progressive involvement

Campaign of the Century

This is a campaign of legend and lore--two excellent campaigners, each powered by important and broad constituencies, rallying their considerable forces from state to state as the Great Democratic Adventure moves back-and-forth across the country. 

How will it end?  Will the legend be one of song and story?  Or, will it be angst and dread?  At this point, it could go either way.  The Democrats could fall apart in recrimination and division, which could elect John McCain. 

Or, this campaign could also be the beginning of something we haven't had since FDR--a long-term, governing majority.  In the fall Congressional elections, Democrats are likely add at least a few Senators to the 51 we currently have.  We are likely to add 10-15 seats to our House majority.  This, by the way, would be a Democratic majority which, for the first time in its history, would not be dominated by southern conservatives.  If we elect a president, everything would be in place. 

If we do manage to achieve that, it does not necessarily guarantee, of course, that streams will flow in the desert and flowers bloom in the streets.  Even with a governing majority, we're quite likely to fight among ourselves on various details of the agenda we hope to enact.  One of my former profs used to say, "There's more fighting within political parties than there is between political parties."  Truer words...

Still, we did pretty well the last time we had a long-term governing majority.  We enacted Social Security, rallied the country from the Great Depression, and won the World War.  If that isn't impressive, I don't know what is. 

If I'm a Democratic elected official, or a superdelegate, or someone else in the upper echelons of the party, I would look at the possibility of the Democratic Party being the governing majority not just for four years, or eight, but rather for a generation.

It could happen this way.  The nominating process will continue into May, or even June.  First of all, this is not necessarily a bad thing.  Historically, many campaigns have gone into the summer.  Plus, our campaign will be dominating the news, and nobody will hear much about John McCain.  True, he'll be using that time to placate the conservatives and draw them back inside the GOP fold, but that's going to happen anyway.  They're almost there right now.

Hillary looks to do well in late primaries.  By the time we get into early summer, the difference between the candidates' delegate totals will quite likely be in double digits rather than triple digits.  Out of 4000 possible delegate votes, the difference in pledged delegates will seem like a handful.  In the minds of most people, the long nominating process will have produced a wash.

Both campaigns will be making their pitch to the superdelegates.  The superdelegates are not, incidentally, "unelected," as the Obama campaign is saying.  They all got elected to something, one way or another.  In fact, most of them represent much larger constituencies than any delegate elected through the current process. 

When Hillary makes her pitch, she will say that she wins traditional Democrats, and that she wins the big states we have to win, especially Ohio.  (As Richard Nixon used to say, "Ohio is the ballgame.")  She will argue that she stacks up well against McCain on the issues, and she wins Latinos, which is absolutely critical for the future of the party.

If Obama hasn't knocked her out in the late primaries, which he won't, she will be able to say that he has tried four times to do it, and hasn't.  She'll argue that she's the one who will be able to "close the deal" against John McCain.  That will be a strong and persausive case.  (For an entertaining and thorough explication of the candidates' arguments, see Noah Millman here.)

Obama will argue that his candidacy has generated great enthusiasm and brought new people into the party.  He'll argue that he can win Virginia, Missouri, and Colorado.  This is persausive as well.  He will also argue that he should get the nomination because he has actually won the most delegates--if this is really so, of course.  This seems a weaker argument, however.  We don't want our nominee to appear to have "backed in" to the thing. 

If I'm a superdelegate, or other Democratic big shot, I will want to pick a winner, and I will want to avoid making either side so angry that some of their supporters might stay home in November.  I will consider that if Obama gets the nomination, 10% of Hillary's people will stay home, and we don't win.  If Hillary is nominated, 10% of Obama's new people stay home, and we might not win.

If I'm a superdelegate or some other big party wheel, I will try to have my cake and eat it too.  I'll try to find a way to get them both on the same ticket.  Who heads it?  Both candidates will be making their pitch, and they both have good points to make.  When superdelegates consider all the factors, however, Hillary's argument is more persausive than Obama's.

Putting them on the same ticket solves a whole lot of problems, and would be a popular choice.  The campaigns, of course, are thoroughly aware of this possibility, which has the pleasant side effect of keeping both campaigns reasonably civil to each other.  You don't want to burn any bridges. 

The Clintons, in fact, are actively promoting the idea, probably because it usually assumes Clinton being at the top of the ticket, which is an association she wants to encourage in the mind of the voter.  Obama is not as warm to the idea for precisely that reason.  But, and this is crucial, he hasn't ruled it out either.  Granted, they are not there yet.  Each candidate has a "short list" of VP prospects, and neither one has their opponent on that list.   

At some point, however, a deal is going to be floated by serious well-connected insiders, and there will be a lot of pressure to make it happen.  Yes, Obama's supporters would be disappointed, but Obama would have the inside track on 2016.  This would give him time to hone his considerable skills.  More important, it would provide an opportunity to shore up his resume in some critical areas.  Besides, it's the presidency of the United States we're talking about here.  It's only eight years, and the way the years fly by, eight years will come soon enough.

In essence, Sen. Obama will be asked to "take one for the team."  In return, he can fairly demand a substantive role in the administration--within reason, pretty much whatever he wants.  More important, he will have to trust Hillary--trust her to follow through on the deal, and trust her for political support in the future.  Maybe he can get there, and maybe he can't--I don't know what their relationship is like.  (I'm told they're "friends," but I don't know exactly what that means.)

He may also decide that this time is his--to coin a phrase--"roll of the dice."  He might think that he will look differently to the public in 2016.  He wouldn't be the fresh face.  He'd be "establishment."  On the other hand, if the administration is successful--and Democrats really deliver--being "establishment" would not be a bad place to be.

Hillary will have trust too.  She'll have to trust Obama to be a loyal vice president, and to put his energies fully into the success of the administration.  She can do it.  She's a Methodist, and Methodists are good at that sort of thing--seriously.

They will both have to make a leap, which means they will have to form a true partnership.  I think they themselves are intrigued by the idea, and, if I gauge party sentiment correctly, Democrats across the nation would be ecstatic. 

This is the greatest campaign in decades.  Our people flock to the polls in droves.  How can we top it off?  We can complete the Campaign of the Century with a ticket that can win, and can lead a long-term Democratic governing majority.  For the good of the Democratic Party, in support of the progressive agenda, for the benefit of middle and working class Americans, they--and we--ought to do it.  Then, we had better deliver.   

One sentence says it all

Deep in the Washington Post article today on Bush's veto of a torture ban was this little gem about Sen. John McCain:

The issue also has potential ramifications for Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and a longtime critic of coercive interrogation tactics who nonetheless backed the Bush administration in opposing the CIA waterboarding ban.

Glory, hallelujah, none of them are safe

In a special election, former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert's district, once thought to be "safe Republican," elected a Democrat, Bill Foster.  Bush received 55% of the vote in this district in 2004.  Hastert was elected easily for two decades.  House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) called the race "the shot of change heard around the world."

Arapahoe County Democratic Convention: Plenty of passion on both sides

Much has been written about the passion inspired by the Obama campaign this year, and justifiably so.  What's gotten a bit lost is the remarkable energy of the Clinton campaign.  Consider the numbers, even in a strong Obama state like Colorado.  In 2004, about 800 people participated in the Arapahoe County caucuses--and that was considered a pretty good year, the highest participation to that date.  This year, the number was 13,000.  That broke down to, roughly, 8,000 for Obama and 4,000 for Hillary.  Hillary's vote alone was five times the previous high.

You could see the enthusiasm today at the Arapahoe County Democratic Convention.  This is a large, mostly suburban, county--the turnout for the fall election in 2004 was 230,000, only 7,000 less than Denver.  In the twelve years I've lived here, Arapahoe County has gone from red to purple-leaning-blue.  I consider Arapahoe County to be "ground zero" for the Democratic Party's efforts in the west.

Precinct caucuses on February 5 elected the delegates to today's county convention.  There were about 1800 delegates and 1800 alternates--65% Obama and 35% Clinton.  If you didn't know it, you wouldn't have been able to tell that Clinton was at a 2-1 disadvantage.  Judging by the hats, shirts, and buttons people wore, it seemed more like 50-50.  The Clinton people were there earlier, had the place well-decorated inside and out, worked the line outside, staffed a table for information, and, just generally, made a big splash.  When the Obama people began chanting "O-bam-a," the Hillary people more than answered with "Hill-a-ry"--I can still see Manuela leading the cheers--and had better and more creative signs. 

These folks were a good mirror of Hillary's national demographic.  In our House district caucus, which involved about 70 people, about two-thirds were women, of all ages.  Hispanics were well-represented, as were working people, union people, teachers, and the elderly--young people too;  Obama's not the only one with youth support.

These are the people who pulled out what Ron Brownstein calls Hillary's "gritty wins" in Ohio and Texas.  We haven't heard much from this demographic since the California primary, but it's still there, and it's stalwart.  At the National Journal, Brownstein talks about the passion on the Clinton side of the campaign.

Making calls from Clinton's San Antonio office on Saturday, Maria Meier, a young Los Angeles-based political consultant, looked for comparisons to the epic competition 40 years ago between Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Eugene McCarthy. "At least in my lifetime, there's never been a presidential race like this," Meier said. "They say 1968 was like this..."

From across the table, another young volunteer cut in. "We were too young for '68," said Ingrid Duran, who had flown in from Washington, D.C., to help. "This is our '68."

Unlike Ingrid, I was there in '68.  There are big differences--the biggest one being that we generally like our candidates this year, whereas, in 1968--let's just say--everybody hated at least some body.  Secondly, the demographics are all jumbled up.  Outside of African-Americans, RFK's coalition is mostly with Hillary.  Third--and keep this firmly in mind--1968 was glorious for awhile, but ended in tragedy.  This, over time, adds to that campaign's mythic luster, but it tasted like ashes at the time, and, frankly, every day since as well.  Let's hope that this '68 ends differently, and better.

Weekend reading

George McGovern, "Freedom Means Responsibility," Wall Street Journal.  (George McGovern in the Wall Street Journal?)

Paul Krugman, "The Anxiety Election," New York Times.

Digby, "Pressing Issues," Hullabuloo.

Scott Carlson, "The Back-of-the-Envelope Design Contest," The Chronicle Review.  (Designs for the George W. Bush Library, with video.)

Jeffrey Sharlet, "Jesus Plus Nothing," Harper's.

Rick Perlstein, "Getting Past the 60's?  It's not going to happen," Washington Post.

Mike Lukovich, Atlanta Journal Constitution

Quote of the Day

And, as the Democrats ponder their choices, they might want to consider which candidate can most convincingly ask: “Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?”

Paul Krugman, today, New York Times

The Pope and Martin Luther: Beer buddies?

Pope Benedict is preparing the ground to "rehabilitate" Martin Luther.  The Pope will "issue his findings" on Luther at a meeting of Roman Catholic theologians this summer at the Pope's retreat at Castelgondolfo. 

This is not as surprising as it may seem.  Earlier in his career, Cardinal Ratzinger famously told one theologian than he ought to read "less Teilhard" and "more Luther."  He is also known to have been a prime mover behind the adoption of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ).  The Declaration was finalized and signed in 1999 by representatives of both the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation--the first such agreement on a major point of doctrine between the Roman Catholic Church and any tradition of the Reformation.

Benedict may be feeling the need to mend some bridges, on more than one front.  Recent Vatican documents, such as Domine Iesus, have referred to protestant churches as mere "ecclesial communities."  While not really a new position, its re-statement had rankled many protestants. 

Benedict's remarks on Islam at the University of Regensburg in 2006 was an international incident.  In an attempt at reconciliation, a group of Muslim scholars wrote this letter to Benedict and other religious leaders around the world.  They also approached the Vatican about opening an official dialog.  The dialog will begin in November, according to the Washington Post. 

It is not known exactly what Benedict's "findings" on Luther will be.  The Times of London reports that Benedict will say that Luther did not intend to split the church, which is true, but hardly a new observation or perspective. 

More substantively, the Castelgondolfo seminar will address the question of "apostolic succession."  From the Roman Catholic point of view, "apostolic succession" refers to the succession of bishops from Peter to the present--in effect, the institutional heirarchy.  From the Lutheran point of view, "apostolic succession" refers to the succession of apostolic teaching.  (Not a single German bishop sided with the Reformation so, making a virtue out of necessity, we said we didn't need them anyway.) 

According to Domine Iesus, the main reason protestant churches are "ecclesial communities" is precisely because they are outside of "apostolic succession."  In the same document, the Orthodox Church, on the other hand, was seen as being very nearly on equal footing with Rome because it had maintained what Rome considers to be an authentic "apostolic succession." 

Benedict seems to be in an "olive-branch" mood.  If "apostolic succession" is the angle Benedict takes, it will be interesting to see how he juggles the view of protestants expressed in Domine Iesus with his own positive inclinations on Luther.

Ah! Ba-a-ach!

The Great Man Himself, according to the University of Dundee.  The Bachhaus Museum in Eisenach, Germany commissioned the Center for Forensic and Medical Art at the University of Dundee (Scotland), to recreate the face of Bach.  The "re-creation team" was led by Dr. Caroline Wilkinson. 

Bach only sat for a painted portrait one time in his life, and his actual appearance has been a matter of uncertainty.  It still is, of course, but this re-construction was done by some real forensic pros who worked on a bronze cast of Bach's actual skull.  (Bach is buried at Thomaskirche--St. Thomas Church--in Leipzig, Germany.)

"We carried out a laser scan of the skull which allowed us to recreate the musculature and skin of the face on our computer system," explained Dr Wilkinson. "By assessing the bone structure we can determine facial morphology and produce an accurate picture of his facial appearance."

Bust brings Bach back

Soon to be a million names on the "anti-terror watch list"

See the ACLU's Watch List Counter here.  It should roll over to a million some time in July. 

With one million citizens who are also terrorists, we are in really big trouble.