Caucus Chalk Circle

So in years to come, people will ask me, "So, Jeff, how did you end being an John Edwards delegate?"

Well, its complicated.

The Washington State Democratic Party held its caucus this morning, and I attended as a Democrat of Rush voting district (yeah, I love the irony of the name, too). This was held at Panther Lake Elementary, in the combination auditorium/gym/cafeteria of the school (imagine a stage, lunch tables folded up against the wall, and a climbing rope hanging from the ceiling). It was extremely well-organized by a young man named Tyler and others of the Democratic party, and I did a couple headcounts - 80, then 100, then 120, and there I stopped with more people coming in the door. This was one of 8 caucuses in the 47th District. Tyler's organizers and the Dean campaign both brought donuts.

Several people spoke on Dean, Kerry, and the virtues of remaining uncommitted, then we broke into small groups by voting district. There were a total of nine people in our group. Most of them were next-door neighbors, and most of those were for solidly for Kerry. Indeed, I was the ONLY DEAN SUPPORTER in our little pod. Initial votes were Kerry 5, Dean 1, Edwards 1, and 2 Uncommitted.

Now under the rules of the caucus, Dean and Edwards had to get at least 15% ( in our case 2 votes) in order to move on (and how I was mocking Kucinich supporters in the earlier post- HAH!). Our Kerry group was relatively older (one was wearing her father's Adlai Stevenson button), very well prepared, and sold on the electibility meme. One of the leading Kerry supporters was a pleasant young woman that ended every sentence with the word "and", making it difficult to answer her points without seeming like interupting. This is politics at the micro level, and it was very good.

I pointed out the PAC problem. I noted a failure in reaching out to a new target market of voters. I pointed out Kerry's voting record as a senator made him vulnerable to all sorts of attacks across the political spectrum. I failed to sway them, and though several of them admitted a great preference to Dean, they felt Kerry was going to win. One of the Uncommitted went to Kerry. One of the Kerrys went to Edwards. The other Uncommitted went to Edwards.

So my choice was to drop out (leave the caucus), join Kerry, or to join Edwards. And to be frank, while I can support any of the candidates, I have more reservations about Kerry than anyone else currently in the field, so I jumped to Edwards. At the time I felt the move was SBK (Somebody But Kerry).

The groups ended up five and four, Kerry and Edwards. Our voting precinct had four delegates going on to the next higher caucus, so that broke down to 2 and 2. The Kerrys picked two of their number and Edwards group had to pick two of the four supporters. Well, the original Edwards supporter was a given, but the Uncommitted and Kerry swings (a married couple) didn't have the time, so the Former Dean Supporter stepped forward to be an official Edwards delegate.

Here are final tallies from our entire group
Kerry - 61 votes for 31 delegates
Dean - 23 votes for 11 delegates
Edwards - 8 votes for 3 delegates (two of them from Rush)
Clarke - 3 votes for 1 delegate
Kucinich - 8 votes for 4 delegates
Uncommitted - 3 votes for 3 delegates

So on one hand I'm a little disappointed - I definitely got the idea from some of my fellow Democrats that they felt that Dean was their personal choice, but were scared off by the Unelectability Sign that was hung around his neck. I mean, we were there to elect someone, and if we had chosen Dean, we would have, de facto become electable. But I may just be too much of an old radical.

But I will try to keep my bomb-throwing tendencies to a minimum (no, really), and dispence with my agreed-to duty to support John Edwards. And so I'm going to the next level, on May 1, and I have to do a little more research. Those Kerry supporters are sharp.

More later,

Rant: Flawed Vessels

So I have to deal with the fact that a public figure that I've admired has proved to be guilty of the sins that flesh is err to. Oddly enough, I'm not talking about Brett Favre.

My own political history with John Edwards has been played out with this blog. I wasn't a supporter originally, but when I found myself in his camp, found I like a lot of his policies and thought he could do the job. Indeed, as an Edwards supporter I got to engage in my own smugness when the top two Democratic candidates were pummeling each other - the dog I backed had already retired from the field with honor. Still, I am disappointed by the news that he had an affair, which he confirmed it on Friday.

Now, you'd think after the relentless bombardment of inappropriate behavior from the conservative side over the past six years, I would immune to this type of thing. Truth of the matter is, I find myself drifting more and more to a zero-tolerance position on the fine art of stepping out on your spouse. And if you're playing the "good-husband/family man card", you are putting your personal behavior on the table, so you really should live up to the talk.

More to the poinit, such activities underscore a basic error in judgment, considering, you know, that we're dealing with a figure with a published schedule and who is surrounded by the media. And while the political press is not adversarial (a rant for another day), it is opportunistic. It will likely pop up that those covering the campaign were aware of the affair (the young woman was videographer and working alongside them), but that no one was sure lacking positive proof (like, the candidate confessing - and if you're asking, no, you don't get points for being brave and honest on the television, you get points for not having the affair in the first place).

In short, the media close to the candidate was covering for him, as has happened with a number of "open secrets" about the private lives of public individuals. But once the cat is let out of the bag, everyone has to get into the big story. The information was released on a Friday afternoon, the day the Olympics began, when the Russians invaded a neighboring country. But Russia is far away and China gets its feathers ruffled if you talk about the weather, while Obama is on a vacation and McCain is reducing his press time. And most of all, this is a Democratic Sex Scandal, which the media KNOWS how to handle.

And yeah, there's a feeling of "Judge not, lest ye be judged" in looking at this, though if the Book of Matthew isn't your style, there's the basic Karmic justice that occurs when you declaim inappropriate activity on a Monday and by Wednesday the photos of your time as manager of the Suicide Girls Lacrosse Club show up on the Internet. But there has been a lot of judgment going on, and I don't feel like equivocating if this is better or worse than Alaskan corruption or Congressional shenanigans or Vice-presidential misadventures. If it is bad behavior from a conservative, it is bad behavior from a progressive.

Then there is the "flawed vessel" argument - just because the man is wrong, doesn't mean the ideas he exposes are wrong. That is true, but we have seen a plethora of leaky terracotta over the past decade, and but it doesn't make it any easier. Yeah, we DO expect our leaders to hold themselves to a higher standard - that's why they are leaders. Call it the Captain America school of political values, and it applies to all parties.

I like what Edwards was fighting for, and while I think his national career is done, he probably will continue to serve his state. In his apology, he stated "Feel free to beat me up", and there will be no shortage of that in the coming days, as this story continues (yeah, continues) to unspool. The irony is, Edwards aspired to the highest office of the land, and for the next week or so, will get all the scrutiny and judgment that comes with the office.

OK, sermon over. Back to the Voter's Guide. More later,

Update Admit it, you would click on a link titled Suicide Girls Lacrosse Club.

Conventional Wisdom - Part One

So I followed the recent Democratic convention the way that most Americans followed it - not at all. I've been busy, and didn't even have time to watch The Daily Show, much less the keynote speakers. So what I picked up I picked up from osmosis - friends, the web, and the media (yeah, I know, that's scary). But I want to put down a few things in this hammock between the two conventions.

The Conventional (heh) media wisdom was that the convention would be a snore, and, if the Dems did things right, it would be. Stuff that makes good television usually makes for bad politics - 68 in Chicago? Great television, good for democracy in general, lousy for the party. So if they got through the week without major gaffes, without horrible things happening, and with modicum of positive spin, they've done the job. Everything after that is gravy.

The Conventions are not (contrary to opinion) a big commercial - they are about firing up the base and about the ground-level connections that make any group work. Not only among the various factions and committees and delegations, but with the those reporting on the efforts. This convention is just like the International Pipefitting Device Convention in Peoria, its a meet and greet, a place where faces are put to communications.

And just so you know - San Deigo Comics convention? 85,000 attendees. Democratic Convention? 35,000. So don't complain about not getting enough ink.

That all said, the Democrats did real well. There were a few gaffes, and no one really got out of line. For the Democrats, this is amazing. This is a party that has more wings than a John Madden turkey has legs, and to see them all pulling in the same general direction is a scary thing to behold.

The Democrats also revealed something that most of us have forgotten - the power of speeches. Time after time, I heard about how great the speeches were. Clinton was great. Carter was great. Obama was fantastic. Edwards was spot-on. Kerry's was "the best speech he ever gave" (That's praising with faint damns from our media). And in one brief, shining moment, the Dems understood the attractiveness of Ronald Reagan as the late president's son spoke about stem cells. Yeah, you could see the synapses firing in their brains - This is why his father was popular.

Couple minor gaffes - The possible future first lady told a newspaper reporter to "shove it". And by reporter I mean editorial writer. And by newspaper I mean the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a cross between Fox News and My Weekly Reader. Unlike most commentators, I can honestly say I have read this paper, and state that its been picking on Mother Teresa since she was married to Senator John Heinz (the late Republican senator was insufficiently bloodthirsty to satisfy the Scaife owners of the Trib). It was a minor dust-up (compared to, say, the Veep tossing around the F-Bomb on the Senate floor), and the end result was to make the candidate's wife "fiesty" and "independent". Which makes me think it may have been planned.

And on THK, I did catch part of her speech. While the commentators are trolling obscure European films to place her accent, most of America is going to think of one thing - Eva Gabor from "Green Acres". OK, admit it, you just got the image of Kerry and Kerry in the American Gothic pose. John Edwards as Eb. Bill Clinton as Mr. Haney. This has been a filmways production darlink.

And there was also an attempt to embarrass Kerry with a picture of him in a blue clean suit at NASA, looking like he was auditioning for the road-show version of Harvey. The Reps are still hoping for a "Dukakis in a Tank" moment, an image that can crystalize a negative spin, but they should be avoiding photos - the Dems just have to flip the flashcard of the "President in a Flight Suit".

OK, the speeches were amazing, even filtering down to my level. The biggie in the early part of the week was Barack Obama, who is the "new Mario Cuomo" in that a good speech thrust him to the forefront of the party (no one wants to mention that a good speech at the convention also thrust Mike Dukakis to the forefront of the party). The big paragraph that gets quoted is:

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?

Awesome god. Awesome text. I'm a sucker for a unity message.

In many ways, the coverage of good speech after good speech seemed like the media was itself creating a story here - building up for big expectations for Kerry's own acceptance speech. Kerry is not as stiff as claimed, but he did have a helluva warmup band. And yet he spiked it, laid himself out, presented his background and his intentions. In effect, introduced himself in a way that the media had pressed him to do. And in turn they (even the right-o-center commentators) gave him good marks. Even a Democrat convention director cursing live on-air about the balloons not falling could not mar the moment.

And we have to fold away the tinfoil hats - the Clintonista Democratic Leadership Committe did not pull out any coup to put Hillary on the throne. But we can keep the tinfoil hats on hand - Stories that Pakistan was being pressed to deliver a High Visibility Terrorist during the convention were realized when, two hours before Kerry's big speech, Pakistan delivered a High Visibility Terrorist. But even that got buried by the convention news (it showed up on page 11 of the local paper) - in part because the Pakistanis bagged him five days previous, but only made the announcement at what was hoped to be a advantageous time).

As one blogger put it "If it takes a Democratic Convention to get the administration to get serious about terrorism, let's hold one every week!"

The bloggers themselves were there in force, being subsumed into the body politic. They were taken more seriously, and made their media and political connections as well. In part, the positive spin from the mainstream media may be in part from the presence of the bloggers, who could beat out the mainstream in speed, had a left-of-center view, and were reporting both on the convention and on the media coverage (who watches the watchmen, indeed?). I am sure that more than a few bloggers saw long-range opportunities here, and that political blogwriters will soon join the pundocracy of talking heads.

If the bloggers had the juice at this convention, protesters didn't. The "free speech zones" were a joke, looking like prison camps, and only covered by the media to show how oppressive they were. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette covered a mock conflict between LaRouchies and a bunch of guys dressed up as pirates, but for the most part the protesters were uncovered and forgotten. I think this was part of a media "theme" as well - if the mainstream Dems are supposed to the left, it confuses the issue to show people protesting that they are too conservative (which was where most of the protests came from)

And so its done, and the city of Boston and the Democratic Party both get to breath a sigh of relief. Interesting news at a convention is not always a good thing, and the Dems showed, much to my surprise, that they could get together under one roof and put on a show. That bodes well for their level of organization.

More later on the subject, after New York,

So Not a Surprise

88% John Edwards
87% Chris Dodd
86% Joe Biden
86% Barack Obama
83% Hillary Clinton
83% Bill Richardson
80% Mike Gravel
77% Dennis Kucinich
38% Rudy Giuliani
29% Tom Tancredo
27% John McCain
24% Mitt Romney
24% Mike Huckabee
16% Ron Paul
16% Fred Thompson

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

Well, the only surprise is RUDY as my number one GOP choice. I feel I really need to shower. Repeatedly.

More later,

Voter's Guide: US Congress

The one piece of encouragement that the current White Househas been able to take is that, no matter how low their approval ratings are, they are matched or exceeded by the horrible opinion we have of the US Congress.

And of course, you can see why. Eighty percent of the country is mad at the Congress for not standing up against this administration, and about the 20% left are cheesed off that it is not helping the administration against the other 80%. And the continual scandals that leak out of there - Vitters, Foley, Stevens, and now Edwards never cease to provide grist for the mills of commentators. The current occupant of US Congressional District 8, State of Washington, has made a lot of his ability to look criminals right in the eyes, but I don't think he was referring to doing so during Congressional Prayer Breakfasts.

Yet despite everything, we the people tend to return our congresscritters to office with amazing regularity. Over in the 7th, Jim McDermott has been found guilty of taping phone calls, appealed, got the appeal bounced, and forced to pay out a million bucks. Yet he remains such a dead-on favorite that his most major competition is Goodspaceguy Nelson.

So we have one Republican incumbent, three Democratic challengers, and two independents. The Dems are running against the Rep and the Indies are running against the entire system. Dig in.

Boleslaw (John) Orlinski, noted on his yard signs as B. John Orlinski is an independent a Polish emigre who helped form the first independent party in that nation, Renaissance during the Solidarity years, and was inspired to run by Ron Paul's candidacy. There is a warning that previous sentence, and it wasn't the word "Solidarity".

Richard Todd castigates the failings of a two-party democracy through the lens of The Federalist Papers, which recommends we browse. He is also the author of "Saga of the Polar Star" (What is it with authors this year?), which is published by Todd Merchandise. He argues that only an independent can serve the public interest as opposed to serving the faction that put him into office. I would offer the counter that an Independent would serve the factions that put him into office, it just wouldn't be factions that are wearing name tags.

James E. Vaughn evokes the ghost of Scoop Jackson, who is legendary to the five people who lived here in the 70s. He posts himself as a conservative Democrat who opposes both the extremes of the entire Republican party and the liberal Progressive Democrats. He gets the award this year of Worst Yard Sign, topping out even Jim Wiest's topheavy diamond-shape. Vaughn used the smallest typeface possible to put as much raw data on his signs (including a web site and a recommendation to google), which made them impossible to read from the road. He also used a cheap paper stock, which would have been OK, but it has rained since his campaign put up the signs. Good news - they look like they're biodegradable.

Dave Reichert is the incumbent, and of all the candidates in the voter's guide, remembers to pose in front of a flag, because there's a war on, you know. He wants a strong America with a well-stocked military, low taxes with an improving economy, increased jobs, lowered health costs, improved education, and a protected environment. Oddly, I like all these things, too. Pity we don't have them. Now, if ONLY there was some elected governmental body of capable individuals that could do these things. Hang on, it will come to me ...

Keith Arnold will cure the problems with the 2000 elections by stripping all the power away from the Supreme Court. Lay the voter's guide down and back away carefully.

Darcy Burner is the chief Democratic candidate in a rematch from the close election four years back. She attacks the failed policies of the past seven years, on many of the grounds that Reichert expresses interest. Unlike the Republican, she actually sketches out some plans to make this happen. Maybe he should go to work for her.

And that wraps it - one more thing to do, and then there's the vote itself.

No, I'm not going to do this marathon for the general election. I feel like I've bitten off more than I could chew already.

More later,

Politics: Reps as Dems

Yeah, I've been putting off talking politics, keeping to some local stuff. But as things heat up for next election, where we're not only choosing a president but the entire Washington State government, we'll get more notes here. In this case, we're in that wafer-thin space between the last debate and the first primaries and caucuses. Most people haven't been paying attention, and we've already seeing dropouts even before the first vote.

Now, for those new to the 'street, let me be clear - I'm a leftie. You can call it progressive, but I will go with old-school liberal. Worse, I am one of the goo-goo types (goo-goo being short for good government, a Chicago term), who believes in seeking consensus and using process to advance your cause and honoring the spirit of the rule as opposed to just the letter. And while I am to the left of the current occupant of the White House (who will be his party's nominee, and as such is bad television), I still can see daylight between the two parties, even if I think both are being too conservative and/or corporate.

So I'm not going to concern-troll here. There very little that will make me vote for any of the folk running for the GOP position (yeah, I voted for Ford back in the day, but that was forever and a half ago, so calling me a former Republican is like calling me a former child). I would prefer to see a Republican candidate who, if elected, would do a good job as opposed to a nutter that hopefully be unelectable (though Americans are often punished by getting the leaders they deserve).

All that said, I think that the problem for the Republicans is that they are acting like Democrats. The GOP is supposed to be tight, small, organized, and heavy on message discipline. And most of all, following Reagan's Commandment of "Thous shall not speak ill of another candidate". This bunch? Not so much. In fact, it looks like they looted the political graveyards of previous Dem candidates in order to pull their gang together. I mentioned this four years ago, and it is even more clear this time out -  I mean, look at the comparisons:

Romney - A Massachusetts, non-protestant who supports universal health care and is accused of flip-flopping on his nuanced views? Meet John Kerry.

Gringrich - A charismatic, intellectual populist intensely disliked by Washington and known for adulterous relationships? Why don't you just nominate Bill Clinton and be done with it?

Paul - Equal parts enlightened and scary with a good ground game and organization, passionate, young supporters, ignored by the mass media until they find the right tool to slam him? Say hi to Howard Dean.

Santorum - The political bad penny. Odious and sanctimonious, he leaves you wondering how the heck he keeps showing up at the weirdest moments. Assumed to be running for VP. When he grows up, he'll be Lieberman.

Perry - A tough one. But he was considered an obvious contender until he actually entered the race, upon which he was set upon, dismembered, and left for dead. Let's go with Bill Bradley or Mario Cuomo.

Bachman - There are candidates that are not running for president or to make sure their issues are heard so much as maintaining their brand, so that after the inevitable defeat they can appear on TV shows as representing a particular demographic. The Dem version? Al Sharpton.

Huntsman - The candidate that everyone supposedly loves, but has no chance of winning. And if he ever got over single digits would be immediately savaged. Treated as a punchline by the cogonesti. The liberal version is that perennial short straw Dennis Kucinich.

(Cain) - Already dropped - Complete non-politician with hardcore following and makes whacky statements - Lyndon LaRouche.

(Palin) - Never declared but made a number of headfakes, looked at as being the great hope who would ride to the party's rescue - Wesley Clarke.

(Trump) - Another one dedicated to his personal brand, willing to run a third party despite the fact that it would be ultimately bad for his side of the argument - Ralph Nader.

(Palenty) - Here's an apparently nice guy for a politician, but never really gets any traction, could be confused with most of the rest of the Senate. Gephardt. I mean Edwards. I mean Richardson....

What's missing from this collection? A centrist who gives a good speech. Of course, we already HAVE one of those running as the Democrat.

More later,