Well, this is certainly a ride at the regional election central I've set up at my place. It was hard to judge how many people would show up for day-of canvassing, phonebanking, and sign-waving. 30+ or more have been in and out all day for the three shifts we've got for canvassing and phonebanking; seems my house is almost literally littered with people. Folks on the stairs, co-opting the bathroom, standing here and there, using whatever space they could find. The spirit of the day reminds me not a little of the precinct caucuses: with all the anticipation back in early February, neither was it clear how many volunteer captains would show up nor how many caucus-goers finally. The turnout today is as impressive as it was then, to my mind, at least where it concerned the volunteers who were motivated to make a difference.

Earlier in the day I stopped off at the Fremont Bridge to see how our sign-waving visibility crew was doing, and they seemed to be having a great time. My girlfriend supplied some custom blue, Obama-logo'd ponchos and created some signs using some extra Shepherd Ferry Obama posters (you know, the iconic one that's been all over the place).

At the coffee stand nearby, we encountered two guys, whose reactions to our presence told two very different tales. The first guy was a youngish, rough-and-tumble sort, who was affable enough. He half-complained that "we" had been so persistent in contacting him to remind him to vote. Apparently he had been almost harassed into submission with all the phone and house calls. Despite this, he said he'd vote a little later today, even though, he said, he knew it really didn't matter (all these politicians and elections are always the same). I thought his cynicism was interesting, in the sense that despite his disaffection with the political process, he was still motivated to vote. I have little doubt that all the hyperbolic persistence had some effect on him; in any event, it was clear he'd vote for Obama.

The second guy was, well, the kind who fits a certain stereotype. Bob, who helped coordinate the visibility team, had his blue poncho on, the one with the Obama logo on it. This guy pulled up to the coffee shack's window in his 3- or 5-series BMW, and said from his open window, "Make sure that blue doesn't touch my car." It wasn't immediately clear whether he was kidding or what. I noticed his expression then said to him, fingering the red jacket Bob had on underneath the poncho, "I suppose this color would be ok..?" He indicated it would be, and then said something else I don't recall that suggested his level of disgust with the whole thing. Just perfect: 30-40 year old guy in a BMW, born to be obnoxious, and most certainly a McCain supporter. Whatever.

- dave //

Quick post--been busy w/ other things, including organizing WA-36 grassroots canvasses, etc.; my apologies for my lapses. If I had my druthers, I might do this sort of thing full time, but hey, that's a hard row to hoe.

First, some inspiration I came across today:

Second, one of the funniest damn Palin-themed vids I've been sent, this with Vlad and Boris from "45454 Russia Avenue":

Be well--and remember to VOTE EARLY!

- dave //

Too useful not to post this.

- dave //

The McCain campaign seems to have thrown away any pretense of campaigning on the issues and are doing a Rove turn to the negative and mendacious. This shouldn't be much of a surprise, I suppose, but nonetheless I had hoped for something different this year. They know they can't win on the issues or the record, so they're doing everything they can to throw up a smoke screen on the Rovian theory that the American public is easily duped, especially by a compliant and lazy main stream media. To them, the truth is irrelevant or simply relative and subject to convenient revision, objective reality be damned.

I fear they may be right, given the shift in the polls, this frenzied swoon over this unlikely arriviste Palin, and the way things just "feel." Palin is quite a phenomenon, and I get the sense that the Obama campaign is still struggling to find its tactical footing in her regard. She seems to have simultaneously attracted white women, mothers in particular, per a recent ABC poll (but there is some question about the accuracy and meaning of the data, of course)--who seem to respond to Palin's first-degree identity as a scrappy woman gov from the sticks and just-folks mother of five with a knack for reading a TelePrompTer--and galvanized the evangelical Republican base enough to shake up the dynamic of the race at least for the time being. We'll certainly see very soon whether this is really more than just a flash in the pan and ends up going down as the most brilliantly cynical move in the history of presidential politics.

My guess is that things will boil down to the usual tight margins of red v. blue, the usual suspects in terms of swing states (like Florida and Ohio), and whatever additional energy the Obama campaign can bring to bear from its considerable, largely below-the-radar efforts at grassroots organizing. And we still have the debates, and that may shift things somewhat again, but I'm not confident they'll create any clear breakthroughs. We're headed for another very close election, I think. The American public remains polarized between those who care what's happened to this country these past 8+ years, and those who either don’t give a damn as long as they get theirs or are simply too ignorant to make informed choices in their best interests.

Then again, maybe I'm just over-indulging in hand-wringing and useless fretting. This just arrived in my email, and reminds me to take a page from the oft-forgotten but always worthy Obama playbook:

- dave //

<UPDATED w/ numerous edits and links for further reading>

Obama's speech was electric--it was like a thunderstorm from Mile High Stadium. And I think I can say that even though I was way back in the cheap seats at home, hosting a convention watch party in a room full of Democrats ready to get charged up again and go back into the fray.

There I was, listening to him going through the opening paragraphs, hoping he'd deliver something somehow more than "workmanlike," as it was billed prior, in a deliberate attempt to deflate expectations. I was a bit drowsy and distracted, not necessarily from the Convention itself and the endless chatter coming from it during the week, but really from a 2-3 month hiatus from political activity, after I hit serious burnout from the seemingly endless primaries. It feels like that was a long, long time ago.

And then, suddenly, like a peal of thunder, Obama laid into it:

Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough! This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."

He just about barked that first "enough!" and it made me snap to, bubbles of drowsiness popping around my head... "huh? what? Oh, I see. I see how it's going to be!"

It was the opening salvo of a speech that was punctuated with multiple, strong broadsides against the Bush-McCain record and the utter bankruptcy of the Republican agenda.  To put it another way, his speech rolled forth over 43 minutes, built up, receded, and built again to the peroration, punctuated as if by lightning bolts or the powerful crescendos of a Beethoven symphony, yet never losing the soaringly lyrical touch for which his speeches are often known. (The only way to describe it, I think, is to reach for metaphor, and I find myself looking for the right metaphor to help me say what I mean... Forgive me if my language is a jumble of metapors, from meteorological to martial, back to meteorological and now musical.) Amazing effort, very different than any other speech I've seen or heard him give.

Full speech:

Like a warm, summer rain drenching a parched field, his speech gave the grassroots just the charge it needed.

And it was good.

- dave //

Just absorbing the news, which will be all the rage this weekend, about Biden. Was musing earlier w/ my dad about why Clinton might be appealing before the news came, and why as well she ultimately couldn't work. It came down to the "Big Dog," Mr. Bill. A world-class narcissist w/ warehouses full of baggage, there was just no way that "No Drama" Obama could take that kind of trouble on. As The Nation's Nichols says:

It is true that Obama might also have gotten what he needed by adding New York Senator Hillary Clinton to his ticket, just as it is true that Obama might have been able to run with Clinton. But he could not run with Bill Clinton, and that was that.

How do I feel about Biden? Pretty good, but I'm wary of some things, like Biden's criticism of Obama during the primaries and how Republicans will use that; like Biden's propensity for putting his foot in his mouth; like Biden's thoroughgoing insiderism, which doesn't exactly substantiate a campaign predicated on the theme of change. Ultimately, I think he'll be a great 2nd and forceful advocate.

- dave //

Around 10 pm PST tonight (Friday), started seeing the chatter about Obama's VP pick being Biden. Shortly thereafter, the major MSM news sites began to firm up/confirm the choice. This, the NY Times headline:

Must say I had rather hoped that the world would be held in utter suspense until that txt message went out (expect that to come around 8 am PST tomorrow, unless they move it up now that the cat is out of the bag). There would've been something amazingly disciplined and egalitarian and modern if it took the txt message to make it known to us all, not the traditional reporting institutions. Sigh.

- dave //

It's time, my friends. The summer hiatus is over. Change is coming, and a sign of that is for you to behold in this new vid:

- dave //

Too amusing to pass up on the Fourth (via Cogitamus): "1776," a satire of "300," among other things.

Not much to synthesize here, though I suppose we could also think about patriotism in a more serious fashion:

- dave//

Blogs are often completely derivative. One person somewhere writes something original, whether in the form of a blog post or an article or editorial that appears on some news site, and then bloggers pick up on it, whether directly or from other bloggers they happen to follow who find it first. Either the derivation will be a simple sentence pointing readers to the original with maybe the addition of a quotation or abstract (the kind of thing Ben Smith seems to like to do almost exclusively), or it will be a "riff" on the original, adding additional color or perspective, or simply providing a contrary opinion.

I myself tend to prefer a synthetic approach, pulling together different things I've read on a topic into a theme, drawing connections or contrasts where I see them, then providing a personal spin on it. No big surprise or mystery there, I suppose; originality isn't really my goal with this medium, but if I can add something to the discussion and offer at least an original synthesis, I feel like I'm being creative and perhaps even useful (though, to be sure, I have no illusions about the breadth of my readership or the influence I might have on those who do stop by from time to time, whose interest in my occasional blog expositions never ceases to amaze me).

Take this, for example: Al Giordano's recent post on McCain's trip to Columbia. What Al does with this piece is a bit of semi-original opinioneering based on a relatively idiosyncratic review of source material, synthesizing an interesting and compelling perspective on the news, one that you don't get just anywhere, least of all in the MSM. I count no fewer than 17 "link citations" in this particular piece, to sources including the IHT, the Huffington Post, MSNBC's First Read, the AP, and Wikipedia, as well as the author's own writings and related posts. This is one thing that makes Giordano so interesting: his eclectic interests and research which he builds on in the creation of original syntheses of material. Whatever you may think of his perspective, you could hardly say he's a lazy blogger, just regurgitating stuff that others have published: he thinks, takes his time, applies an original point of view, and produces something that a lot of people apparently find compelling, judging by his traffic numbers and authority ranking, to say nothing of his active, prolifically commenting readership (just check one of his posts: he gets not dozens of comments, but often even hundreds of them).

Although this isn't quite what I had initially envisaged doing with Al's piece on McCain in Columbia, it does demonstrate the point well enough. It's interesting what you can do with blogging when you put your mind to it.

- dave//

Will wonders never cease? Remember Barr's assholic persecution of Clinton as one of the House's "impeachment managers"? Agree with Noam Scheiber over at The Stump that this Bloggingheads' sequence w/ Bob Barr on Bush and Clinton is rich. Rich, I tell you!

I remember well that period: late '98, early '99, when I had just come back from Switzerland after breaking up w/ my ex-wife for the first time. I was riveted by the whole scene and just livid that the whole thing was happening in the first place. That was when MoveOn.org was born, and that was perhaps one of the key moments in our glorious "politics of personal destruction" of the past 20+ years--the very politics that Obama strives to put in our collective rearview mirror. Seems just insane that Clinton would be impeached for his peccadilloes and lame-ass prevarications, and here we are with a President who's run wholesale roughshod over the Constitution, as if it were a half-crumpled McDonald's bag discarded into the road by a passing motorist.

Ok, the metaphor is a bit overwrought, but what the hell: you get the point.

- dave//

UPDATE: At least we can say this about Barr: there's a certain perverse consistency in his view of the "rule of law"--that hammer that he, Asa Hutchinson, and the other managers used over and over again in their prosecution of Clinton. I just have to wonder, now that he sees what true "crimes and misdemeanors" really look like in the slaughterhouse of the Bush presidency, whether he feels any shame at all about his petty, sanctimonious grandstanding against Clinton back in the '90s? Still, you have to revel in seeing this old cast of characters from that time playing out their internal and external conflicts on the stage of the 2008 elections. Makes for some often very ironic political theater.

Gnawing, always gnawing at unexpected corners and with preternatural vanity: Nader, dismissing Obama as too white/black. Reminds me of a certain Geraldine. Amazing.

And now, look over here: counter-intuitive delusionals looking forward to an Obama presidency. As long as they keep it to themselves in that perverse echo-chamber of theirs.

- dave//

So I'm trying out the new corporate bus system, partly to save on some gas and also to alleviate some of the stress of my commute from Ballard to Redmond and back, which typically hits 50 mins to an hour each way. If I didn't have regular off-campus appointments during the week, I'd have long been a regular rider. In fact, this very post I'm doing on the bus right now, jarring bumps notwithstanding. One of the nice features of the corporate bus line is that they have these things equipped w/ wi-fi; makes either work or casual browsing pretty easy to do in transit.

Anyhow, so I was thinking: the last tank of gas I filled cost me north of $60.00 for the first time. Although I've got a small car, I'm constrained to use premium. If I manage to do the bus a couple times a week, I'm liable to save some 1/3 of my petrol outlay, which begins to be significant, week to week, month to month. And that's fine. I should do more, though. I have this idea that my next car will be the Great Leap Forward in automotive technology--some mass-market incarnation of today's lithium-ion powered prototypes. We'll see if I make it that long; it could be a very long wait before we get there.

Or not. It depends on what kinds of choices we make as we twist and squirm under the squeeze of skyrocketing oil prices. Do we buy the line that somehow we just need to produce more oil by drilling offshore or in ANWR, and maybe, in 5 years time, see a blip in increased domestic oil production that will have already been offset by increased consumption? Do we continue to stick that black needle in our arm and expect somehow that we won't crave more next time? Do we grovel and whine, shake and groan, imploring our dealers to please just give us one more fix to tide us over?

Or do we say, no, enough, it's time to change. Time to stop opting for the easy fix. Time to change the world by changing ourselves first, rather than somehow always, unfailingly expecting that it needs to happen the other way around. Imagine what the world might be like, how different it would be, if we could break the most destructive of our habits...

Ah, I see my bus stop is coming up. Some busses you need to get on and stay on for a while, others, well, you just need to get off, otherwise you'll go around and around and around and never get anywhere.

- dave //

No doubt there will be a lot of noise, hand-wringing, worry-warting, and other acts of carrying on about the race recently enjoined for the General Election. To be sure, there's a lot at stake, at home and abroad, depending on who comes out on top in November. Of course, much work must still be done, voters must still be registered, and votes gotten out between now and then. I don't need to belabor the obvious.

But think, just think: the economy is tanking, W. is the most reviled of presidents in the history of polling, we're still ensconced in a tragic misadventure in Iraq that the American people want only to end, our Constitutional liberties are in dire peril, etc., etc. The odds are EXTREMELY LONG for McCain to prevail in these circumstances; if history teaches us anything this election year, it should be that the party in power is quite likely to be booted from the White House, whether the standard-bearer is an actual or perceived incumbent.

And this doesn't even begin to take into account the glaring weaknesses of the Republican standard-bearer himself, whose mealy-mouthed mish-mash of contradictory policy positions, lobbyist-enamored ethical lapses, and tone-deaf, scratch-your-head-in-disbelief-at-the-utter-ineptitude politicking should put many an anxious Democrat's mind at ease. Green-screen amateur hour, anyone? Here's a, um, somewhat abridged version of that speech courtesy the JedReport:

What's more, it is only by the skin of his teeth that McCain has the support of the Republican conservative establishment; what motivates them is not a positive support for McCain and his policies, but rather a desire only to see that the Democrats don't win. Without an energized base and positive message, they can only get so far this year on fumes of negativity, particularly in the face of an extremely energized, forward-looking Democratic party. And don't believe for a moment this ridiculous narrative that Clintonian dead-enders are flocking to McCain en masse and that the Democrats are hopelessly split after a hard-fought, dare I say, "bitter" primary season.

Simply put, this one's ours to win.

- dave//

Over the past 5 months, I've been following the Democratic--and to a much lesser extent, Republican--nominating process, state by state, statistic by statistic, key talking point by key talking point. According to some who are close to me, I may have been following it a little too closely--perhaps obsessively. It's been hard not to, in my view, given everything at stake this year, and our need for a major realignment of our political culture, values, and policies.

Let me try to spell out as clearly as I can what I mean here.

We simply cannot ignore, ever forget, much less forgive the crimes of these past 7+ years committed against the People and Constitution of the United States by the administration of George Walker Bush--as fate would have it, the boy-king installed illegitimately by a decree of the Supreme Court and sustained in power through a cynical and relentless exploitation of the fear and loathing of the People. Where we fail to today, posterity must assuredly condemn our 43rd president for these offenses among many others too innumerable to recount here:

• The corruption of the solemn meaning, profound obligation, and unique opportunity of 9/11 by a band of ruthless neo-con ideologues operating darkly behind the throne, which succeeded only in squandering the sympathy of the world for all time and hobbling for years to come our moral authority to rally the world to causes of global impact, like trans-national terrorism, climate change, genocide, and world hunger.
• The perversion of intelligence by politics, the deceitful manipulation of public opinion by means of bald-faced lies and propaganda worthy of none other than Joseph Goebbels--and the concomitant acquiescence of reason and morality by those who knew better and failed in their duty to protect and serve and uphold the Constitution--that led to the invasion of Iraq and the bottomless human tragedy ever since.
• The illicit outing of a covert intelligence officer whose husband's inconvenient regard for the truth about WMDs challenged the fundamental premise for war, and the cover-up at the highest levels which to this day, though widely known, has not substantially been called to account as our law affords and our consciences must demand.
• The blatant disregard for the public welfare and the plight of the underprivileged as demonstrated to an appalled nation and world in the wake of Katrina--wrongs still, to this day, not righted, but further compounded by the rapacious profiteering and bureaucratic bungling in the aftermath that have sickened and defeated her long-suffering victims, depriving whole communities in the Gulf of the energy and life needed to move forward, rebuild, and at long last recover.
• The constitutional depredations of a "unitary executive" theory of power, which has, in practice, circumvented the will of the people as expressed by acts of Congress through the application of extra-legal signing statements far more numerous and overreaching than any administration's in history.
• The subversion of Justice from impartial executor of the nation's laws into a political tool for enforcing loyalty to the chief executive and justifying the means for the political ends of the President and his administration, whose disdain for law and the Constitution has nowhere been more evidenced than in the dismemberment of habeas corpus and the embrace of torture as a legitimate weapon in the so-called "war on terror."
• The mismanagement of the federal budget to the outrageous benefit of the rich, powerful, and venal--including profiteering oil companies, no-bid and unaccountable contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater, and the rest of the military-industrial complex about which Eisenhower warned us nearly 50 years ago--which has hamstrung domestic spending programs for decades to come and effectively bankrupted the national treasury, adding trillions of dollars of new debt for future generations to assume.
• The amateurism, cronyism, and thoroughgoing disregard for basic standards of professional conduct that have resulted in a post war management team with no real policy talent, cultural depth, or institutional support to deal with an insurgency as it was taking root, an Iraqi society that was fracturing predictably along ethnic and religious lines, and all the Iraqi and American dead that were accumulating in the streets and markets of Baghdad, day-in and day-out; in the investiture and unquestioning support of high-ranking public officials with no shred of integrity, intelligence, or shame; and in the arrogant, mocking, unapologetic disdain for moral or intellectual consistency and honesty in all matters of policy and public concern, including the integrity of science, the importance of education, the key threats to public health, and the management of the nation's economy.

How many more abuses must we recount to justify our outrage? How many more crimes must be brought to light, substantiated, and added to the list before we should be bold enough to act? Any one of them should be enough for us to take action and vigorously hold accountable those responsible to the full extent of the law. But here, after more than 7 years, the offenses continue to pile up, the next upon the last--and still nothing is done to assure the just redress of our grievances. Are we so numbed to reality or punch-drunk from the battering we've taken that we are no longer capable of acting?

Our founding documents provide the guidance we need for the crises we face even today. Let us recall Thomas Jefferson's exhortation in the Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

What choice do we have but to advocate and fight for the kind of revolution envisioned by the Founders? (Or, failing that, what then?)

For these reasons, I see the movement to elect Barack Obama president as perhaps the last, best hope we have for effecting the change we so desperately need, for arresting and reversing our precipitous decline before it's too late-- before the American Experiment should fail and the Republic might fall.

- dave//

As she will suspend her campaign on Saturday and endorse Obama as presumptive nominee, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. Perhaps that will signal to enough of her hardened supporters in Hillaryland that they can soften and begin the process of reconciliation and acceptance of the new kid in town. And it will also begin to lay to rest this notion that a so-called "unity ticket" is not only desirable but necessary; in any event, there's no way either Hillary or her wayward spouse will submit to the vetting process and muzzling that will be required of them in order for her to be on the ticket.

It's clear enough to anyone paying attention that this is a monumental achievement by almost any count, whether you attempt to include popular votes or not in your analysis (and, for the record, I don't: it's a specious metric). You better believe that millions of us are going to do everything we can in the months ahead to bring fundamental change to our domestic and international politics and policies, starting with the election Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States.

We know that the world is watching and waiting. Time to come together.

- dave//

Skies are clearing. Don't pay too much attention to the clouds that linger; they'll soon pass. Via Al:

(Fwiw, I thought that Hillary's speech was obnoxious and ungracious in the extreme, but as my GF said to me more or less, it wasn't much of a surprise--at least she's consistent in that regard. Thing is, you just hope for a hint of grace in defeat so you can get that elusive emotional property referred to as "closure." Guess that would just be too simple and convenient this year, now wouldn't it?)

Anyhow, O's speech made the two that preceded it seem absolutely juvenile and petty by comparison. Admittedly, I'm biased--but, hey, can you blame me? At least, so far this year, I've tried to back up my convictions with the courage of my actions.

While I'm on a bit of a hiatus from political activity this summer, I promise byall that I hold dear that I'll be reengaging in the combat in the fall. And I'll bring reinforcements.

Yes. We. Can.

- dave //

Excellent breakdown of the numbers (via the Jed Report) which prove that Obama can call Clinton's patently ridiculous bluff on MI and FL, and simply have them be seated at full strength. The little known gem spelled out in this diary:

Now, everyone knows that there were 55 uncommitted delegates in Michigan.  But what few seem to realize is that on April 19 in Michigan, the district conventions were held and Obama claimed 31 of the 36 uncommitted district-level delegates.  He already has them.  Here, look at the comments in this Bowers Open Left diary back from April 20th to get specific names.  Or this diary.  It's slightly painstaking, (here are 27 names, here are 3 more, here's where emptywheel cites 31) but they clearly exist.  Plus the 67 Florida Obama delegates mean that there are 98 living, breathing pledged Obama delegates from those two states.

There is no such thing as a scenario where Obama gets 0 delegates in Michigan (and DCW should really do away with Scenario 5 because it is no longer operative).  Chris Bowers has been writing about this for a long time.

Time to take out the trash.

- dave //

Hard not to sit up and take notice of stories like this from the Washington Post (via MSNBC). Given the apparent antipathy of Appalachia and the Rust Belt (see, e.g., DHinMI's post or Al Giordano's before it), which the Clinton campaign hasn't shied away from stirring up--with nods and winks and sometimes even bald-faced race/racial-baiting--I just wonder how much more shrill such voices will become in the months ahead. Hate, especially the insidious and dormant kind, when woken up and cornered, can lash out in unpredictable ways.

Let's all keep an eye on this; it, too, is still very much a part of who we are, Obama's conciliatory eloquence notwithstanding.

- dave //

No wonder Hillary has lately found common cause among anti-intellectuals: people who think have a nasty habit of paying attention to those annoying little things called 'details' and tend to find bald-faced contradiction and hypocrisy anathema. Thanks, Keith, for telling it like it is.

"But, eh, what can you do?" so the argument goes. "All politicians engage in convenient prevarication and hyperbole, no?" Actually, no: not all politicians are made of the same stuff. I reject the argument of equivalence between Obama and Clinton unequivocally.