Garance digs up a nugget from a DNC meeting last March:
Our ultimate control is, in fact, seating the delegation. So if a state decides that they are more vested in their own system, and they'll worry about getting seated later, okay, there's not much the party can do about that, except kick them out of the convention.
And then I think the party would go through the following question: Is the bad publicity back home worth not seating them at the convention?
Okay, and, guess what?
We would seat them at the convention. I mean, unless maybe they're Wyoming or a state that is so wildly Republican that we don't care, and we don't think we could ever win it.
"Mrs. Clinton has reserved her right to take this to the credentials committee."
But others seem to suggest that an informal deal to seat all of them after Obama gets the nomination might be feasible. That would be far too reasonable for the Clintons, it seems to me.
So far, the dire predictions many have made about the "death" of traditional narratives and imaginative thought at the hands of video games have at best equivocal evidence to support them. Television and cinema may be suffering, economically, at the hands of interactive media. But literacy standards and book sales have failed to nosedive, and both books and radio are happily expanding into an age that increasingly looks like it will be anything but lived on-screen. Young people still enjoy sport, going out and listening to music. They like playing games with their friends, and using the internet to keep in touch and arrange meetings rather than to isolate themselves. And most research—including a recent $1.5m study funded by the US government—suggests that even pre-teens are not in the habit of blurring game and real worlds. This finding chimes with an obvious truth: that a large proportion of "problem behaviours" in relation to any medium or substance exist for resolutely old-fashioned reasons—lack of education, parental attention, security, support and experience.
"The American people have to
know the Democratic Party can run its own delegate selection process
... if they want to govern America."
We're discovering for the umpteenth time that the Democrats obviously can't govern themselves. This absurd circus in DC today really does remind me of their inability to understand rules, and congenital refusal to apply them.
Still no resolution at the RBC. Days like these remind some of us why we could never be Democrats. Ambers:
6:00: Even the cognoscenti are being kept in the dark. Florida Dem
Party chair Karen Thurman is visiting the press corps. She has no
special info about the delay in resuming public deliberations.
Blogging is a natural form for the educated, wry Brit who knows above all else how to conduct an amusing conversation. And Nigeness is very funny, very British and very smart. I wondered how long it would take to turn Britain into an island of bloggers. After a late start, they seem to be catching up fast.
"Would you rather have a president who had an
affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?" Jeannie, the
Greensboro Democrat, asks a fellow in a floppy Tilley hat and Hillary
buttons. "That's a good point," he replies.
"My momma taught me to play by the rules and respect those rules. My
mother taught me, and I'm sure your mother taught you, that when you
decide change the rules, middle of the game, end of the game, that is
referred to as cheatin'," - Donna Brazile.
From the current issue, Ross's take on Bush's legacy:
Bush’s hopes for vindication depend on the Middle East’s following a gradual, Fukuyaman track toward free markets, democratic government, and the “end of history.” And just as crucially, they depend on American troops’ staying in Iraq for as long as it takes for that to happen. If these events come to pass—if the Iraq of 2038 or so is stable, democratic, and at peace with its neighbors, and if American troops have maintained a constant presence in the country—no one should be surprised to hear hawkish liberals as well as conservatives taking up the idea that George W. Bush deserves a great deal of the credit.
It seems to me that if a policy can only be judged from the vantage point of thirty years into the future, the possibility of any sane or rational judgment of it as we decide is impossible. Such time-lines make such decisions close to meaningless, and remove all proximate responsibility for those making them. If Iraq does end up as Ross and I hope, I see no reason to congratulate George W. Bush for botching the start of it.
The Americans want to continue to have “a free hand” to arrest Iraqis and carry out military operations, and they want authority for more than 50 long-term military bases, Mr. Adeeb said. He said that he doubted that a security pact along the lines sought by the Americans would pass in the Iraqi Parliament.
50 long-term military bases. How is that not empire?
"We all misspeak sometimes. I've done it myself. So on such a basic,
factual error, you'd think that Senator McCain would just admit that he
made a mistake and move on. But he couldn't do that. Instead, he dug
in. And the disturbing thing is that we've seen this movie before -- a
leader who pursues the wrong course, who is unwilling to change course,
who ignores the evidence. Now, just like George Bush, John McCain
refused to admit that he made a mistake. And that's exactly the kind of
leadership that we've had through more than five years of fighting a
war that should've never been authorized, and should've never been
waged.
We don't need more leaders who can't admit they've made a mistake,
even when it's about something as fundamental as how many young
Americans are serving in harm's way." - Barack Obama, today.
McCain said that the US presence in Iraq was now at pre-surge levels. It's a pretty serious error:
"I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn
down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet."
DIsmissing it as a verb tense triviality is Clintonian. In the foreign policy debate, Obama and McCain have basically fought each other to a draw these past few weeks. Given McCain's serious domestic flaws, that's good news for the Democrat.
2:25: Blanchard: "You must NOT turn you back on our loyal state."
Blanchard: the candidates taking their names off the ballot "was a
knowing, willing decision. It doesn't make the election flawed. It
makes a flawed strategy."
People wonder how Obama would deal with a sociopathic enemy in Iran or elsewhere - I think we'll have a good idea over the next couple weeks. How he's handling the Clinton campaign right now is the best evidence.
I Am Neurotic is a blog where readers share their neuroses. An example:
I can’t stand multiple bumps close together. Corn on the cob, multiple pimples, popcorn ceilings… anything with multiple bumps. They seriously freak me out.
My pens must remain untouched by other human hands. I will happily let someone use my pen if the occasion arises, but it is straight in the garbage afterwards or ‘keep it.’ If it’s a pen I’ve become particularly attached to, an awkward ‘sorry, I can’t lend it to you and I can’t explain why; I just can’t.’ It’s not a germ or hygiene issue, but some deep violation of the symbiotic relationship between a man and his pen.
...something new and potentially important is happening in Baghdad: the American Embassy has begun to hear cases inside the Green Zone, so that Iraqis don’t have to give up everything before they can be considered for resettlement. It’s called in-country processing, a rare though not unheard-of thing in American history. In March, the cases of thirty Iraqis working at the embassy, along with fifty-two family members, were heard, and the first of them will arrive here this week. The numbers should increase fairly significantly in the coming months. Under the terms of a bill that is one of Senator Ted Kennedy’s many proud achievements, in-country processing in Iraq is now U.S. policy.
Harold Ickes yawns during a Democratic National Committee (DNC) meeting at the Marriott Park Wardman hotel May 31, 2008 in Washington DC. By Mark Wilson/Getty Images.
12:02 p.m:
Wexler is yelling. "We must find a way...to resolve this situation so
that Florida may participate in this historic nominating process that
will soon come to a close." ... Says the rules provide for a reduction
in the NUMBER of pledged delegates... Wexler announces Obama campaign's support for Ausman petition...
-- says it would award Clinton a net 19 delegates... "Sen. Obama should
be commended for his willingness to offer this extraordinary
concession.... "
Playing by the rules - and being extremely smart. Imagine if the Iraq war had been planned by Obama's campaign managers. You think we would have had no post-invasion strategy?
"George W. Bush brought most of his White House team with him from Texas. Except for Karl Rove, these Texans were a strikingly inadequate bunch. Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, Karen Hughes, Al Hawkins, Andy Card (the last not a Texan, but a lifelong Bush family retainer) — they were more like characters from The Office than the sort of people one would expect to find at the supreme height of government in the world’s most powerful nation.
McClellan, too, started in Bush’s governor’s office, and if he never belonged to the innermost circle of power, he nonetheless gained closer proximity than would be available to almost anyone who did not first serve in Texas.
That early team was recruited with one paramount consideration in mind: loyalty. Theoretically, it should be possible to combine loyalty with talent. But that did not happen often with the Bush team," - David Frum, National Post.
In an act of superhuman professionalism, Ambers is taking notes. More here. It got off to a good start:
09:38: A woman, dressed in a pink pants suit, parks herself in one
of the press filing rooms and refuses to leave. Security hired by the
hotel is called. They surrounded the woman; a 20 minute, unproductive
discussion ensues. The woman claims she was escorted into the press
room by a DNC official; the official, conveniently enough, cannot be
found. The woman stood up and immediately fell to the ground, laying
prostrate in protest. "Adam nine, we need SOD up to the McKinnon room,"
one of the hotel security agents radioed. The woman looked up at the
curious members of the press corps. "Sorry to disturb you.," she said.
As I type, a half dozen police officers and an equal number of security
guards are trying to escort her out.
Publius thinks Clinton's reaction to the RBC decision today will be more important than the decision itself:
In the days ahead, the Clintons have the power either to unite the party going into the fall, or to leave a lasting, poisonous, and potentially-fatal schism. At this point, it’s not clear what path they’ll choose.
Michelle Cottle argues that Clinton has made Pelosi seem tough:
...the individual most responsible for Pelosi's newly fearsome stature is Hillary Clinton. It was, after all, the letter from angry Hillary donors that overnight cast Pelosi as a defender of the Democratic grassroots. Progressives in particular--many of whom spent much of last year trashing Pelosi's leadership as timid and pathetic-- celebrated her refusal to be cowed by arrogant party fat cats. Likewise, reports that pro-Clinton movie mogul Harvey Weinstein had tried to compel Pelosi to back his plan for a revote in Florida and Michigan (charges that Weinstein has denied) raised hackles around the speaker's office and burnished the image of Pelosi as a bulwark against an out-of-control Clinton machine.
You mean resisting Clinton bullying isn't proof you're a misogynist?
Artist Tone Holmen's sculpture of a polar bear, made from plastic bags, is displayed at the Recycled Sculpture Show at London Zoo on May 29, 2008 in England. Twenty sculptors have used everyday waste and scrap to create works of art that will remain on show until September 5, 2008. By Peter McDiarmid/Getty Images.
Leon Wieseltier is sick of pontificating. But not entirely! Money quote:
And mawkishly I must admit also that the catastrophes in Burma and
China have had the distant consequence of shutting me up: I cannot
quite work myself into a consideration of those children from a policy
standpoint, though I am grateful that others will do so, and punditry
is no place for the agonies of philosophy.
Four police officers filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in November claiming the [beard ban] policy is discriminatory. The officers say the prohibition on beards and goatees is unfair for men who suffer a skin condition that reacts negatively to shaving. The condition can cause severe irritation, rashes and ingrown hair.
"Beyond the presidency, the more important position of Supreme Leader
will change hands eventually, and probably sooner rather than later.
All of these changes could bear on U.S.-Iranian relations, for better
or worse. To the extent that the threat environment in Iran is viewed
as high, it is more likely that Iranians will select hardline leaders.
If the temperature should be decreased, there is a greater likelihood
that the worst of the Iranian leadership will find itself out of power.
This is only one reason among many that U.S. leaders should calm down
the rhetoric on Iran and make clear that talks—without
preconditions—are an option."
Geraldine Ferraro has an op-ed today in The Boston Globe. It's rife with twisted arguments. One section:
...a group of women - from corporate executives to academics to members of the media - have requested that the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University and others conduct a study, which we will pay for if necessary, to determine three things.
First, whether either the Clinton or Obama campaign engaged in sexism and racism; second, whether the media treated Clinton fairly or unfairly; and third whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate. And if they did to suggest ethical guidelines which the industry might adopt.
Well, actually, the Shorenstein Center released a report on the presidential primary yesterday. A few paragraphs:
Rick Hills has a seriesofposts on gay marriage and the slippery slope argument. Eric Posner responds:
The slippery slope argument has become shorthand for the view that if we try to make sure that all our social and legal conventions are morally justified, we will end up with no conventions or (what is almost the same thing) in a state of permanent transition between different conventions, which would be worse than tolerating existing conventions that are unjust. This argument is, at the extreme, an objection to any time of reform, and so cannot always carry the day, but it is not an argument that one can refute simply by showing that the proposed new convention is morally superior to the old one. But the reason this argument persists in the same-sex-marriage debate is that it is impossible to point out any concrete harms from recognizing same-sex marriage, and thus the only argument left is this anxiety about the arbitrariness of conventions.
I haven't commented much on Scott McClellan's book. But it is not necessary to bemoan his possible financial incentives to dump on Bush to see the core truth that Peggy Noonan grasps:
His primary target is Karl Rove, whose role he says was "political
manipulation, plain and simple." He criticizes as destructive the
50-plus-1 strategy that focused on retaining power through appeals to
the base at the expense of a larger approach to the nation. He blames
Mr. Rove for sundering the brief post-9/11 bipartisan entente when he
went before an open Republican National Committee meeting in Austin,
four months after 9/11, and said the GOP would make the war on terror
the top issue to win the Senate and keep the House in the 2002
campaign. By the spring the Democratic Party and the media were
slamming back with charges the administration had been warned before
9/11 of terrorist plans and done nothing. That war has continued ever
since.
Rove has been one of the most lethal poisons ever injected into the political bloodstream.
A festival trader surveys the flooded main arena at the Sunrise Festival on May 30, 2008 in Yeovil, England. The festival was cancelled after flash flooding yesterday. Yes, it was called the Sunrise Festival.
The sense of shifting tides in the terrorism fight is shared by a
number of terrorism experts, though some caution that it is too early
to tell whether the gains are permanent. Some credit Hayden and other
U.S. intelligence leaders for going on the offensive against al-Qaeda
in the area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where the tempo of
Predator strikes has dramatically increased from previous years.
But
analysts say the United States has caught some breaks in the past year,
benefiting from improved conditions in Iraq, as well as strategic
blunders by al-Qaeda that have cut into its support base.[…]On Iraq, he said he is encouraged not only by U.S. success against
al-Qaeda’s affiliates there, but also by what he described as the
steadily rising competence of the Iraqi military and a growing popular
antipathy toward jihadism. “Despite this ’cause célebrè’ phenomenon,
fundamentally no one really liked al-Qaeda’s vision of the future,”
Hayden said. As a result, the insurgency is viewed locally as “more and
more a war of al-Qaeda against Iraqis,” he said.
We do have the capacity to influence things in some arenas–and
Iraq is, right now, a central battlefield in the war against jihadists.
To undo what we have put in place would be unwise, reckless, and–given
events of the last year–indefensible as well.
I'm not sure this formulation works. It seems true to me at this point that a careful, staged withdrawal from Iraq now seems much less likely to provoke a catastrophe than we once feared. But figuring out precisely how to sustain the good trends in Iraq without a permanent open-ended presence will require finesse and prudence. Sustaining in a straight line what we have been doing does not necessarily follow. Both Obama and McCain will have to find a path between indefinite occupation and precipitous withdrawal. But it does seem to me that al Qaeda's self-defeating nihilism, a more effective Iraqi army, some smart maneuvers by Maliki and the knowledge of a looming end to the US occupation at its current levels have led to a better prospect than almost anyone imagined two years ago. Obama has more adjustment to do on this than McCain at this point.
My real name is Nate Silver and my principal
occupation has been as a writer, analyst and partner at a sports media
company called Baseball Prospectus. What we do over there and what I'm doing over here
are really quite similar. Both baseball and politics are data-driven
industries. But a lot of the time, that data might be used badly.
In baseball, that may mean looking at a statistic like batting average
when things like on-base percentage and slugging percentage are far
more correlated with winning ballgames. In politics, that might mean
cherry-picking a certain polling result or weaving together a narrative
that isn't supported by the demographic evidence.
I had dinner last night with an old friend, Comment Central's Danny Finklestein. Danny writes a football (soccer) column as well as political blog. And he regaled me over Larb Gai about the statistical training sports journalism requires. It comes in handy. It was mathematics that persuaded him that Clinton was doomed a while back. My math, as you all know, is terrible. But I can link!
As an obsessive Golden Girls fan, and a generally fem gay man, I have to say that your reader's simplistic formulation about Barack and Hillary falls prey to the sad gender-based fallacies that still plague the gay community. I would agree with him only to the extent that some gays (butch and fem) still insist on playing the victim, and I can see an argument that they might gravitate towards Hillary. But you certainly can't peg that type of mentality to any sort of cultural gender construction reliably. My large group of gay friends runs the gamut from defensively butch to conspicuously fem, and there is no correlation between that behavior and who they support.