And, unless I'm badly mistaken, State Senator A looks an awful lot like Charlie Huggins.

Posted at July 10, 2008 3:07 PM in response to Another State Legislator Indicted in Alaska Corruption Probe

It's pretty clear from the indictment that Ben Stevens is "State Senator B," given that he "resigned from the Senate in 2006," and "knowingly and unlawfully conspire[d]" with Cowdery and Allen to bribe State Senator A. So we now have a federal indictment which, without naming him, accuses Stevens of committing a criminal act.

Posted at July 10, 2008 2:47 PM in response to Another State Legislator Indicted in Alaska Corruption Probe

An addendum:

Ben Smith has already reported">http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Plouffe_Barr_could_make_the_difference.html>reported Plouffe's belief that Alaska is "one of the states where we think Barr can get 6, 7, 8 percent." If Democrats moved from 28% to 36% in the four years between 2000 and 2004, is it really so improbable that in a cycle featuring Young, Stevens, and corruption that Obama could get the 46-47% that it may take to win this time around?

i don't think this is a gimmick, either. Alaska is one of the seventeen states that Plouffe has targeted for early TV advertising. At worst, the Obama campaign has decided that contesting Alaska will force McCain to divert resources he doesn't have. And I think there's a plausible case to be made that Obama, with the help of Bob Barr, could actually win its votes.

Posted at June 26, 2008 12:02 PM in response to Obama To Campaign In ... Alaska?

The answer, of course, is that Obama is following in the footsteps of John F Kennedy, who made a swing through Alaska on September 3-4, 1960. Kennedy hoped to win the state's three electoral votes, which were in play for the first time that year. He also spoke with reporters about his ambitious nationwide voter-registration drive, and his hope for an end to an era of divided government.

How much do you want to bet that Plouffe knew all of this before he announced the schedule? Bear in mind, as well, that Alaska is one of the two states in which Plouffe expects Bob Barr to garner a significant percentage of the vote from disgruntled Republicans, potentially opening the door for Obama.

Posted at June 26, 2008 11:50 AM in response to Obama To Campaign In ... Alaska?

John McCain uses "friend," particularly with those he dislikes.

Posted at May 20, 2008 1:05 PM in response to "Sweetie" Happens To Men, Too

Actually, I think BevD is right on the money here. It was condescending and dismissive - there's no doubt about that - and it wouldn't have happened to a male reporter. And yes, had Obama said "buddy," I imagine the reporter would've taken afront. But there's a world of difference between the connotations of "sweetie," in a sexist world, and "buddy" - let's not equate the two. It's akin to "petulant" - would you really have used that word to describe a male reporter filing a similar story?

That said, let me pose a question I haven't seen asked. The reporter, Peggy Agar, was covering an event at a factory. There was a bank of cameras following Obama around the plant, shooting B-roll. In other words, the press was allowed in to film his interaction with the workers - they were supposed to be recording the story, not inserting themselves into it. But Peggy Agar wanted a little glory. So she pushed her way to the front, and shouted out a classic TV question: "Senator, what are you going to do to help American autoworkers?"

That's not how this game is played. If any reporter could get a question answered by shouting it out in front of a dozen cameras during an event, there would be total chaos - candidates would never be able to talk to actual voters over the cacophony from the assembled press. There's a protocol, an etiquette to this -media organizations shoot B-Roll during events, and in return, the candidate agrees to answer their questions later on. In fact, WZYX, Agar's employer, had such an interview already arranged. But Agar, who ranks fairly low on the totem pole at the station, wasn't given the prestigious assignment of conducting the interview. Instead, she was told to follow the candidate around the factory, in case he did or said anything newsworthy, so that she could contribute to the report that would be assembled from the footage.

Obama's a pro. He could tell he was dealing with a local reporter, who was either in over her head, or deliberately breaking the rules to sieze her fifteen minutes of fame. So quite reasonably, he brushed off her question, and very politely told her that they'd be doing an availability later on. But for that one word - "sweetie" - Agar would come off as the villain in this affair, and probably would have gotten a little lecture from her supervisors for breaking the rules and thereby jeopardizing the station's access. But Obama said it. He was wrong to say it. And suddenly, Agar had her very own news story, and her fifteen minutes of fame. Her gamble paid off.

So I think people are right to excoriate Obama for using a sexist term. But frankly, this reporter deserved to be condescended to as a reporter, though not as a woman. Her actions were either stupid or self-aggrandizing; I don't know which. And I wish at least a little of the attention here had focused on the fact that the entire incident was sparked by a reporter who was trying her damnedest to provoke Obama into saying something newsworthy, and got her wish. Not exactly a victim.

Posted at May 20, 2008 11:12 AM in response to "Sweetie" Happens To Men, Too

I was, frankly, appalled to see the Post recapitulate the "iron my shirt" incident without qualification or explanation. It's the only time in the campaign (to my knowledge) that a heckler has made an explicitly sexist comment to Hillary herself. And what the Post ought to have mentioned is that it was a stunt put together by a local radio station to gin up publicity and ratings. The heckler was a paid employee, instructed to go to the rally and to disrupt it using a decades-old slogan. The result was, ironically, a public relations coup for Hillary - the incident has been endlessly cited by supporters, and pops up in every story chronicling the role played by gender in the campaign. It may even have helped to tip the scales in New Hampshire, keeping her candidacy alive at a time when it was on the ropes.

Now it bears saying that WBCN didn't send someone to yell a racist slogan at Obama - clearly, there was a layer of misogyny in its audience that it was trying to exploit. But focusing on this single, entirely unrepresentative incident only serves to obscure the complex role that gender has played in this cycle. Without her explicit appeals made on the basis of gender, Hillary would not have won a single state - her core voters, right through the campaign, have been white women older than 40. They identify with her experience, and she's been very careful to frame her candidacy in terms that emphasize her struggles in a man's world. At the same time, she has undeniably faced sexism, both from the media and the electorate. Female candidates are held to different standards - their dress and appearance are considered fair game for coverage, their spouses are treated differently, and they tend to be seen as either too effeminate (and thus too weak) or too manly (and thus bitchy). It's an entirely unfair system. And we needn't engage in comparative victimology, either - the obstacles facing Hillary are significant and lamentable, irrespective of what her rival faces.

What complicates this picture is that Hillary hasn't tried to run a gender-neutral campaign. She has gladly seized every iota of political advantage conferred by her gender, and yet loudly complained (through surrogates, and now directly) about the obstacles it has placed in her path. Why is it acceptable for a woman to vote for Hillary on the basis of her gender, but unnacceptable for that same voter to choose a male candidate on the basis of gender? That's an uncomfortable question, but one with which we might all profitably wrestle.

Posted at May 20, 2008 10:45 AM in response to Sexism & Racism (I hesitate to even write this...)

An addendum: If you count the way the DNC does, there are 22 DPLs, and the split is 10-8 in favor of Clinton.

Posted at May 20, 2008 9:06 AM in response to Distinguished Party Leaders?

That, and the fact that they rendered extraordinary service to the party and the country. There's no need to bash them simply because they're not voting as you'd like.

Of the twenty DPLs, the four who have not committed are Carter, Gore, George Mitchell, and former DNC Chair Bob Strauss. (Robert Byrd was the fifth until yesterday - as a former senate majority leader, he counts as a DPL, and not as a senator.)

Posted at May 20, 2008 9:03 AM in response to Distinguished Party Leaders?

pmSanFran:

The next paragraph explains that "Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions..." Why is that so difficult to understand? The 50% penalty is automatic, and goes into effect as soon as a determination is made that there's been a violation of the date clause; the RBC is then empowered to meet and impose additional sanctions.

Posted at May 20, 2008 8:55 AM in response to Hillary Clinton: you lost. Get the F**** over it