experience, part deux

Commenter Brian makes a good point, what about domestic experience. Usually when the punditry talk about "experience," the words foreign policy are usually either prefixed or implied. Rarely when people talked about Obama's "inexperience" did they mean he doesn't know (for example) the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Still, there are far more experiences that would prepare one for the domestic responsibilities of being president than ones for the role of Commander-in-Chief and other foreign policy roles.

Governors and Mayors who have to work with their legislative bodies to get stuff done have a great deal of experience in a large part of being president--trying to pass your (mostly domestic) legislative agenda. Notice I didn't offset part of the sentence with commas. And for good reason. Governors and Mayors that have either rubber-stamp or screw-you legislative bodies are going to be in for a real shock when they get to D.C. This is why Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney don't really have relevant domestic experience either, but Mike Huckabee does.

The NY City Counsel has for years been a debating society where most of the real decision making power lies with the office of mayor. Giuliani, or Bloomberg for that matter, have a real test when they sought something from Albany, not from the Counsel.

The opposite is true in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney could posture and hand the General Court any old budget he wanted, because he knew darn well that the bosses in the House or Senate could muster veto-proof majorities (or veto-overrides) at will on any line item or bill they felt like. That is, although Massachusetts gives its governor line-item veto power, veto-overrides were a routine matter. During budget season (right about now) while I was working for Rep. Blumer in 2003-04, there would be several veto-override votes about once a week.

For those who have never been in the executive branch, there is still a legitimate claim to domestic experience: Shepperd through an important piece of legislation through a recalcitrant Congress and over a recalcitrant President. Senator Chris Dodd was a great example, having worked for years and years to get the Family Medical Leave Act passed through Congress and signed into law in 1992. Ditto for John McCain, who was finally able to get campaign finance reform through in 2002. And Bob Dole and the Americans with Disability Act. And Hillary Clinton for the bill to give National Guardsmen (and women) access to the same veteran's benefits as those who serve(d) in [in no particular order vets] the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines. Or Obama for the lobbyist reform bill.

Which brings me to a semi-related point. Democrats have for decades--since Nixon's election in 1968--been confounded as to why working class folks in the Rust Belt, the Mountain West, the Plains, and the South seemingly vote against their economic interests by "pulling the lever" for Republicans. Groups like the DLC were founded to offer their theories as to why this was happening and what to do about it. Books like "What's the Matter with Kansas?" were written to come up with an alternate theory and approach.

One camp believed that these folks were snookered into voting the way they did because Republicans scared/distracted them with wedge issues that have been described as the four Gs: God, Guns, Gays, and the Gas Chamber (aka Death Penalty). Of course, on top of this some liberal academics postulated about the racial implications as well. If Democrats could just say the magic words, the theory went, these folks would wake up from their spell and rejoin the New Deal Coalition.

The other camp believed that you had to appease these folks views on the four Gs by either making statements like "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare," or by nominating candidates in those regions who were, for instance, pro-life. If these folks would see that we take their cultural views seriously, the theory went, they would listen to us on ecnomic issues and they would vote our way.

Both Obama and Clinton use tactics from both schools of thought to get votes in the middle of Pennslyvania, which is demographically similar to these regions that "don't vote right." Obama's "bitter" comment was part of the trickery school, but his "no one is pro-abortion" statement is of the other school. Hillary and her husband have stated less caustic versions of the bitter line, and Bill coined the safe legal and rare line.

To me, both tactics seem as patronizing as the Republican "elitist" attack--which ironically is always made by people making millions of dollars with homes and jobs in one of the capitols of "elitism"--New York City. People believe what they believe because it is their religion and culture, it is part of who they are and what it means to be someone from that place. The New Deal coalition isn't coming back together because two parties have dramatically changed as a result of the events of 1964-68.

And I don't know about you, but I would like to get beyond the 60s and 70s, and to stop viewing every modern event though the lens of the 20s and 30s of Baby Boomers. Each party seems to have fundamental weaknesses that makes a lasting majority for either a fantasy. Neither party seems to be addressing people who are in economic times in the region due to fundamental forces that no candidate for president--no matter what their experiences--can slow down, let alone stop.

That is, to address the fundamental problems of our times, we can't count on pitting on group against another or "framing" to gather up enough support to ram-through stuff we wanted to do for decades, or to scare voters by saying someone isn't experienced enough to be president, when all three of them are qualified to be president. That is, we need to work together in a real way that gets out the real reasons why one person doesn't like some provision--and not some trumped up political excuse.

Utah Co. GOP shoots itself in the foot

This post is a follow up to yesterday's on Rep. Morley's legal troubles with his Cottonwood Heights-based hedge fund and the Utah County Republican Party's role in trying to sweep it under the rug. Sure enough, the delegate meeting happened (despite rumors that it would be canceled due to press coverage) and the off-limits topics remained taboo.

Then Rep. Morley had the gumption to claim that "I think it would have been better if I could have got this out and explained how complicated it really is. The fact is, I put five million in, got two (million out) and lost three million." If you had said you wanted to talk about it, Rep. Morley, I am sure they would have accomodated that. Or you could have brought it up yourself during the meeting. But for "some reason" you didn't.

"This was almost canceled because a small group in the party wants to protect their own," said John Webb, a delegate.

"I'm so frustrated with this party right now and what they're doing."

Other delegates also heard rumors the event might be canceled due to rumbling about a showdown of personal attacks. The committee, however, denied talk of any termination.

"We just want to keep the meeting all about the issues," said Maryanne Davis, Utah County Republican Committee member. "In order to get the issues out, they're not allowed to attack personal character."

Davis defended Morley, saying 98 percent of businessmen end up in litigation. The complaint "doesn't mean a thing," she said. "It doesn't need to be brought up when it doesn't matter that much."

[Morley's challenger Chance] Williams disagrees: "We're talking about millions and millions of dollars in bids for charter schools and large lawsuits of misappropriating millions," he said. "How is that not an open issue?"

Davis has got to be kidding, right? Ninty-eight percent of all businessmen end up in litigation? As I lawyer, I guess I should wish it were true. According to small business.com, "[t]here were an estimated 203,468 small businesses in Utah in 2004." Yet there were only 87,191 civil cases [PDF, see page 16 of 20] filed in Utah state courts in FY 2007, and three years later, I am sure there were more businesses in Utahby then, small, medium or large ones. Even this is being generous, since civil cases include interpersonal disputes (like where a bountry line is between two neighbors, who gets the house under Uncle Bernie's will, etc.) and not just business litigation. Even just business litigation is more often than not against the business itself as in entity, and not the individual owners or managers (which is the whole reason why people incorporate their business in the first place). Rarer still are prosecutions of invididuals by the SEC for ones business practices. So the idea that "98 percent" of businessmen end up in litigation like this is laughable on so many levels.

"These shouldn't be seen as personal issues," Chance Williams told reporters after the meeting, "they represent who [Rep. Morley] is and what he stands for." The meeting by contrast, showed what the Utah County Republican Party appearantly stands for: incumbent protection.

experience to be president

(Photo Credit: All Posters.com, the Jimi Hendrix "estate")

This whole "experience" debate has annoyed me more than usual this year, even though the same debate happens every four years. Perhaps it is because the media has decided that 2 out of the remaining three candidates have the necessary "experience," and have agreed that Obama does not. What experience, exactly, is good training for being President of the United States? Obama has a point that "years in Washington" does not necessarily translate into good decision making while in office. But then again, it does matter how (but not necessarily where) you spend those years between running for president and being born.

Obama's case for having the necessary "experience" is two fold: (1) experience doesn't matter, judgment matters, and he was the only remaining candidate who had the requisite judgment to be against the Iraq War from the beginning; and (2) living and traveling abroad with "real people" and not just meeting with foreign dignitaries, means he has a real sense of countries that one doesn't get by meeting with ministers and presidents.

Having lived abroad myself for a year and a summer, I am sympathetic to his second point. Then again, I wouldn't say I know what the Italians or Swiss or Norwegians, or Dutch, or Danes, or French are like just because I briefly visited their countries (like Obama did with Pakistan in the early 1980s).

I definitely think that sitting on some congressional committee is the exactly wrong kind of experience to prepare oneself for the presidency. All one does as a committee member is listen to testimony (and try to sound clever with questions), get red carpet tours of foreign countries, and vote on bills that (other than military spending bills and the rare treaty) have little impact on the world. So the fact that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain are members of the Foreign Relations or Armed Services Committee is wholly unimpressive in my view.

But McCain and Clinton aren't pointing to their time in the Senate in actuality. McCain is really trying to say that being a Navy pilot and POW in Vietnam makes him wise, and Hillary is saying living in the White House for 8 years as the closest aide/advisor to the President makes her wise.

However, despite being tortured for years, McCain still caved on the torture issue in Congress. Having experienced the horrors of war firsthand, he seems eager not only to continue the current one for 100 years, but start another in Iran. He doesn't get the difference between Sunni and Shia, nor why it is critical to understanding the dynamics of the middle east (why, for instance, the terrorist group named "Al Qaeda in Iraq" would never have anything to do with Iran). Just as the war in Vietnam was not about Communism for the Vietnamese, but about nationalism. So either he is ignoring his experience, or didn't learn the valuable lessons from it.

Hillary likewise saw her husband work hard to build coalitions in military actions in Haiti and Bosnia/Kosovo and him commit errors in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia/Croatia, and Rwanda. Yet she voted for the Iraq war and against amendments that would have watered down the AUMF. The truth is, like John Kerry, she listened to people who said "If you want to run for president, you have to look tough, and voting for the Iraq War is how do it."

Really, the only jobs that give a person any sense of what it will be like to be President is a 3- through 5-star general (who have to deal with not only waging war but with diplomacy, politics, and peacekeeping), anyone who got to be in the Situation Room on a routine basis (not the Beard's show), or a high-level diplomat with either a key ally (NATO itself, Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, South Korea, etc.) or a key "adversary" (Russia/USSR, China, North Korea, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc.). Only these few people know how hard it is to make snap decisions that have lasting impact, and know which ones ended up being wrong, and hopefully thought about (and correctly diagnosed) why those wrong choices were made.

So by that standard, only Bill Richardson--who was a Congressman, Energy Secretary, UN Ambassador, Governor of NM, and unofficial liason between North Korea and the US--was adequately "experienced" to be president of the people that ran this cycle (for last cycle, it was Wes Clark, who reccomended going into Rwanda while working for the Joint Chiefs; helped negotiate the Dayton Accords; and lead NATO to a zero casualty victory in Bosnia/Kosovo).

Given with the choices that we are left with, who then is the most "experienced?" Since I have formulated experience as learning from bad decisions and/or making the right call the first time, I would say Obama. But I am interested to see what my readers think of my overall proportion.

incumbent protection program

When is a primary not really a primary? When party bosses neuter the challenger's main line of attack.

State Rep. Mike Morley is facing lawsuits in Utah and New York, seeking to recoup $3 million "loaned" to him by a hedge fund that allegedly defrauded millions of dollars from investors.
But the topic is off-limits for Chance Williams, who is challenging Morley for the Republican nomination in House District 66. Williams is making ethics the centerpiece of his campaign, but says he was told not to raise the issue at a Meet The Candidates event tonight in Spanish Fork.

The whole reason most folks are challenging incumbents for seats in Utah's legisture is their concerns that certain legislators have grown out of touch, especially on issues of ethics. While Utah Democrats have been capitalizing on this to recruit candidates, many Republicans have bravely sought to primary their local legislator.

The Utah County GOP chairwoman claims it is all about "civility" and being innocent before being proven guilty. But the point isn't whether or not Rep. Morley is guilty of any wrongdoing, the point is that it looks bad and incumbents seem to be blind to such appearances of impropriety. Here are the particulars:

Morley had $5 million invested through Thompson Consulting Inc., a Cottonwood Heights-based firm headed by Kyle J. Thompson, in a pair of hedge funds.
Thompson and others solicited millions of dollars from 90 other investors, including a number of seniors, promising healthy returns with almost no risk.
But Thompson and business partner David Condie took considerable risks, the SEC alleges, sinking millions into a subprime lender whose stock tanked in March 2007. Between July 31 and Aug. 17, the funds' assets plummeted from $54 million to $200,000.
However, before the funds collapsed, Condie moved $3 million out of the fund to Morley to make up for losses Morley suffered, the SEC said. The agency described Condie as a distant relative of and "purportedly one of Michael Morley's attorneys." A total of $2 million ended up in Willowbend, a 109-acre development in Vernal where Morley has an interest.
The company called the transfers to Morley a "loan," but there were no loan documents and the SEC said Morley has been "unjustly enriched" and should repay the money.

Oh and there is a civil lawsuit as well.

The question Williams is trying to ask county delegates is if they want their party to be presented by a guy who is allegedly took millions of dollars from little old ladies for himself when his investment scheme went south. Of course, the irony is that, thanks to press coverage, the delegates will be taking about it more than they would had Williams brought it up himself and had Chairwoman Marian Monnahan not forbade any reference to the matter.

Utah papers' foreign correspondents

(Photo Credit: [British] Royal Geographic Society)

I love reading locally-written articles in Utah newspapers about coffee. The articles read like a journal entry of some 19th century British colonialist explaining some "lost tribe" in Africa or the Pacific Islands. To be clear, I am not mocking Utahns (or anyone else) who have never tried coffee. I am mocking the tone of these articles.

Here's one from the Deseret Morning News last October:

Barlow and Gerber, a legal secretary and receptionist for Eisenberg Gilchrist & Morton, are not alone. It's a morning ritual for millions of Americans, who can choose from the more than 24,000 coffeehouses across the country.

Whether grabbing a quick cup and a bite to eat on the way into the office or taking a morning break with colleagues, downtown Salt Lake City has plenty to offer when the time comes for a caffeinated pick-me-up.

In its unscientific survey of area coffeehouses, the Deseret Morning News found 13 locations between First Avenue and 600 South and 500 East and West Temple. The shops vary in size and style, and their prices and selection vary. Of the coffee shops visited by the Morning News, the price for a 20-ounce cup of drip coffee ranged from $1.75 to $2.50.
[...]
The locations appeal to different types of customers, usually based on where they work and live and how they want to receive their morning brew. Folks looking to grab it and go often visit drive-through locations such as Raw Bean Coffee House on the southwestern edge of downtown or Java Jo's in the Avenues.

The article fills up space by explaining statistically speaking, coffee is a very common and popular beverage nationally.

Today's article in the Salt Lake Tribune piggie backs on an AP wire story about Starbuck's Coffee's struggles--and ideas--to maintain its growth and profit margins due to increased competition. This article doesn't sound as ethnographic as the previous one, but still has its gems.

As industry king Starbucks teeters ever so slightly on its throne, other retailers, big and small, are moving in to offer coffee options of their own, even in brew-eschewing Utah.
[...]
...competition in the coffee business splashes over a state where more than half the population does not drink the beverage, mostly on religious grounds.
"Utah wasn't a natural market for iced coffee," said McDonald's public-relations spokeswoman Barbara Schmiett, of Salt Lake City. "That's why we tested it here in a handful of restaurants first, and we found that people loved it."
[...]
"[The new Pike's Place Roast is] fresh, but so is coffee at 7-Eleven," said Kyle Power, who had to wait for his freebie Tuesday as Starbucks baristas served paying customers first at The Gateway Mall in Salt Lake City.

For whatever reason, I have never read articles like this about alcohol or tea. Maybe coffee is just somehow more intriguing. If you do feel like having a cup, it seems Beans & Brews offers the cheapest one mentioned in the article--$1. And you get a nice little biscutt with it too. Cheerio!

China's worst nighmare

The People's Republic of China (PRC) decided to bid for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games to show the world that they were a modern powerful country that should be respected. Yet due to the events of the last two years--and especially the last few months--China's giant PR festival is turning into massive damage control.

First, there were the stories of the polluted air, rivers, lakes, and land, so bad that the Chinese themselves were willing to take on the companies and their government cronies. Next, there was the numerous recalls of unsafe PRC-made products, especially children's toys dripping with lead paint--just in time for Christmas.

But the most important development was the crackdown after protests in Tibet. The world has always had a soft spot for Tibet, thanks to the brilliant Dali Lama's tours around the world and the various Tibetan monks that represent Tibet as a peaceful Buddhist kingdom.

PRC government officials don't get what all the hubbub is about. They see Tibet as their Vermont--a wayward boarder province that is a bit different from the rest of the country, but still part of the nation. But now every city the Olympic flame visits will be a chance for protesters to remind the world of all the human rights violations PRC commits on a daily basis.

But you know this is a real movement--and not just the usual liberal cranks--when you see this happening:

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman says he supports the protests in San Diego that are threatening the Olympic torch run.
["Of course, I do. This is who we are," Huntsman, who has represented the U.S. government in China, told the Deseret Morning News. "I think we ought to be totally American about it, in terms of our expressions of outrage and concern and speaking up front and openly as we always do as Americans."
[...]
Huntsman said such protests can help pressure the Chinese government to "undertake a healthy dialog" with Tibet, considered an autonomous region. Last month, protests by Buddhist monks in Lhasa turned deadly as Chinese security forces poured into the Tibetan capital.

"I don't think it's bad," the governor said of the pressure being put on China to confront concerns over human rights. "In trade issues, we always exert pressure. That's how we made progress. But it has to be pressure combined with appropriate timing."]

Huntsman says he took part in protests himself in 1989 in opposition of China's treatment of demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. He says he protested outside of the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C., despite running the Commerce Department's Asian affairs bureau at the time.

Huntsman was also Bush's Ambassador to Singapore before he became Governor, and he was in the running to be Chinese Ambassador (he also speaks Mandarin fluently) so he is fairly prominent American government official in East Asia. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Hillary Clinton want--who both have a lot of support from Chinese Americans---want to boycott the opening ceremonies. But it isn't just "liberals" that want to do that.

"If you think the opening ceremony is about recognizing China, then you probably would boycott it," [Mitt] Romney recently told CNN News. "If you think it's about recognizing the world and humankind, then you're there to pay respect to the athlete."

Well wait, which way do you think about it Romney? The Deseret News says your are against protests, but it could be construed either way...which I guess was the reason you said it that way.

While Bush might not lift a finger to remove the U.S. team from the opening ceremonies,you can be assured that some American Olympian will sport some sort of protest to PRC's regime. Some one's warm up jersey will have a Tibetan flag on it. Or someone will turn their back to Chairman Mao's flag. Maybe a person in the city will point out that their 400-year old family home was bulldozed in the name of "progress" (and of course, they don't have a Takings Clause in PRC). Maybe foreign protesters will flood Tianamen Square a build another lady democracy, and this time, the officials can't roll out the tanks or turn off the cameras.

PRC invited the world in to show off. "This is unprecedented for the Chinese to subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny and spotlight, and they knew in 2001 that would be part and parcel of hosting the Games," Hunstman said. "The reformers won out years ago by saying this is a good thing. There will be change." By the end of August, they may want to wish they could go hide. Tibet, Huntsman predicted, is "just the beginning of a litany of issues that will be brought up." The Chinese, he said, appear to be "willing to embrace greater change moving forward."

Penn-ing the next chapter in Democratic consultants

So as I am sure all you political junkies heard this weekend, Mark Penn the chief strategist/pollster of the Hillary Clinton campaign resigned/fired/stepped down sorta. Joe Trippi, who was John Edwards 2008 (and Dean's 2004) campaign strategist hit the nail on the head: "The only real question was, why did it not happen sooner? The conflicts have been a problem for the campaign from the start."

Trippi is referring to the many clients had interests that were at odds with Sen. Clinton's positions, including the Colombian government, which hilariously fired Penn for sure.

Democrats nationally have a lot to hear from Republicans nationally in terms of how to handle consultants. George W. Bush told all of his consultants that they had to quit all of their other clients and focus solely on his campaign. He also demanded a flat fee rather than a commission based ad design/placement/airing. And his previous counterparts wouldn't rehire consultants that lost multiple races.

You would think these are all obvious conditions for any serious candidate for president. Sure if you are a Mike Gravel, you can't be too picky on the terms, but if you are an Obama or Clinton or Edwards or Kerry, you should be able to hold all the cards. They should be fighting to work for you, not the other way around.

Yet in the world of big-time Democratic politics, it has been bizzaro world. All of the consultants get paid a percentage of the ads they put on TV, so obviously they have an interest in suggesting that TV advertising is the way to go. Folks like Penn continue to hock their books and lobby for their other clients while still running a $150M+ campaign. And most bone-headedly, senators running for president fight for the right to have perennial losers like Penn, Shrum, and even Trippi advise them.

Bloggers give just as good advice (if not better) as these clowns do, and we cost nothing, compared to Penn's $6M bill for January alone. Penn's key contributions to Clinton's campaign was to focus on big states on Super Tuesday with the theme of experience/readiness. Meanwhile, Obama focused on the neglected states with the theme of change. Oh and Obama's people spent a significant portion of money on the ground game rather than just TV. Guess who has more delegates, won more states, has a lead in the popular vote, and has tens of millions more to spend for the next ten contests?

Like Bob Shrum, I predict that Mark Penn will become blacklisted from presidential campaigns (maybe even Senate campaigns too). Even the most pro-Clinton supporters--including her own campaign staff--was overjoyed to see Penn go away. If Democrats want to be successful, they need to learn the broader lesson from the Shrum and Penn fiascoes, and not just about the individual consultants.

First, I would suggest canning the very idea of the consultant and focus grouper. The more a candidate listens to these people, the more they sound like a politician that will say or do anything for a vote, rather than a principled person who runs for high office. But if that isn't in the cards, then second, I would give these folks a flat commission with perhaps a bonus for winning by X percent. Third, exclusivity is mandatory. Fourth, broadcast TV has lost its prominence (given cable/satellite/Internet/TiVo) and ad dollars should be spread out and tailored to popular cable channels and programs, as well as the Internet, radio, etc. Fifth, spend the money on GOTV tools and efforts. Obama's campaign took advantage of the pioneering Internet organizing tools developed in 2004 by Dean and Kerry's teams to build crowds, activists, raise money, and contact voters on a personal level. Sixth, don't rehire losers, try to get local consultants/pollsters when running for House/Senate or outsider when running for President. Obama hired Chicago marketing people to design his signs and logos, and it has been a rousing success. Even his consultant technically hails from the windy city. Seventh, based your HQ outside of greater-DC. Location matters not just because of the message it sends, but because you get trapped into conventional thinking in DC, and detached from the rest of the country. Moreover, the rent is usually cheaper and those willing to move out to your HQ are far more committed than those who just commute in to a place in DC.

Ultimately the candidates are responsible for the decisions they make, even if boneheads like Penn and Shrum suggest them. So while Penn had dumb ideas, they were ones that the Clintons agreed with and Penn tweaked his advice and polls to conform with what the Clintons wanted to do anyway. The same goes for John Kerry in 2004 with Shrum.

To me, one of the few ways we can evaluate a presidential candidate's potential as a president is looking at their judgment in running their campaign. The Clintons made some bad choices, and one could argue that other than Obama winning Iowa, his status as the almost-presumptive nominee is more of a product of their screw ups than Obama's brilliant strategy/campaigning. But it still says a lot about the Clintons that they still want to keep Penn in some capacity, and it still says a lot about Obama that he noticed key gaps in the Penn/Clinton strategy and exploited them successfully.

40 years without Dr. King

Yesterday, I spent the day of Dr. King's assination contemplating the unfinished business of his Dream. My old law school hosted the event entitled  "Did Dr. King Die in Vain?"  [We concluded "No!" by the way] It was very inspiring in all respects.  Now some undoubtedly came from the 6.5 hours of free CLE (continuing legal education, a part of the requirements to keep your license) and free lunch.  But those who stayed did so due to the incredible speakers and fellow attendees.

My sister's boyfriend gave my "My Traitor's Heart" a memior/history book about South Africa in the mid-1980s from the perspective of an Afrikaner (white) exile who came back to face his race and his country.  

This book, along with NAACP's Julian Bond (in his speech yesterday) reminded me  that even though we never (nor our ancestors) owned slaves, we stil continue to benefit from slavery and the persistance of the institution of racism.  

I think we all need to realize our privileges and confront what it is like to be an Other, to purposely place yourself in a spot where there are lots of people that don't look like you, believe what you believe, nor share your same culture.

And we all must realize that we are not helpless to stop/reduce the persistance of the achievement gaps.  While the problem is a large one, it can only be solved by individuals confronting it and doing their own small part.  

conflict of interest?

I was reading the articles about the lawsuit against Bob Murray et al that everyone knew was coming...and I came across this editorial note at the bottom of the Deseret Morning News: "Ruth Lybbert is a director of the Deseret News Publishing Co. and a stockholder in the law firm of Dewsnup King & Olsen." Meaning, Ruth Lybbert would profit from something that sells more of her companies newspapers and from large awards of attorney fees to her firm.

When do those two scenarios occur? The Crandall Canyon mine lawsuit:

The firm Dewsnup King & Olsen is filing the suit in Salt Lake City's 3rd District Court on behalf of 20 survivors of the six dead miners, the two injured rescuers and their spouses.
At present, the suit does not include heirs of three rescuers who were killed and four others who were injured in the Aug. 16 collapse.

You will notice that this tidbit of information came from the Salt Lake Tribune, not D-news.

The paper with the conflict of interest goes on to detail some of the most damming internal documents that have been uncovered thus far. As litigator, you have to love it when the Congress does your discovery work for you, and culls all the "greatest hits" into one long report. They should be thanking Senator Kennedy and his HELP (health education labor and pensions) Committee staff.

But I guess the problem is now can you really trust the D-News to be objective about the case when they obliquely pointed out their conflict of interest. An attorney cannot comment on a case that is currently pending in a manner that would "poison the jury pool" (nor can the judge on the case), but a newspaper has the 1st Amendment right to do so. We might be getting into a sticky situation where the paper is "speaking for" the firm to which the plaintiffs attorneys belong (and share their fees with). I am sure Ms. Lybbert is aware of this problem, which is why the disclaimer appears. But people wouldn't get suspicious if the D-news article was more upfront about the potential problem.

'free time'

As Mel Brooks once said, its good to be the king.

Taxpayers have forked over more than $75,000 to Nathan Rathbun in salary and reimbursements for his work as a field coordinator and caseworker for Rep. Chris Cannon's congressional office in Provo since January 2005.
During the same period, Rathbun also took paychecks from Cannon's re-election campaign totaling more than $90,000.
While not violating any House rules, Rathbun's situation - shared by several on Cannon's federal payroll - underscores what the Utah County Republican's opponents call an alarming crossover between taxpayer-paid staff and campaign workers.
[...]
House ethics rules prohibit congressional staffers from working on campaigns while on the clock for their official positions or on the grounds of House or district buildings. But staffers are allowed to help a campaign in their free time as long as they don't use any congressional resources.
[...]
Hunter insists the staffers do not do campaign work on congressionally paid time or vice-versa. But Cannon's office does not require the staffers who work for both the congressional office and the campaign to log what hours they work for either, as suggested by the House Ethics Committee.
Hunter says he personally ensures that they are being paid commensurate for their work and doesn't see a need for detailed logs. Last year, for example, Hunter says he took a voluntary cut in pay because he also was doing some work for a pro-school voucher group that paid him $8,000.
[...]
In another disputed point, Cannon has reimbursed several congressional staffers with campaign money for expenses such as telephones and office supplies, despite a recommendation from the Ethics Committee that a House employee "should not make any outlay on behalf of the employing member's campaign" other than travel expenses.

The thing is, these staffers aren't "volunteering" or even working during their "free time" out of the goodness of their heart. They are working for their boss so that they will have a job next year. "Without a doubt, I volunteer a lot of free time to it. I obviously care a lot about Rob's re-election," said Scott Parker, chief of staff to Rep. Rob Bishop. And from talking to my friends who are congressional staffers, you are only off the job when you quit, are fired, or your boss loses, because a crisis could emerge while you are on vacation or trying to sleep.

That would true if their boss' name was "Chris Cannon" or "Jim Matheson," and that is the true ethical quandary, not the fact that these staffer's work is yet another advantage that an incumbent has over a challenger. Jim opts to not pay any Congressional staffers that work for his campaign off the federal clock. But really, I wish that the Ethics Committee would forbid staffers from working on campaigns at all. As a former legislative staffer on the state level (in Massachusetts) I can tell you that there is big pull--even if your boss or supervising staffer never mentions it--to help out on the re-election campaign, both economically and emotionally. And sure, Cannon's challengers are pointing this out because it is a easy way to score political points, but they still would be a valid point to make even if they didn't stand to gain from making Cannon look bad.

When is pork pork?

Some say that earmarks aren't all bad. What seems like a crazy waste of money to some is really a necessary project back in a politician's district, the argument goes. But if that is true, why are members of Congress too ashamed to tell the local press about their earmarks?

In Utah, only Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson released his earmark requests when asked by The Salt Lake Tribune. He is seeking more than $100 million to fund nearly 50 projects ranging from military technology to road construction. [PDF]
Utah's other two House members refused to identify the earmarks they endorsed, but Republican Reps. Chris Cannon and Rob Bishop did release basic lists of every request their offices received from Utah groups. Somewhere on that long list are the items they have submitted for funding.
Utah's senators, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, will release information only on earmarks that are successful.

I can understand why some Congress critters might not want to tell some constituency that they couldn't get (or didn't try too hard to get) $X earmarked for Y's pet project, but they are going to find out sooner or later that it didn't happen. So in the end, that excuse doesn't add up. The need for secrecy doesn't really fly for me. I get that members probably trade earmarks or reduce some in exchange for others, or support ones of a powerful members so that he will support theirs...but come on guys (and gals), it is our money.

Some members of Congress, like Matheson and Obama, see the upside in disclosing their earmarks: they get to brag not only about their purported honesty and transparency, but also their ability to bring home the bacon. Similarly, not all lobbyists and bundlers are upset with the new ethics reforms, because now everyone in the Beltway get to see exactly how influential they really are.

The lack of disclosure only makes the public cynically assume that something nepharious is taking place, that campaign contributors are getting earmarks while constituents are getting hosed. Now that does happen sometimes--like Alaska Rep. Don Young's earmark for a road expansion in Florida the day after getting $40K in donations from a Florida developer--but they also happen to be illegal and Rep. Young is in danger of losing his party's primary as well as the general election, even though he has brought home the bacon for decades. The moral of the story is that sunshine, as Justice Brandeis once said, is the best disinfectant.

after the music stops

The best way to see what a politican is all about is to see what they do when there is they are lame ducks or out of office. Some, like Al Gore (D-TN) and Jimmy Carter (D-GA), go on to do meaningful things about stuff they care about. Others, like Trent Lott (R-MS) and Al Wynn (D-MD), take the money and run.

Roll Call, one of the two big Capitol Hill Newspapers, is reporting that Wynn will announce today that is will "leave the House in June to join a Washington, D.C., law firm" aka become a lobbyist and make millions. Lott already did the same thing, going even the extra step of registering the domain name of his super lobbying firm before resigning from the Senate. Which, by the way, is illegal. Wynn's retirement is a forced one, having been trounced last month by Donna Edwards by over 20 points thanks to new Obama voters (both candidates endorsed Obama in this middle-class majority minority district).

It used to be that people sought elective office because they wanted to do great things and make their country/state/county/town better. Then it used to be that they wanted power and priviledge. Now many politicans just use decades in Congress as a stepping stone to a much more lucrative career in lobbying their former collegues about stuff they don't know (or care) a thing about.

So the real question about Utah's elected officials is, if they had their druthers, what would they do after being what they are right now? Gov. Huntsman clearly would rather be in the executive branch in a cabinet post; he seems to find dealing with the legislature annoying and the topics of dispute petty. Speaker Curtis seems to be trying to hang on to his seat so that he can run for Rep. Matheson's when he expects Matheson to run for governor. Senator Valentine, I have no clue.

Sen. Hatch would rather be a music/movie/tv star, as witnessed by his many albums, fighting for copyright changes, and cameos on movies like Traffic. Sen. Bennett also seems to be more comfortable as a technocrat than as a senator. Although he does love bringing home the bacon, whereas Hatch again just wants to be famous.

The House side is tougher to call. Rep. Matheson seems to have a distaste for lobbying and lobbyists, even if his friends and former collegues coming knocking. So I doubt he will go that route. Rep. Bishop likes to do a couple of pieces of serious legislation here and there, and doesn't need a high profile. So I think Bishop is happy as is. Rep. Cannon on the other hand loves to go on TV and say ridiculous stuff that I can't imagine he actually believes. I think he wants to be a TV pundit.

When did baseball become partisan?

Remember that terrible hearing that Roger Clemens demanded in front of the House Oversight Committee? It was terrible because Republicans were attacking Brian McNamee while Democrats were attacking Roger Clemens.

The top Republican on the congressional committee investigating whether Roger Clemens used performance-enhancing drugs released a report Tuesday questioning whether Clemens lied in his testimony before the panel last month.
The 109-page report, obtained by The Associated Press, contains details Rep. Tom Davis believes could challenge the credibility of Brian McNamee, the personal trainer who testified under oath he injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone.
Republican staff from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform say they will pass along additional information to the Justice Department. The FBI is investigating whether Clemens lied to Congress.
''It's a far more complicated picture than some may want to believe," Davis said.

But the reason Democrats attacked Clemens was not because they thought McNamee was an alter boy, but because Clemens' own friend and teammate, Andy Petitte gave a sworn deposition [warning PDF] that confirmed the main thrust of McNamee's allegations--that Clemens used HGH.

A sports columnist asked the same question I am, and came to this conclusion:

When did this thing get so partisan?

There are plenty of folks who would agree that Congress should stop meddling with baseball (and now, the NFL) and really do the work of the people. On its surface, [Rep. Patrick] McHenry [(R-NC)]'s point certainly has merit.

But here’s what McHenry told The Gazette in 2005 on the afternoon after he’d just grilled Mark McGwire [...]
[...]
What happened between then and now to change his mind? Plenty.
For starters, his party was in the majority in 2005 and was actually the body that called for the hearings in the first place. Now that the Dems are calling the plays, McHenry wants to stay on the sidelines.
[...]
Another, perhaps more conspiratorial view, is that Clemens was embraced by the Republicans at the behest of George H.W. Bush, who served one term as president beginning in January 1989 and is the father of current president George W. Bush. Like Clemens, Bush is a longtime resident of the Houston area. The elder Bush routinely attends Astros games every season, and during Clemens’ three years with the team (2004-06) the two forged a reportedly strong relationship and attended social functions and fundraisers together.

Their friendship goes all the way back to 1991...
[...]
An even more cynical fan might take the view that the Republicans simply despise the Mitchell Report itself, the investigation by former Sen. George Mitchell into baseball’s steroids problem.

Mitchell is a prominent figure within the Democratic Party, after all.
[...]
Clemens is pathetic. To defend him is a losing proposition.
But then again, Republicans are going down with plenty of sinking ships these days.

So is the Bush family really going to bat, so to speak, for Roger Clemens, and lobbying Republican Congressmen? Who knows, but either way, it doesn't make sense for these Congressmen to go along with Bush on this one.

I mean, in retrospect, doesn't it seem obvious that a guy this old couldn't suddenly step up his game to untold hights (and be able to play on the same rest schedule as he did in the 1980s) without the assistance of illegal injections?

Of course, I am partisan too....I am a Boston Red Sox fan.

necessary evil

CNN analyst and Hillary Clinton advisor James "the ragin' Cajun" Carville had this to say about Bill Clinton's Super Bowl watching buddy. (Doesn't he look pissed that he has to watch the game with Richardson?) "Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," he said, calling it "[a]n act of betrayal."

Now Carville is known for his crazy commentary that is some times apt--"it's the economy, stupid"--some times outrageous and some times light heartedly funny. And I could get into the Godfather-esque ways Clintonistas (and not the Clintons themselves) talk about Richardson ["How many times did [Clinton] appoint him?" McAuliffe marveled {after Richardson's strategy to tell his supporters to go to Obama if they didn't meet 15% "caused" Hillary to get 3rd place in Iowa}. "Two? U.N. Ambassador and Energy Secretary?" He looked at me, half-glaring, awaiting confirmation. "I don't know," I joked, "but who's counting?" "I am," McAuliffe said firmly."] But I would rather focus on the Easter message that is being distorted.

The more I think about it, the more I don't get why people "blame the Jews" or "Judas" for "killing Jesus." In case you forgot, Jesus wanted to be killed. He knew that one of his disciples was going to point him out to the authorities, and since it was Jesus, he probably knew it was Judas but just didn't want the other 11 to attack him before Judas did the deed. Assuming Carville is a Christian, which I believe he is (a Catholic, I think), then he knows that it was necessary for Jesus to be crucified for our sins. Without Judas or the Jewish authorities turning him over to the Romans, how would Jesus have died, and would Christianity have got on the way it did? What symbol would one use to connote one's belief in Jesus? Not a cross.

Unless you assume that the same or similar thing would have happened anyway. Really, the whole thing gets one into one of those debates involving any piece of fiction that involves time travel or engaging in hypothetical situations where history is altered. Would Lincoln or Kennedy be considered great presidents if they hadn't been assassinated? Would the Reconstruction or Vietnam occurred? Would Marty McFly have made his parent fall in love? As much as I like to debate topics like this with friends--I do love pointless arguments about silly topics like Back to the Future parts I-III--I think the whole "blame Judas" or "blame the Jews" thing is stupid and counterfactual.

To be clear I am not saying that Clinton is Jesus or that she needs Richardson to endorse Obama in order to win. Who knows how that will all play out. What I am saying is that Judas--and the nominal authorities of Jeruslem in 33 CE--played a critical role in creating Christianity as a world religion and was a necessary act for Jesus to be the redeemer of sinners under that same faith. Anyway, Happy Easter Monday.

Is Utah in play?

(Photo Credit © 2008 Deseret Morning News)

The article's headline is "Utahns getting over Mitt" and talks about how John McCain is getting twice as much support as he did last month. But the poll notes that Obama's and Clinton's support remain unchanged. So all that means is that McCain is solidifying GOP support in the reddest state in the union...and he still only has 54% of the vote.

Of course, this is a dumb poll. Why? Because only one of the two remaining Democrats will be on the ballot in November, so asking people who they will support for president and listing everyone currently running is a waste of time unless you do head-to-head match ups. Another problem with this poll is that they include Nader, who got .38 percent of the vote nationally--compared to .32 percent for the Libertarian candidate, who was not polled here--and .012 here in Utah. And Utah should be prime Nader vote country, where liberals, angry that their vote doesn't count for president due to the Electoral College system, pull the lever for him in protest. So including Nader just takes a percent away from Democrats and or Undecided or Refused.

But look who is McCain's Western States Coordinator--Tim Bridgewater--the guy who twice failed to win a Republican primary in Utah for the right to lose to Jim Matheson. "People have not immediately embraced John McCain. It's taken some time," Bridgewater told the Deseret Morning News. "Utahns are rallying around him in support of his leadership on the war, the economy and the fact that people trust him." I would like to see a poll on Utahns' level of support for the war, which although assuredly higher than the rest of the country, is probably not exactly soaring.

If John McCain can't get more than 54% in Utah when the Democratic/liberal vote is split between Clinton, Obama and Nader, how is Utah not competitive in November? And how crazy is that?

whither John Edwards?

With news this morning that NM Gov. Bill Richardson endorsed Obama this morning, and the Obama campaign is planning on rolling out more endorsements between now and April 22nd's Pennsylvania primary "to create a sense of momentum," one wonders what happened to erstwhile candidate and number one endorsement get ex-Sen. John Edwards.

After Edwards' Iowa slingshot strategy didn't pan out, he completely dropped off the radar after a dissipointing finish in South Carolina, the state of his birth. For a couple weeks, Clinton and Obama tried their best to channel Edwards, and to woo him to their side. After Super Tuesday, however, they largely forgot about that and seemed to tack to the center.

Since neither are able to put the other away, Edwards could still be a kingmaker...or at least an elder statesman. Why wasn't Edwards stepping in when things got nasty between the two in February and March, telling them to be grown-ups, like he did in the debates? Why didn't Edwards take a stand on Florida or Michigan, to force a redo? Or Edwards could have offered to mediate the stalemate between Obama and Clinton in May/June, to avoid a convention floor fight or credentials committee battle.

During the campaign, Edwards showed his neutrality between the two by attacking both, although he did attack Clinton more. However, that was necessary since he was selling himself (this time) as the change-ist candidate and amazingly the first serious woman candidate was the establishment candidate. So why hasn't Edwards done any of those things and why doesn't it seem like he will do any of those things?

To me, the only logical answer is that he doesn't want to piss off the nominee if they win, or the loser if the nominee ends up losing to John McCain. Still, I think Edwards could get whatever cabinet post he wanted (i.e. Sec. of Labor, HHS, AG) in exchange for endorsing whomever it was. And if he went the mediator route, he would be sure not to either Clinton or Obama mad at him. The non-logical answer is that he is pissed off a both for ignoring him post-Super-Tuesday, and he doesn't think either of them would be nearly as good as he would be as president.

But let's face facts, John Edwards is never going to be the Democratic nominee for president. You don't get to run three times, unless you want to be an also-ran. Even Joe Biden learned not to run between 1988 and 2008. So Edwards' options are to be a cabinet level dude in a Democratic administration, run for Governor or Senator of North Carolina next cycle (the filing deadline was March 3rd), or leave politics and become the Al Gore of Poverty (which is something he genuinely seems to care a lot about). So far however, he hasn't made moves to do any of those three.

It must be tough to get very close to being a presidential nominee, especially when it seems like a good year to be a member of your party. It takes a lot of hard work and planning to get even that close, and I understand his disappointment and frustration. He could have made the most of a bad situation, however, he doesn't seem ready to do the necessary things.

And it is too bad. Democrats need a talented politician who has a nose for what the public mood is in their upper echelon.

meet Oldenburg jr.

In a break from posts about politics, please welcome the newest resident on The Third Avenue:
To answer a few questions you are bound to ask: the due date is late September/early October, no one knows the gender yet (that's it's arm, not a male organ), and I am totally excited. Freaking out, I assume, will come at a later time.

While this will be the first great-grandchild on both sides of my family (and both of our parent's first grandchild), it will be my wife's grandmother's twenty-fifth great-grandchild from one of her 25 grandchildren. I just blew your mind, didn't I?

Anyway, I have been dying to tell my readers for a while but had to get Mrs. Oldenburg's permission first (I redacted her name from the picture) and make sure das Baby (that's German for baby) was alright. On Monday, we saw it moving about on the ultrasound. I could watch that for hours....

What's the big deal?

There are three stories out today about SL County DA Lohra Miller's purported proclivity to party. [Say that three times fast!] As you can guess from this post's title, I really don't get what Miller did that was so terrible.

[Private investigator Todd Gabler,] who has tracked Salt Lake County District Attorney Lohra Miller for months[,] contends Miller is undermining the credibility of her office.
[...]
Gabler said there were some "intervening events" that prompted him to continue looking into the situation.

"The first was that Lohra used her public office as a platform to call her neighbors liars. Had she not done that, the investigation would just have gone away. But we started receiving calls from prospective clients who we had interviewed regarding this case. Basically clients started lining up outside the door — they didn't like being called liars.

"The second reason is that she made a public statement that she believed she was held to a higher standard of scrutiny as a public official, which she certainly is. She made the claim there is no underage drinking in her house," which Gabler said he knew was false, referring to a December 22, 2005 report from the South Jordan Police Department.

"I read the report where both Lohra and Lorenzo and their son told police there had been drinking by minors in their house," Gabler said.

Gabler said techniques used in the investigation, such as going through trash and videotaping the Miller home, were legal and did not invade Miller's privacy.

Further, he said the real underlying issue is not underage drinking or neighborhood complaints, but the integrity of the district attorney's office.

The "lack of integrity" is apparently contradicting a PI's memory of a police report, which might be erroneous and even if true wouldn't be admissible in a court of law.

The Salt Lake City Weekly delves into much more detail that finally gets at what might be wrong about this whole thing...AG Mark Shurtleff's office's investigation into the accusations.

The results of Gabler’s work are striking. They’re also obvious. The documents he examined would have been available to anyone else—had anyone else bothered to ask. No one did.

Lohra Miller did not respond to repeated requests for an interview left with Miller's office assistant and the district attorney office spokesman. City Weekly's messages for her husband Lorenzo Miller, left with the secretary at his law office, on his cell phone and his work email, were not returned. A "Very Thorough Investigation[.]"
[...]
In fact, the attorney general's office didn't say it couldn't find anything. In a two-sentence letter that was the Utah attorney general’s entire report, the Attorney general wrote, "Our investigation revealed no basis for criminal charges."

"We looked only at potential violations of state law," says Paul Murphy, spokesman for the attorney general’s office. The attorney general’s investigation was limited to three areas: allegations of unlicensed daycare, underage drinking and drug use.

Murphy says the attorney general, "did a very thorough investigation" into allegations of underage drinking and drug use. "We didn't call any of the neighbors liars," he says. But no one the attorney general's office interviewed was able to provide any concrete evidence against the Millers.

But even here, there doesn't seem to be much there there. No one is saying Miller should be ousted because she is a hypocrite or even provides any solid proof that anything illegal occurred in her home.

KSL News says a video of the surveillance was recently mailed to the Salt Lake City TV station. Gabler says he was trying to prove Miller has lied about purported parties at her home involving minors.
[...]
Complaints about the parties were recently investigated by the Utah Attorney General's Office -- and no evidence of criminal activity was found.
KSL News says that interpretations of what the video actually shows are in dispute. Miller says she and her children were out of town during one of the alleged parties filmed.

Now if someone had any solid proof of Miller doing something illegal while urging her DDA's to prosecute others for such illegalities, that would be something. But it seems to be that worse case scenario, her kids were doing dumb things like partying late at night and drinking. Last time I checked, how one parents their children has nothing to do how one heads an office of prosecutors. And really, why should we be so quick to judge her family and parenting skills/choices?

If someone could prove that Miller solicited illegal campaign contributions or fired DDA Kent Morgan for political reasons or failed to prosecute a police officer for a wrongful shooting because of police union endorsements, any of those would be a very serious and troubling issue. And ones that, if true, should cause her to resign.

But right now, all we have an overzealous PI snooping in her trash and filming her house, with nothing really to show for it. The whole thing smacks of neighbors who really don't like her and her family. W ake me up if you have any real news to report. My advice to the Millers would be to move somewhere else, and get a restraining order on this PI.

Change is coming to Utah Politics

You can feel it in the air, and see it in the LG's filings: change...even in Happy Valley.

Democrats aren't the only ones in Utah County disenchanted with the Republican incumbents in the Legislature.
Candidate filing ended Monday, and several Utah County legislative districts have multiple candidates, especially multiple Republican candidates.

Of the 13 district races for the House of Representatives, eight races have more than one Republican, and in the Senate, three of the four races have multiple Republicans.

All of the candidates running think there needs to be change, but several Republican candidates said neighbors and other members of the community asked them to run because they want a positive change in the Legislature and not just the same actions by the same people.

"It was a little over a year ago there was a lot of outcry for a change. ... Everybody has a different complaint," said Jennifer Baptista, a candidate in District 57 who is running against Rep. Craig Frank, R-Pleasant Grove. "They feel they're not being heard, that he's not representing them and they're not happy about his lack of support for the public schools. There's been a lot of discontentment in the area, and it just proves the fact that a lot of people want somebody different."

Lots of people are running against incumbents all over the state. Even a veteran Republican leglislator is fed up with his colleagues. After 10-years in the Utah House (1996-2006), David Hogue is running this time as a Democrat:

"The purpose of the Legislature is to represent the people," Hogue said. "I've been disappointed in the way the Republican leadership has steered and guided legislation that is going away from citizens' rights."
Among his biggest gripes: the school voucher law that was soundly defeated by voters in last November's referendum.

Yet those out-of-touch legislators still haven't gotten the message. "I don't see [anti-voucher] as being all that compelling of a message. Maybe time will tell," said Speaker Greg "20 votes"
Curtis. "Vouchers will not be an issue in anyone's political future," said Sen. Mike Waddops. The voucher issue is "not going to have much impact except for the zealots," predicts Rep. Greg Hughes. Those zealots like 62% of Utahns, who constituted a majority in every county in the state.

But one change to come is the most surprising, no real serious challenger to SL County Mayor Peter Carroon.

The 47-year-old is a field supervisor for Adult Probation and Parole at the Utah Department of Corrections. He lives in Sandy with his wife, Nicia, and five children.

[Michael] Renckert faces a daunting task in taking on Corroon, as the county mayor's poll numbers have remained consistently high throughout his four-year term.

Corroon is the county party's No. 1 target for the 2008 election, Evans said.

"He's not running against Peter Corroon. He's running for Salt Lake County mayor," [Salt Lake County Republican Party Chairman James] Evans said.

That's a telling quote from a guy who declined not to run for the job.

But really, why give away the County Mayor race? He is the third most known and powerful political figure at the local level (behind Sandy's Mayor Tom Dolan and SLC's Mayor Ralph Becker) yet represents more people than any member of Utah's U.S. House Delegation. Every time you go to a public pool in the summer, go to a park, go to Millcreek Canyon, go to a rec center, go to the planetarium, etc. you are using a County service. He could plaster his name and face over all of these services, like Nancy Workman did. If Jim Matheson doesn't run for Governor in 2012, Carroon could and would have a decent shot at winning.

your world in charts

(H/T Erza Klein)

Or, why Hillary Clinton's prospects for winning the nomination are slipping daily.

(graphic by the New York Times)

I am not sure if this chart includes another superdelegate that announced for Obama today, but I am sure it doesn't include the pledged delegate count. This dramatic shift is partly due to Obama's February winning streak, and partly due to the shattering of the "inevitable" talking point, which in turn was shattered by Obama's wins. At this rate, Obama will close the superdelegate gap between him and Clinton, which once stood at over 100, in a matter of weeks.

And with each superdelegate committing, it makes for one less that could go for Clinton. Of course, these people can and do change their minds. Unfortunately for Sen. Clinton, they having been changing their minds from supporting her to supporting Sen. Obama.

The Clinton camp acknowledges that due to the party's pledged delegate allocation rules, she will never be able to make up Obama's lead. And unless Florida and Michigan are somehow counted, she also has no hope of leading in the popular vote. Those two states seem unable to get their act together and decide on what to do.

Some of this, no doubt, is due to Obama supporters (and perhaps even the Obama camp itself) "sabotaging" the decision process in Michigan and Florida. But the legal questions raised by Obama/his supporters are reasonable ones--the Voting Rights Act cannot be taken lightly--and much of the inabilty of these two states is due to the internal conflicts between state party officials, state legislators/legislatures, and state Congressional delegations. Both Obama and Clinton teams seem content in having it both ways. Clinton decries the disenfranchisement of voters while continuing to claim that Michigan's results were fair because Obama chose to take his name off the ballot. Obama says it is up for the states/the DNC to decide how to go forward when both agreed that no plan will happen without the written approval of such a plan by both Obama and Clinton.

If this continues, I doubt a re-do will actually occur in either state and some sort of a compromise regarding delegates will be reached and rubber-stamped by the Rules and Credentials Committees later this summer. If so, advantage Obama, whose people will be in the majority on said committees.

All of this means that Sen. Clinton's path to the nomination requires that Sen. Obama becomes so damages that the party won't want to choose him. And she will have to do the damaging (at best indirectly). How do you think Rev. Wright's months old comments suddenly resurfaced?


And I would like to make one more point about delegates. Of course they are undemocratic, as are caucuses, as is the fact that certain states get to go first. If you go back in the archives, you can see me wailing about the unrepresentiveness of the Iowa Caucuses in 2003 and 2004. But everyone who opted to seek the Democratic nomination for president implicitly agreed to these rules. While it may be politically untenable or really unfair for Michigan and/or Florida voter's choices not to count, the DNC made its ruling and neither Clinton nor Obama's team (nor any other campaign) objected to the DNC's ruling at the time it was made. Nor did anyone at the time protest the way delegates were allocated between and within states, especially the rules in states like Nevada and Texas. It was only the Clinton campaign that complained about these things after-the-fact. And can any Clinton supporter look me in the eyes and honestly tell me that if the roles were reversed she would have made these criticisms? Of course not. Not that Obama wouldn't have tried to make these complaints. But I doubt any of them would have had as much traction coming from him as they have from her.

The rule was, and still is, the first candidate to get 50.1% of the delegates gets the nomination. I welcome any changes to the nomination system that reexamines delegate allocation systems, eleminates caucuses, puts more emphasis on the popular vote, etc. But all of those changes will have to take effect for the 2012 nomination, no matter how terrible the current system is.

Obama's team based their strategy--including getting his name, as well as Edwards' and Biden's, off the Michigan ballot--on those rules. And, let's face it, so did the Clinton's team. And right now, Obama is the odds-on favorite to win the nomination. [This, by the way, is the number one reason why the superdelegates are rapidly trending in Obama's favor]

While I hope that the Democratic Party change its nomination rules for the better as a result of this epic Obama-Clinton race, I don't support changing the basis of choosing a nominee at this point in "the game." Not unless someone invents a time machine.