Obama and Edwards Oppose Mukasey; Where’s Hillary Clinton?

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.


For months, Barack Obama and John Edwards have been trying to find issues that separate them from Hillary Clinton. On the Iraq war, HRC’s strategy has been to provide neither of her main challengers much maneuvering room. Like them, she wants out. There may be differences in rhetoric or positioning. Edwards calls for an immediate pullout of 40,000 or more troops; Obama has urged withdrawing one or two brigades a month; Clinton has not been so specific. But these distinctions have not yet allowed Obama or Edwards to turn the war into an issue of traction.

Now comes Michael Mukasey. This morning, both Edwards and Obama announced they oppose his nomination as attorney general. Mukasey was once a shoo-in for the job, (If you Google “shoo-in,” the third item that appears is a New York Times story on Mukasey. Literally.) But the judge has run into problems by refusing to state whether he considers waterboarding torture. In doing so, he is joining the Bush administration’s word game. George W. Bush declares he doesn’t torture, but he and his crew refuse to define torture. Though much of the world considers waterboarding to be torture, the Bush aides won’t state if it’s included in their definition of torture. So it seems Bush might well be saying “we don’t torture” while thinking “waterboarding ain’t torture.” Mukasey also got into trouble during his confirmation hearing for essentially endorsing the administration’s view that Bush is above the law when Bush determines that the Constitution allows him to be above the law.

Regarding Mukasey, this morning, Obama said,

We don’t need another attorney general who believes that the president enjoys an unwritten right to secretly ignore any law or abridge our constitutional freedoms simply by invoking national security. And we don’t need another attorney general who looks the other way on issues as profound as torture.

Shortly after that, Edwards released a statement saying,

George Bush’s political appointees at the Justice Department have twisted the law to justify waterboarding and other interrogation techniques that have long been considered torture. Now the man who is supposed to clean up the Justice Department–Judge Michael Mukasey–says he does not know whether waterboarding is torture or not. What more information does he need? Waterboarding was used in the Spanish inquisition and considered a war crime in World War II.

Mukasey has also said that the president doesn’t necessarily have to abide by acts of Congress. We need an Attorney General who will put the rule of law above the administration’s short-term political interests, and Mukasey has already shown that he’s unwilling to do that.

The sentiment among Democratic senators about Mukasey is shifting. Enough to imperil his nomination? Maybe not yet. As for Clinton, a Clinton spokesperson said that she is “deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey’s unwillingness to clearly state his views on torture and unchecked executive power” and that Clinton has not yet decided how she will vote on the Mukasey nomination. But with Obama and Edwards opposing Bush’s pick, can she be far behind?

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate