what he says. If they all support Obama, it will eliminate the West Virginia vote and net him another seven delegates over her.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. To me, that looks a lot like a deal to secure something sweeter than an AG spot. Just sayin'.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not so sure. I mean, sure maybe, but, even without Edwards' endorsement I think that Obama is only a couple weeks away from clinching the nomination, and even if Edwards had endorsed Clinton it wouldn't have saved her. This was perfectly times though. Clinton just lost all her "earned media" (free media) from the crushing win in WV. Now the new story is that Edwards is endorsing Obama and how HUUUGE this is (I roll my eyes a bit at that).
In other worse, Edwards' endorsement is just another sign that Obama has the Big Mo, and makes him look more inevitable than ever. 19 delegates aren't enough to get him the VP spot. I don't think he'd be an awful choice, but I do think that Obama needs someone older with more experience on the bottom of the ticket. Edwards would be expertly placed to be the nominee in eight years though. Hell, if he serves as AG for 8 years it'd make him a good name for the nomination too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Obama has actually secured a lot of these endorsements long before they are announced. His timing of them is just too perfect (like Richardson after Wright). And the press keeps claiming that there are rumours that Obama has a bunch of superdelegates and is going to have a superdelegate bomb one day. I think it is better to have them trickle personally- each one gets indivdual news time whereas announcing 30 at once would get news for a day or 2.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It's nothing special to this administration. It's the nature of being in a place where laws are weighed and measured.
I was looking over the list of AGs earlier today and remembering Janet Reno's tenure. Those were the days.
True. But I can't help but think this administration has made more than its share of decisions that might cause someone to come up to an ex-AG somewhere down the line and say "you said that was legal? What were you thinking?!"
As for Edwards, well, hopefully it's one more step to getting this thing over with once and for all.
When I said Edwards would be the better VP choice, I specifically noted among opponents. There would certainly be a benefit to choosing a more experienced veep, but then, maybe it would clinch the youth vote... And a more politically experienced hand raises the question in many's minds as to who's actually running the show. I mean, look at Cheney.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have another question about this Attorney General thing....
does he get to have, like, pitched battles against, like say, the Surgeon General.
I see it now, a smoke covered battlefield, where swarms of armed men in scrubs and surgical masks storm the citadel where a bunch of pin-striped suit wearing lawyers prepare their ambush behind a fortification of brief cases and legal pads.
Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I think that Obama has actually secured a lot of these endorsements long before they are announced. His timing of them is just too perfect (like Richardson after Wright). And the press keeps claiming that there are rumours that Obama has a bunch of superdelegates and is going to have a superdelegate bomb one day. I think it is better to have them trickle personally- each one gets indivdual news time whereas announcing 30 at once would get news for a day or 2.
I was thinking about that earlier today. Either Edwards or Obama must have planned that, in order to kill Clinton's media coverage from the WV win. Makes me wonder if he has Gore in his back pocket for when she wins Kentucky, but I don't know. He'll win Oregon that day by a large margin too, so it'll be a wash.
I don't think it was a coincidence though, today's event was planned by someone, and I think doing it in Michigan was totally and entirely planned as well, though I'm surprised they made the announcement in Grand Rapids and not in the east of the state. The west side is Republican territory. The east side is the more Democratic blue collar factory working types that Edwards has more cred with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
She's back tracking a bit on what she's said about Obama throughout this campaign, she's almost conciliatory.
If this means her campaign will be less aggressive coming into these last few weeks, that might actually be fine for the democratic party to let the primaries finish out and give every state it's voice. And then bow out gracefully.
edit - oh, I thought it was pretty cool John Edwards threw the Jet Ski reference in his endorsement speech tonight, though I wonder how much of the general population would know where that's from.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
one of the first things he says when he starts speaking is something along the lines of, "you know....i was promised a jet ski. and i haven't gotten it yet."
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I still think when Edwards did "The Word," that it was one of the most hilarious things I've ever seen a politician do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sure am glad Senator Johnny Comelately from North Carolina decided to throw his endorsement behind A candidate when it requires virtually no risk and can effect little change.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree it effected little change. It shifted the focus back to Obama's lead right after his biggest trouncing.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sen. Barack Obama did what you have to do if you say something to a person that many people find offensive, especially if you're running for president: He phoned Peggy Agar, the reporter he referred to as "sweetie" to apologize for calling her that and blowing her off after she asked a question following a Sterling, Michigan campaign appearance yesterday.
WXYZ-TV, the Detroit station Agar works for, has a recording of the voicemail to Agar's phone up with a story about the apology on its site. In the senator says:
"Hi Peggy. This is Barack Obama. I'm calling to apologize on two fronts. One was you didn't get your question answered and I apologize. I thought that we had set up interviews with all the local stations. I guess we got it with your station but you weren't the reporter that got the interview. And so, I broke my word. I apologize for that and I will make up for it.
"Second apology is for using the word 'sweetie.' That's a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front. Feel free to call me back. I expect that my press team will be happy to try to make it up to you whenever we are in Detroit next."
The WXYZ story reports that Obama has indeed called people "sweetie" before, and on at least one occasion, caused a min-tempest.
In a posting on the New York Times Political Blog titled "Obama: Hold On, Sweetie," reporter Jim Rutenberg pointed out this wasn't the first time Obama used the word: "Back in Pennsylvania in early April, Senator Barack Obama took some heat for calling a female factory worker 'sweetie,' in Allentown."
Obama clearly needs to go on a "sweetie" diet, tightening up on his use of that diminutive.
It just seems dismissive, belittling and, yes, chauvinist, even if he doesn't mean it to be, if he uses it with anyone other than his wife, his daughters or little children, especially when he so addresses women he encounters along the campaign trail.
The fact that this is the second time he's done this to a woman while he's on the trail is astounding. Everything else aside, just how does he figure this will help him win over women who are frustrated, angry and disappointed that Hillary isn't (probably) going to get the nomination?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see it as worse than Hillary's characterization of white people as hard-working Americans that preceded WV.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calling the wrong person sweetie can be a slip of the tongue, even if it happens multiple times. That happens all the time to most people I imagine, where they slip and apply nick names, pet names, ...the exact word I'm looking for here is evading me..., etc to the wrong person. I know it happens a lot to me. It's a very minor thing most of the time, if it's someone who doesn't like you they might take offense, and if it's someone who does they might give you a hard time. Only in politics is anyone really gonna make hay out of it...
I'd say Hillary's announcement that hard-working white Americans don't support Obama before WV is leagues worse than Obama's slipping. Has she even apologized for that yet?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calling people sweetie or honey (men or women) is pretty common here. It is a hard habit to break. Also, some people like it from friends, so it is difficult to remember when to and when not to. When you get it wrong, the only thing to do is apologize and try to remember that that person doesn't like it.
Which it seems he has done.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Even less likely but on the list of names floating around? Janet Nepalitano, the Democratic governor of I think Nevada. She likes to spend, like Obama wants to, but she's also got a reputation as someone who keeps her budgets in check and slashes wasteful spending.
I know this is from several days ago, but Janet Napolitano is the governor of Arizona. Nevada's governor is a Republican named Jim Gibbons.
First, I *don't* give a pass to Obama on a slip like that. The majority of males I know working at management level know much better than to use that kind of language with women. I'm not on management level, but it's not something I really have to think about. I don't use those kinds of terms with women outside of family.
Second, when I think about reactions of some of the women supporting Hillary, I tend to think of my mother. She's not happy with what she sees as rampant sexism (even misognynist) coverage of Hillary at MSNBC, especially with Chris Matthews. And she's a woman who has been called "sweetie" and other terms by men she worked for (and twenty years younger) when she was in the working world. She resented that treatment and she'll relate to those experiences when she hears this story about Obama.
Up to this point, she hasn't really had much bad to say about Obama except that she thought Hillary was a better candidate. This might change that feeling. I would be surprised if she voted for McCain, but repeats on this by Obama could make her really hate casting her vote.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd rather he calls the random reporter "sweetie" than Iran "Al-Qaeda." >.<
P.S. Which is not to say I'm not still voting for McCain. I just don't think this is a big deal. I hate to be called "sunshine".
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Democratic candidates both look so tired to me. I am not surprised that he called her a pet name. Of course, I also know a lot of people that think everyone is a sweetie so I've been called that at times where it may not have been appropriate. If it is a one time thing, I blow it off. One of the things I have to pay attention to is when I hang up the phone. With my family, I always say love you, bye. I am pretty sure that at one point or another I have said that to people who I don't love but it is such a habit with me. I have also referred to my brother as honey before, which I thought was a bit creepy.
edit to add- if this was his normal way of addressing people, I would be a lot more concerned.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Pundits are debating where Barr's votes will be drawn from. Since he's running as a libertarian, some argue he could draw votes away from the Democrat. My guess is that he'll draw more votes from the other side of the political spectrum. Can't find it right now, but one source said his run just might guarantee that Georgia goes for Obama in the presidential election.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Second, when I think about reactions of some of the women supporting Hillary, I tend to think of my mother. She's not happy with what she sees as rampant sexism (even misognynist) coverage of Hillary at MSNBC, especially with Chris Matthews. And she's a woman who has been called "sweetie" and other terms by men she worked for (and twenty years younger) when she was in the working world. She resented that treatment and she'll relate to those experiences when she hears this story about Obama.
How do you establish the coverage as sexist?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
First, I was talking about the perceptions of my mother - and probably a fair number of women in her age group.
MSNBC got special attention for several reasons:
1. Chis Matthews referring repeatedly to Clinton's laugh as a "cackle."
2. Pundits like Mike Barnicle referring to Clinton as sounding like "every man's ex-wife" or words to that effect.
3. Some reporter on Olbermann's show (I think) commented on Clinton's wardrobe as part of the political coverage.
4. There was that infamous "pimping" remark by David Shuster.
5. Matthews's comment that Hillary's political success was a result of playing the victim card as a wronged wife.
That's off the top of my head - and I don't pay attention to this stuff like women like my mother does.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a WAshington Post article talking about some of the misogyny the author has noted in this election.
About MSNBC in particular she says:
quote:The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a "she-devil" (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mock-up of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she's "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court" (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).
----
I absolutely cringed when I read the "sweetie" story last night. I don't care who you are or where you're from, learning not to call strangers by diminutive nicknames is essential for anyone in management or public life. It is 100% not acceptable.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
thanks for the link and putting it so much better than I did.
I really have trouble understanding how it can be hard for someone on the public stage to remember some really basic rules of language, respect and courtesy.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this is Obama, not a republican. He is allowed to have gaffes whenever he wants. Imagine if someone like Quayle had said there was 57 states. Obama said it and there is virtually no reporting on it. If Bush or Quayle had said it that would be the lead story and it would be talked about for weeks.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So gaffes like "bittergate" went entirely unnoticed by the media, eh? While McCain's breeeeellliiaaannt mistaking of Iran for Al-Qaeda multiple times, even after getting corrected mid-speech by Joe Lieberman, has clearly been the top new story for weeks! Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think how much misogyny and bias you see in the press depends a lot on what your news sources are. I have never heard most of those comments (or seen the dolls or t-shirts for that matter). When I look at the bias, it seems pretty fair. However, I imagine that if I watched 24 hour news programs, I would have a different view. I don't think it is fair for people to say that the bias and misogyny is obvious and anyone not seeing it is blind (I don't think anyone is saying that here, but I have heard it elsewhere- minus the link that ELJay gave) because a lot of those stories are avoidable depending on your news source. I did see a story about the clothing choices, but I figured that since they went into Obama's stylistic choices that was a fair article.
Reading the article, those comments were very bad and I can see people watching being offended. Which is why I don't watch Fox or MSNBC.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
