Ethics problems at the WaPo

Surfing political blogs on a Saturday night is usually an exercise in futility; most responsible bloggers have gone on to live their lives, as they should do. But I happened upon an interesting link at Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish. A quote from David Broder:

"I am embarrassed by these mistakes and the embarrassment it has caused the paper,''

Curious about what malfeasance David Broder has been guilty of, I followed the link, and wound up here, a column by the Washington Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell. I like her; she seems like the kind of person who should be watching over the ethical standards of one of the country's most important papers, serious and responsible. Apparently Broder took some speaking fees from organizations that he shouldn't have. He clearly made a mistake, but how serious is open to question; it doesn't look like he took money in exchange for anything other than giving a talk. He's already semi-retired, so there isn't much the Post can do to him. I used to be a fan of Broder, but I tend to agree with the Kossacks that he has been a font of misguided wisdom of late. I distinctly remember reading him on a regular basis when I lived in DC and occasionally being impressed with his insight. I don't know what happened exactly, but I don't think he has kept pace with how politics has changed. And it's unfortunate that a long career ends on this unfortunate note. He clearly was not thinking clearly.

Woodward also made some speeches, but put all of the money into a foundation. Better, but still somewhat questionable. In his position, I can see why he would do that. He is famous, and this sounds like a way to put that fame to use.

What really blew my mind, though, was this sentence from Howell's column:

Most of all, The Post needs an unambiguous, transparent well-known policy on speaking fees and expenses.

I'm sorry, but what was that verb again? NEEDS? As in, there is a need to be met?

As in, THE WASHINGTON POST DOESN'T HAVE SUCH AN ETHICS POLICY ON SPEECHES BY STAFF?

What is WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?! You cover WASHINGTON. World center of ethical scandals. Congress has clear and specific rules on members giving speeches. Bill Clinton has made a fortune giving speeches. Inviting influential people to show up at a conference to share their wisdom is a very common way of spreading the wealth among the capitol's elite. You didn't notice this?

Allow me to share an anecdote. When I was in high school in suburban Detroit, Carl Levin came and gave a speech. The school had raised money for a speaker's fund in honor of a student who died. We gave a check to Levin at the end of his speech. He immediately gave it back, because he does not accept speaking fees.

That was in the 1980's. Carl Levin has had that policy for AT LEAST TWENTY YEARS. And it hasn't occured to anyone at the Washington Post that maybe they need a clearly defined policy along the same lines? This was the best that they could come up with:

[Executive Editor Len] Downie unearthed a 1995 memo outlining the rules on speeches, but it is not widely known about in the newsroom.

Woodward and Bernstein have been world famous for 35 years. I imagine Post reporters have all kinds of opportunities to make money on the side - they talk to lobbyists, businesspeople, conference organizers, etc., all the time. And the best they could come up with is an old memo from 13 years ago that no one has seen? Hello? The potential for conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety in this kind of situation, in WASHINGTON, DC, hasn't occured to anyone recently? My respect for the Post just dropped a notch or two. I'm going to narrow that to say that my respect for the Post's management is what has been compromised here, and leave the reporters and editors out of it. But I am disappointed. I will be watching to see what happens here.

Hillary disses Michigan

Looks like the Hillary Clinton campaign is determined to make every last mistake possible as the primary season winds down. Today we learn that:

Michigan Democratic leaders settled today on a plan to give presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton 69 delegates and Barack Obama 59 as a way to get the delegates seated at the national convention

. . .

The plan would shrink Clinton’s delegate edge in Michigan from 18 to 10 and allow the state’s 157 delegates and superdelegates to be seated at the convention.

Note that while this is not good news for Hillary (she loses 8 delegates), it's good news for Michigan Democrats. They have apparently realized that they made a mistake pushing their primary early, accepted the consequences, and are moving on. But their interests are now divergent from Hillary's interests. The goals of the people in Michigan are to have their delegates seated at the convention, unify behind the Democratic nominee so he can get started campaigning against McCain, and stop wasting their time on this. Supporting Hillary is no longer in their best interests. Not only is it not in their best interests, it's not in their interests at all. Why do they care about Hillary's campaign any more? They don't. It seems like Michigan Dems agree on this:

The 69-59 split was proposed last week by four prominent Michigan Democrats who have been working for months to find a way to get Michigan’s delegates seated at the Aug. 25-28 convention in Denver: U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and DNC member Debbie Dingell.

If there is a national representative of white working class voters in the heartland, it would be the president of the UAW. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick is Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus and mother of the current Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick. Debbie Dingell is married to John Dingell, Dean of the House of Representatives, and very close to the car companies. Carl Levin is the longest serving Senator in Michigan history. They represent just about every possible Democratic constituency in Michigan, with the exception of the Arab American community, and I'm guessing they all have strong connections with them. If the four of them have made a decision, the state of Michigan has made a decision. Game over.

But, according to Talking Points Memo, the Hillary campaign has not signed on:

"This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan's January primary. Those votes must be counted."

Guess what, folks. If those four people listed above agree that this is a good plan to have Michigan's delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention, damn well near all of those 600,000 people agree that this is a good plan to have Michigan's delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention. Those votes are now being counted.

The Obama campaign, on the other hand, is taking advantage of its frontrunner position to be diplomatic.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said of the decision, “It is clear results in January won’t be used to allocate delegates, and we agree with that decision. We have been talking with Michigan leaders about this proposal and will continue to do so.”

That's something you're supposed to include in most statements to the press about anything involving sensitive negotiations: your own willingness to continue engaging in dialogue. Be nice, and people will be nice to you. Or at least pretend to be nice, and they will pretend to be nice to you. And then if an opportunity comes along when you actually can be nice, guess what? You're already halfway there.

This is a great illustration of why Hillary lost: she puts her interests above everybody else's, even when it is very clear that she has lost, and when it is very clear that her close allies and/or powerful Democrats have made a decision that is contrary to her wishes. The Hilary Clinton campaign does not speak for the voters in Michigan. Elected representatives and people with huge constituencies in Michigan speak for the people of Michigan.

I was born and raised in Michigan. My parents were born and raised in Michigan. Three of my grandparents were born and raised in Michigan. Most of my aunts and uncles and cousins were born and raised in Michigan. I think I have a clue how people in Michigan thinks on this kind of issue.

OK, all my fans in Michigan, back me up on this one.

Endorsements from the left and right for Obama

Some obscure but good endorsements for Obama today. From the left, but the establishment left, Robert Reich endorsed Obama. He was Clinton's Labor Secretary, and an old friend of Clinton's from Oxford and Yale Law School. It's not unexpected - he hasn't been that close to the Clintons. As Josh Marshall puts it at Talking Points Memo, "since the late 90s [Reich] has been in what I would call polite opposition to the Clintons." That's the endorsement from the left, although Reich is more of an old-fashioned liberal than a real leftist. He's a regular commentator in various media, so he's more well-known than he would be on the basis of being Clinton's former Labor Secretary. So it's a bit of good news.

From slightly to the right, at least in the Democratic Party, Sam Nunn and David Boren, former senators from Georgia and Oklahoma, endorsed Obama today. Both of them have been out of office for a while, but for people who know them, these are significant. They're both somewhat, conservative, as Democratic senators go, but both also highly respected. I remember Nunn as one of the most serious politicians I've ever seen. He makes Carl Levin look like Santa Claus (and I say that as a huge fan of Carl Levin. And as a huge fan of Santa Claus).

What is significant is that they are not just endorsing Obama, they're joining his team as advisors. Nunn in particular has great foreign policy/national security credentials, as a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Any questions about Obama's appeal in the heartland will be somewhat alleviated by the presence of Boren, who is currently president of the University of Oklahoma.

A president is judged in part by the quality of the people that he attracts. Obama is attracting the best.