alternative hippopotamus

So, I had credentials to sit in on today’s DNC Rules & By-laws Committee. The proceeding broke up around 3:00 for lunch at which point I thought I’d make a shot at writing up my impressions. While I had some things I wanted to relate regarding details, there’s a meta-narrative here which is important. What has been lacking during the Bush years, indeed, often discouraged, is participatory democracy. This was a valuable opportunity to see a vital part of what holds this society together. That is, people arguing. Freely, often heavily handed to make their point, or to secure their clients victory. I think you could argue that some parts of the proceedings bordered on the scripted. This is a failing of the modern political class system, but one that can be compensated for by healthy debate. And, for the most part, today’s debate was healthy.

I’m just saying. Remember to chalk one up for the good guys today. The threat of hard-line authoritarianism is just a bit more distant as a result of this assembly.

So, on to some more specific observations.

• Bill Nelson is the guy who I would cast if I ever did a Hollywood flick on the life of a senator.
• Likewise, in the same epic I’d need a villain. Howard Ickes is cut-out for this role. He is oily in the way that you’d expect from a character right out of Dickens.
• Kesh from DC4D had a really good point about the Michigan delegates. The RBC shouldn’t try to decide how many delegates should get seated. That should be up to the Michigan Democratic party. The RBC should just make a decision related to what percentage of the delegates should be seated.
• Jesse made a good point also. While it’s true that Clinton supporters on the floor have been disruptive, often booing statements they didn’t agree with, or hissing at speakers, the tone was set by members of the RBC. A number of the RBC speakers set a tone and a style that was confrontational, and even baiting to the supporters in the crowd.
• A lot of the arguments by the pro-Clinton supporters in Florida and Michigan were to the effect of, and I’m paraphrasing: “please, don’t punish the voters.” This is a dicey argument as many of the parties present today committed acts which set in motion events which predictably lead to the disenfranchising of voters in Michigan and Florida. Wouldn’t it be simpler to say that the current situation is a result of the individual egos of people in power? Aren’t the voters of Florida and Michigan being used as bargaining chips?

Speaking for me only, AltHippo.

Sometimes life comes at you fast. I don’t even remember what that’s an advertisement for. I just know it’s funny because it’s true.

This afternoon I was at a Gamestop in Wheaton Plaza. They have 4 Wii boxes in front. Empty Wii boxes. So I axed the guy if he actually stocked Wii’s.

“Not actually, no.”

Another sales guy walked over. He seemed more interested in talking to me.

“They just show up and they’re sold the same day. We don’t actually stock them. They don’t last that long.”
“When do they ’show up’?”
“There’s never any rhyme or reason,” he explained. “Though lately there’s been between 6 to 10 that show up instead of less than 6. That helps.”

It’s really something once you think about it. There’s no inventory control because there’s no inventory. The store doesn’t even have control over when the Wii’s show up. Or how many show up. I guess it’s good work if you can get it.

Mostly I’ve been sitting around waiting for Saturday when the great nuclear meltdown happens between Barack “Hussein X” Obama and Hillary “Ducking from Sniper Fire” Clinton. Yes, I’m one of the lucky ones who have a ticket for the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee. Man, oh man, I wish I could work the popcorn concession for that event.

But last night I was screwing around with the XNA Developer’s kit. So far I’ve managed to get a game running on the Zune (using an SDK early release) and on the XBox 360. You know what, that’s pretty cool. I know that all the fuss has been about the Wii, but the idea of making games for the XBox, and for that matter, portable games for the Zune is way more attractive.

There’s a comedic bit that I’ve seen a few variations on that I believe relates directly to an incident that happened yesterday. Basically the bit goes like this, the comic starts the bit by asking: “What’s up with that Julius Caesar dude?” The comic then proceeds to tell a bad joke about Caesar’s assassination. The comic pauses to get the audience reaction, which is predictably: no laughs. Then, the comic follows it up with: “Oh. Too soon?”

The reason that this is a good bit, IMO has nothing to do with the historical reference to Caesar. Though, that’s a plus. The reason it’s a good bit is that the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK left such a huge scar on a generation that we’ve never been able to process it. Any reference to any of these assassinations is too soon. It probably will remain so in my lifetime. The bit, because of its reference to a political assassination over 2000 years ago is close enough to give us a moment of release while being distant enough so that we’re not reminded directly of that triple tragedy.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton referenced the RFK assassination to justify why she was staying in the Democratic primary. I believe she may have strained the reference a bit. In the future, I would like to suggest she avoid using political martyrs altogether in discussing her campaign. Yes, there’s a way of using such figures, but to do so requires dropping the use of allegory and metaphor and sitting in the purest and simplest use of the example. To wit: It would be justifiable to say that Benazir Bhutto died so that Hillary Clinton could be president of the US. Surely, if Bhutto can face the prospect of death, which she did uncompromisingly, then Clinton can face the prejudices of the American voting public. If a relatively paternalistic state such as Pakistan is ready for a woman prime minister, then surely the US is ready for a woman to be president.

I actually thought Joe Klein’s statement was reasonably fair. ( Swampland:)

And I’d also argue this: Hillary Clinton seems calculating because she isn’t very good at it. Her husband is. In my experience, she’s more a policy wonk than a calculating pol…but having watched Bill do this–and quite brilliantly, thank you–she has learned the wrong lesson: that fudging and calculation are the only way to win. And so she over-calculates–her famous drivers licenses for immigrants answer(s)–or she constructs false analogies (These things aren’t over until June)–and then she screws up trying to sell them.

As a quick proof that for Joe Klein this is fairly reasonable statement, I notice only about half of the commenters are calling him an idiot hack/liberal traitor. That’s pretty good for Joe.

My impression is that HRC is really a policy wonk before anything else, which is one of the things Joe Klein is saying. Quite frankly, so am I. The wonkier the details the better. Why not let her be a really good policy wonk? Why not just let Hillary be good at what she’s really good at? Not to mention being a NY Senator. Is that such a bad gig?

From looking at the various blogs I see the most cited reason for Clinton supporters to back Obama in the GE is potential McBush Supreme Court nominees. And, despite Sidney Blumenthal’s argument that people don’t look at McCain and see Bush, as far as Supreme Court nominees go, he’s beholden to the same coalitions that Bush is. You can predictably expect another Scalia, Alito, or god forbid, another Thomas.

My personal bete noire is everything else. Those right-wing freak show-vaudevillians that tap dance their way through the Bush administration. For instance, I was just reading about Dr. Susan Orr who recently resigned as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs: (Think Progress)

• In a 2001, Orr embraced a Bush administration proposal to “stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees” to cover a broad range of birth control. “We’re quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease,” said Orr.
• In a 2000 Weekly Standard article, Orr railed against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. “It’s not about choice,” said Orr. “It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.”
• Orr authored a paper in 2000 titled, “Real Women Stay Married.” In it she wrote that women should “think about focusing our eyes, not upon ourselves, but upon the families we form through marriage.”

It could just be that my elitist latte-sipping lifestyle here in the heart of The Village has lead me to the mistaken impression that birth control is part of most people’s life. How distopian do you have to be to associate birth control with a culture of death? How bleak is your general impression of your fellow human beings? I mean, the glass isn’t half empty for Dr. Orr. It’s half zombie.

I’ve mentioned the condition of the Mall before. Sadly, parts of the Mall have not been maintained, and the result is predictable. The Post-It-Note puts it in fairly stark terms, probably stronger than I would have put it, but I can’t say I see anything I genuinely disagree with:

The Mall is a national “disgrace,” an overused, neglected and decrepit urban park in need of a total makeover that could cost $500 million, according to testimony at a congressional hearing yesterday.

The legendary venue, which serves as civic stage and America’s front yard, lacks proper restrooms, shade and places to eat, witnesses said.

Its lakes and pools are dirty. Its grass is often trampled to dirt. And its walkways are cracked, patched, uneven and sometimes flooded when the nearby Potomac River is at high tide.

The area around the Lincoln Memorial is the real issue, IMO. I’ll try to get a few pictures over the weekend to show what I mean.

Aka, Goodbye, Mr Chip-on-His-Shoulder:

I do plead guilty to this: bringing to the attention of superiors at the Justice Department the legal manipulations of ideologues in the Civil Rights Division who passed themselves off as professional civil servants while carrying water for their friends and allies in left-wing organizations like the ACLU. Had I kept silent, I would likely be in a far different position than I am today. But I did not, and those I butted heads with have their revenge.

My own hard feelings will pass. [ed: Hahahahahahahaha.] But the political system has been damaged once more by the poisonous tactics of the left, and there is no reason to think that the whole sorry spectacle will not be repeated again and again and again. So long as such tactics are accepted and even encouraged by politicians and the media, it will become harder and harder to find ordinary citizens willing to submit to the character assassination that now passes for our confirmation process.

My impression of Von Spanky is that he genuinely believes that politicizing the Justice Department is perfectly okay, ’cause the liberal justice gets balanced out by the conservative variety. As if in the Bush administration we do Republican-style justice, and in an Obama administration he can do whatever kind of justice suits his personality. Enforcing the Flag Pin Burning Amendment, for instance, not likely. But, of course he’s in favor of fewer likely Democrats voting. That’s part of his job.

CNN:

Since it is clear that our nation is paralyzed and so not able to close our borders, feed the homeless, develop businesses in the inner cities and save people from having their homes taken by foreclosure due to ruthless mortgage companies, all because some folks don’t wear a flag lapel pin, we need to lead a national movement to demand that Congress and the states make requiring officeholders to wear a flag lapel pin the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Why stop at office holders? Every man, woman, and child should be required to wear a flag pin at all times. They can wear it on their lapel, or better yet, right next to their Regan tatoos.

Politico:

An Ohio-based group of Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters say they’ll work actively against Sen. Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee, arguing that Clinton has been the subject of “intense sexism” by party leaders and the media.

I get it that former Clinton supporters are going to have a hard time supporting Obama. Staying home, sure, I understand. But, actively campaigning against him?

Why don’t Clinton supporters start a third party? The two-party system, as far as I can see, isn’t inscribed in the Constitution. So, why not? When I was at the Netroots Nation Fundraiser a couple of weeks ago, Senator Feingold spoke eloquently about how the role of activists (and we are all activists of various stripes) is to keep the candidates honest. To keep a future Obama administration honest.

527’s are one mechanism for keeping politicians honest. Yes, I understand that Obama wants to neutralize the power of 527’s. To which I will say that it’s very interesting and relevant that he wants to do that. And, I, in all due repect say to my future president: Not Gonna Happen. If I want to start (or support) a PAC that supports his candidacy I will. If I want to start (or support) a PAC that prods his campaign on the issue of energy and the environment, then I’ll do that. This hippopotamus has never been a lock-step kind of mammal.

Top-down organizing works very well for the authoritarian mindset. It doesn’t work for the Democratic Party. And, I doubt it would work for a future party founded by current Clinton supporters.

The Great Blog War of 2008 has not been a good season for the reality-based community. And, unnecessarily so. The fight between the Clinton and Obama camps could have been over substantive issues. Instead, the tenor of the discussion was just a tad better than out-and-out name-calling.

Still, I reserve a special place in hell for those who pretend to be applying analysis to one candidate or another, but in fact are just being hacky. By hacky in this case I really mean dishonest; attempting to mess with people’s minds.

To explain what I mean, I wanted to link to two posts. The first is clearly identifiable as opinion, the second appears to be analysis, but isn’t.

Eriposte: (I’m using key sentences from the post that serve to summarize the arguments)

• Sen. Clinton appears to be staying in the race because she really believes she has a much better chance of delivering the White House to Democrats in November than Sen. Obama.
• One of the fundamental values I have sought to see in Democrats is that they not quit before the votes are counted and certainly not quit because the media asks them to quit.
• As I have said before, Sen. Clinton represents the only remaining opportunity to really get universal healthcare passed in the next 4 years.

Jerome: (again, using key sentences to summarize his points)

• For all votes cast, this means that Obama leads currently by about 80,000 votes.
• There’s clearly someting happening though, in regards of support for Obama, as he failed mightily at GOTV in WV, despite outspending Clinton, and as I noted yesterday, with voting underway in OR, SUSA has it tied among those whom have voted.
• It reminds me of the ‘76 Republican nomination, when Reagan began winning nearly all of the closing states, even though Ford remained with delegate lead at the convention.

While I disagree with both Eriposte and Jerome, at least Eriposte stays well within the framework of “here’s what I think…” as opposed to “science and history tell us that…” For instance, it’s impossible to say exactly why Clinton is staying in the race, as no one can read minds. Science and history tell us that. Yes, she could believe she has a better chance of winning. She could also believe that she just really wants to be president, so there. She could believe that Obama is secretly a Scientologist. The point is, no one knows what she really believes. Indeed, no one can.

Jerome, on the other hand, tosses around what appear to be concrete facts. Like how many votes Obama currently is ahead, and how Clinton will ultimately be the popular vote winner. Unfortunately, he omits key assumptions like using 0 votes for Michigan. Or, even that the “popular vote” is not a directly measurable quantity, but requires a degree of estimation.

As I say, there’s been a high degree of hackery in the campaign. It’s the form of hackery that Jerome uses that I object most strongly to.

One of the few perks in my small role in the vast left-wing conspiracy in Our Fair City, that of co-hosting DCDL, is that I get to meet the various authors, bloggers, etc., that I read, list to, or surf at.

So, last night at Drinking Liberally we hosted author Eric Lichtblau, discussing his new book, Bush’s Law. I explained in the introduction to the discussion that I had not yet finished “Bush’s Law.” In fact, I’m still on the first chapter. “But,” I added, “the prologue is excellent, and the table of contents is one of the best ever.”

I got a laugh, which was the whole point.

Prior to the talk, Eric introduced his fellow NYT author, James Risen. I pointed out to him (James Risen) that I had his book “State of War” on my ipod, and that the audiobook was a favorite to listen to on long walks. That should tell you what degree of political geek that I am. The point is that he seemed genuinely surprised to see how immersed that this issue had become in the popular culture. How deeply felt his work was and still is.

Indeed, when I was having dinner with my mother last Sunday, I had mentioned that KCinDC and I had put together this event (along with many others, including Jane Hamsher and The Seminal crew, Josh, Jason, and Alex.) She didn’t recognize Eric’s name at first, but when I mentioned that he had written the NYT articles on warrantless wiretapping along with James Risen, her first reaction was to point out that publication had been delayed until after the 2004 election. This did not sit well with any of us.

I noticed in the discussion of the book last night that Eric Lichtblau was careful to delimit the discussion at the NYT to whether or not publication would harm national security. Of course, it did not as it was typically assumed that Al Queda knew they were being wiretapped, anyway. I just thought it interesting that the issue was framed strictly along those lines.