For a while, anyway. People are telling me I'm obsessed. Could be.
First a brief disclaimer about Friday's post. It's always embarrassing to learn a day after you painstakingly put one of these things together that others, elsewhere, in much more prominent places, have already done virtually the same thing, and better. I honestly had not seen this excellent analysis by Daniel Foster at The Corner, until long after that post went up. I just discovered this one a few minutes ago. (Can I cop a GMTA?)
There are just two additional points I'd like to make, and then I'll try to shut up about this for a while.
First, as has been repeatedly pointed out elsewhere, the White House memo says with respect to contacts with Sestak that "efforts were made in June and July of 2009" to determine whether he'd be interested in an alternative to entering the Senate race, but that both the White House and Clinton agree there was only one brief conversation between them. So what were the other "efforts?" To that I'd just add that, at least according to Larry Kane, Sestak himself claimed back in February that, in his own words, " 'he was called many times' to pull out." So at the very least, one conversation with Clinton is not the end of the story, especially as too many elements of that story don't mesh.
The other question that may end up playing a part in this saga, other than what was offered to Sestak, is what was offered to Specter in exchange for his party switch. Was a promise made to keep Sestak out of the race or at least to try to keep Sestak out of the race? While I don't know if that sort of quid pro quo would rise (sink) to the level of violation that a job offer would, the answer might add an interesting piece to the puzzle.
And now, having gotten that off my chest, I'm off to enjoy this beautiful Sunday afternoon, bearing in mind the sacrifices of those who gave their lives to preserve for all of us our liberty and freedom.
First a brief disclaimer about Friday's post. It's always embarrassing to learn a day after you painstakingly put one of these things together that others, elsewhere, in much more prominent places, have already done virtually the same thing, and better. I honestly had not seen this excellent analysis by Daniel Foster at The Corner, until long after that post went up. I just discovered this one a few minutes ago. (Can I cop a GMTA?)
There are just two additional points I'd like to make, and then I'll try to shut up about this for a while.
First, as has been repeatedly pointed out elsewhere, the White House memo says with respect to contacts with Sestak that "efforts were made in June and July of 2009" to determine whether he'd be interested in an alternative to entering the Senate race, but that both the White House and Clinton agree there was only one brief conversation between them. So what were the other "efforts?" To that I'd just add that, at least according to Larry Kane, Sestak himself claimed back in February that, in his own words, " 'he was called many times' to pull out." So at the very least, one conversation with Clinton is not the end of the story, especially as too many elements of that story don't mesh.
The other question that may end up playing a part in this saga, other than what was offered to Sestak, is what was offered to Specter in exchange for his party switch. Was a promise made to keep Sestak out of the race or at least to try to keep Sestak out of the race? While I don't know if that sort of quid pro quo would rise (sink) to the level of violation that a job offer would, the answer might add an interesting piece to the puzzle.
And now, having gotten that off my chest, I'm off to enjoy this beautiful Sunday afternoon, bearing in mind the sacrifices of those who gave their lives to preserve for all of us our liberty and freedom.
