NYCweboy

Well, I Think I Found The Answer To "It's Terrible For Hillary Clinton To Go After Pledged Delegates"

From, of all people... Ann Althouse.

You've Been Talking In Your Sleep

Well... the nap certainly helped.  I feel a little bit better, though we'll see if I can get in a good night's sleep tonight.  Basically I've blown up my plans for this evening and most of tomorrow (biggest regret: skipping my chiropractor. oh well) to focus on proper rest.

And clearing my head.

If I seem to dwell on the personal it's because I'd rather avoid the elephant in the room - the ugly scenes on the campaign trail. If I were more of a psychologist, I'd wonder at my nerves being shot just abut the point where the campaigns take an ugly turn for the mudpit.

But I'm not... so I'm sure it's just coincidence. :)

Look, I make no claims to political insider-ness.  I'm just a guy who likes politics, likes being a Democrat, thinks we can win in November and wants to help.  Lots of people could come up with the observations I do, I always think... yet rarely do I see it happen.

So here's my purely speculative view of the campaign at the moment:

The Little Guy

People ask me, every so often - or ask, more generally - why The New York Post has an audience.  The Post is still Rupert Murdoch's loss-leading American newspaper property - it'll be awhile before the Wall Street Journal commands "crown jewel" status; right now, it's a transitional piece, one foot still in its old ways.

When I'm asked while reading it, I usually point to Page Six, which rules the gossip industry in terms of clout and cred; but that's not it, exactly. Media people (old ones mainly) bemoan the right wing lurch that came with Murdoch, though for truly off the edge reactionary presentation, you need to read its nearly unreadable sister, The Boston Herald. Is it simply downmarket gossip and right wing pander politics that explain its draw?

I think no; and to understand why, I'd point people towards today's lead story on page 3, an update on the custody wrangling between Libet Johnson, an heiress to the Johnson and Johnson fortune, and her ex-boyfriend, Dr. Lionel Bissoon.

Johnson, a Post staple (they'd like, I think, to cast her as a latter day Barbara Hutton... and she's got the five divorces that bolster their case), adopted a Cambodian orphan with Bissoon, and then, when they broke up, went to court in Manhattan and had herself declared the sole adoptive parent.  Bissoon is now suing for custody, and the adoption ruling for Johnson was revoked pending the outcome of the case, given that Johnson apparently misrepresented their joint adoption as a sole one.

What struck me is the way, as they so often do, that the Post casts the story as a hero and villain piece, with the wealthier side being cast as the baddie. Obviously, this story is not new; but it speaks volumes, I think about the Post's appeal: a sense that they, always, stick up for the little guy.

Sleep Won't Come

Sorry to be slightly light in the postings for the moment - I've been having trouble sleeping.

This is the sort of thing I tend to take for granted; at the end of the day, one lies down, closes one's eyes, and then... sleep. Unlike my pal RedStar, I generally don't suffer from sleepless nights. So I rarely worry.

But my overnight in Boston was essentially sleepless. I was just uncomfortable, my mind was racing, and try as I might nothing - not an open window, music, TV - could distract me enough to sleep (and, thanks to the window open, it was cold).

Which wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily; I figured when I got back home today, having a full and fairly frazzled day, I could get back into my rhythm. Instead, I found myself tossing and turning yet again. I wound up taking some nighttime pain reliever to force sleep, but literally popped right back awake when it wore off. And now, groggy, without proper rest, I am facing the day.

I suppose the easy answer is that it's stress, it's natural, don't worry about it... etc; but... I worry. I'm not really like this. Plus it interferes with things, like, you know, writing, and all.

I am kind of relieved, though, to not be putting all my energy into following the campaign - the Bosnia flap, the Greenspan silliness, having Clinton comment directly on Jeremiah Wright... (Oh and how could I forget... Judas)... we seem to have crossed over into highly silly season, where the media, yet again, gets to pose any and every distraction rather than focus on useful examinations of issues that matter.

Hopefully, a day of work at the 'bucks and maybe a nap this afternoon will reinvigorate me, get me properly sorted.  But still, I worry.  Any advice, suggestions, commiseration... always welcome. More later, I promise.

A Short Thought Before Bedtime

When the only really good things to point to are that the day is over, and I've been too busy to pay attention to much of the campaign... it's not saying much for the day as a whole.

Oh well. Here's hoping tomorrow is better.

Only Connect

My errand done, I'm preparing to get back on the road.

The speed of my mission allowed for some extra time to reconnect with my Starbucks pals up here, especially my former Manager ("old" manager... doesn't really work), who I bonded with in our short couple of months together. I did miss seeing Jo Biv, and two of my other fave supervisors (one apparently by minutes), which was sad, but also an excuse to come back... soon.

Indeed, it was a day of missed connections; as far as I can tell, at one point RedStar and I were less than 100 feet apart, but with no way to connect. I spent all morning missing my Mom by phone.

The nicest part, though, was walking along the Charles on this bright, sunny day, cold but beautiful. Watching MIT Crew practice in the early morning air, passing the runners (I told you Boston is a town of constant athletes), I felt connected to things that were real, not just the flickering words and images on the pooter screen.

And so, there's my thought for the day: an old familiar one, perhaps, to remember the human interactions, our need to only connect.  The Web does amazing things to give us the illusion of connectedness, but it can't replace the real, human connections; the smiles, and hugs, and warm words we can share in person. I'm going to try - and I hope you will too - to remember in the heat of a blogfight that the person on the other hand is real, and human, and flawed... and probably sincere.  Sure, this will be a great post to remind me of when I get all snarky and mean somewhere down the road ("yeah, yeah, aren't you the one who said we should all hug each other?") - guilty as charged. But if I want this blog to stand for something, I hope it will be the passion of ideas... and the humanity in us all.  One without the other... is missing the connection.

808 State

...which refers to the fact that I was in Connecticut at 8:08 this evening, and that I was quite peaceful.  Yes, I am back in Boston for the evening (a small errand to do tomorrow), and I am tired, but a few notes from the road:

• For music, I went all lounge-y and ambient: first up, Jose Padilla's Navigator.  Jose was the original deejay of Cafe Del Mar (I wrote about that a while back), and this is a gorgeous collection that always manages to improve the setting I am in, as if seeing things for the first time (today that was Waterbury, Connecticut). It also contains simply the most beautiful song I've ever heard - Adios Ayer, sung by Seal.  Navigator was recommended to me by Felix Cutillo, while he was deejay at Louis, Boston (now he's at Bergdorf Goodman Men), and I followed Navigator with his Music Bar collection for Louis (which was a wonderful surprise Christmas present from RedStar), and also listened to his Visage collection (a present from Jennifer... I am a lucky, and grateful, weboy).  It was a lovely ride.
• In my road travels, I often sample fellow Starbucks. I must say, the folks in the Southington store do a great job - always a tasty beverage, and very friendly. Right off Route 84, too.  So convenient. :)
• And I still love me some Zipcar... but this one I have was... how shall we put it... rode hard and put away wet. Pardon my French.
• The high variability of gas prices, I think, makes it hard to nationalize the problem: compared to the $3.60 they're charging round my Mom's house, the $3.35 they're charging in Connecticut seems like a bargain.
• But you can tell the gas prices are being felt... or at least I can; the roads were deserted.  It was like 5 or so years ago when you could drive in the evening hours and not hit any traffic anywhere (after rush hour).  I don't think people are driving for pleasure really at all anymore. Which makes me wonder about our "open road" culture coming to an end - if we can't have cheap gas it's hard to see how we can keep our auto driven culture and the lure of wanderlust (except for the extremely well heeled). Or, is it that people will skimp on everything else, just to be able to take to the roads?  I just think we haven't thought about it. At all.

Anyway, I am quite tired, and off I go to bed.  More tomorrow.

Strictly Speaking

I mentioned the notion of "strict constructionist" judges in my discussion this morning... and then ran into this intriguing debate: Eugene Volokh taking Dahlia Lithwick to task for her recent examination of the Supreme Court's hearing on the DC gun ban, and its Second Amendment implications.  The short version is that Lithwick writes, as others have pointed out, that finding an individual right to bear arms will be an expansion of the Constitution, and in conflict with the "strict constructionist", originalist view that judges should rely on "original intent" when evaluating constitutional issues.  Now, the question on the Second Amendment is a long debate... but the more interesting point I got was this, rather sweeping, denial by Antonin Scalia that he was ever appropriately labeled a "strict constructionist":

"Textualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, which is a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute. I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be--though better that, I suppose, than a nontextualist. A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." --Antonin Scalia, "Common Law Courts in a Civil Law System."

(Via Lawyers Guns and Money). I hadn't noticed this (it comes from a lecture Scalia gave at the University of Utah), but it raises some interesting wrinkles, I think, for conservatives, as even the people who we try to label as "strict constructionists" seem to walk away from the concept. 

I find Supreme Court law fascinating - I was first exposed at Journalism School (That's right bitches, Ize Trained As A Joornalist... as they say in LOLCat) to First Amendment law, and I've been reading court slips pretty much ever since.  And I've long thought that our left-right tensions over the Court's composition miss a lot - mostly that I think the "conservative court revolution" has been oversold: while it's true the Court now has a clear, "conservative" majority, it's not entirely clear what success they'll have getting it to do the things conservatives want.  And while I'm sure John McCain would make it worse with his appointments, it is also interesting that the term he'd use for searching... is one the Chief Constructionist rejects. Just something to ponder.

By The Way, I Do Think She Can Win This

Having had a while to rest, and get away from blogworld, I'd like to come back and answer a question: yes, I do think Hillary Clinton can get the nomination, and yes, I do think she can beat John McCain.

Interestingly, since that tense discussion Saturday, Ezra himself has acknowledged that there are reasons why this isn't over; more interestingly, the comments to that post are in many ways in polar opposition to the previous one.

But I still think someone needs to make a few points, calmly (and perhaps slowly, for the more adamant Obama-philes who do go on so about a math problem they still don't completely get), about why a Clinton supporter might not be throwing in the towel:

• The Current Winning Hand. Clinton is, at this point, likely to win Pennsylvania, possibly by as much as 15 to 20 points, probably by 10; even if the Obama people get their "lowered expectations" call of less than 10, they are back where they were, having not won the biggest states in open primaries. Once she wins PA, the questions go back to Obama: Is the Wright mess sticking? Why can't he appeal to working class voters? Why can't he win big open primaries?
• The Long Term Winning Hand: From there, Clinton seems poised to prevail in a number of the contests that follow PA: Indiana (hi Nick!), West Virginia and Kentucky most likely.  And then there's North Carolina: while many - me included - saw an Obama romp just a few weeks ago, the polling has tightened, and those who say "it's like Virginia" may be using the wrong frame: it's like Virginia, except after Jeremiah Wright. Though North Carolina, like it's neighbor north, and South (Georgia, where Obama also won), has adapted to the new economy with it's "research triangle" area around Raleigh/Durham and Charlotte, it remains a fairly polarized southern state. Like Tennessee, Clinton could win everything except urban areas and college towns and manage a win; or like Missouri, Obama could barely cross the line in a similar scenario.  Neither one helps him. And all those losses - even if he wins Oregon and Montana, which isn't a given, either - will not help his argument (and at some point, the "he's winning the popular vote" argument will be lost as well)
• Supers, Be Not Brave. In all the talk of "why don't the superdelegates end this now," one thing that's been lost is remembering that we're talking about politicians.  These are not, by and large, a brave lot.  They are cautious; they play it safe. That is why they were made the "backstop" for popular sentiment, which might (we crazy liberals!) go for some weird, untested alternative.  Like, you know, Howard Dean.  But never mind; as Bill Richardson actually shows, these choices come down to personal interests and making a safe choice.  The fact that the "superdelegate surprise" that was hinted at after March 5th didn't materialize for Obama, the fact that John Edwards hasn't made an endorsement, the fact that Al Gore is silent... means in part that Obama hasn't made a successful case yet.  If he keeps losing working class voters, that case doesn't get better. And as Vandehei and Allen really suggested in their report, the only way news organizations could make Obama's case is to wildly distort what's going on. They could; but even that won't help Obama, while he's losing primaries.
• The New Math. In which case, Obama arrives at the convention with, yes, some small number of delegates ahead of Clinton, having lost a number of primaries, and possibly coming in off of a win in South Dakota... like Wyoming, yet another great way to base our decision making. Ha ha, just kidding. This is where the game of chicken over Michigan and Florida will come home to roost: by not revoting the two states, Obama has two dreadful choices: argue against seating them at all, or argue that he deserves some "magic number" (like half of Michigan's delegation, or giving Florida's delegation half their voting power).  Those argument may seem attractive now (hardly); but after a string of losses... not so much.  That's why we may yet see a revote in Michigan - one that, even the Obama folks have pretty much conceded would not go their way (their reliance on Republican crossover votes comes into play, as Michigan's Republicans... largely voted for MItt Romney at the time, and are not allowed to vote again. No, don't ask why anyone thought they should be allowed to vote again). In any case, what Clinton folks have said all along now becomes clear: Obama has a slight edge, that can't be overcome without superdelegates, who will not, in June, or July, throw the race to him, if he can't make the case clearly that he's soundly eliminated Clinton from contention. At which point, he either has to make deals, or face reality.
• Conventional Wisdom.  So at that point, all bets would be off: we either get a negotiated solution, or we take it to the floor.  It's not that I think there would be a negotiated settlement (like, you know, putting him at VP, which we all think would be the strongest solution anyway), though I'd say it's more likely; it's that if it does come to the floor, with the Supers not feeling especially brave, with Obama not holding all the cards on the popular vote, with his not carrying key voting blocs or union votes - like the teachers (or hadn't you noticed that the NEA hasn't endorsed) or much of AFSCME, or key elements (still) of the AFL-CIO... she can make the case for getting the superdelegates to her side. At which point, "come together for party unity" better hold up, or the fault for a divided party and a stinging loss would fall, squarely, on the "let's come together, triumph of hope" crowd.

Will these developments look pretty? Probably not; it will be hard for Obama folks (oh just imagine the roiling over at Kos) to face the facts if she's got the winning hand, and there will, surely, be calls to "leave the party" or protest heavily in Denver.  That's one reason, I think, why it's incumbent on Clinton folks to be graceful and reasonable: people need a chance to save face as they accept the result.  And by the way, yes, I'm being optimistic: if Obama wins PA, or turns it around strongly after that, or finally finds the way to attract lower income voters in larger numbers... then yes, he's got the popular votes, the delegates and probably the supers.  Moreover, one can't, completely, discount the media deciding, on a whim, to step in and as Vendehei and Allen suggest, simply call it for Obama (though it seems to me, they tried that on Friday, to little or no avail).  As I said, being a Clinton supporter means knowing it could go either way.  But either way really does mean yes, I can see her winning.

Now, about John McCain.

Lazy Video Sunday Part Dos

Just remember, it could be worse... and we could be serving our robot masters... from The Onion