Campaign bits

While the pundits and polls rev up to Tuesday's primaries, the Dean campaign's new strategy goes way beyond them. According to Roy Neel, the new campaign manager:

Our goal for the next two and a half weeks is simple—become the last-standing alternative to John Kerry after the Wisconsin primary on February 17.

Why Wisconsin? First, it is a stand-alone primary where we believe we can run very strong. Second, it kicks off a two-week campaign for over 1,100 delegates on March 2, and the shift of the campaign that month to nearly every big state: California, New York, and Ohio on March 2, Texas and Florida on March 9, Illinois on March 16, and Pennsylvania on April 27.
. . .
Has such a strategy ever worked before?

No. It's never been tried.

It's risky, but just about everything about the Dean campaign has been risky. A major theme of the Dean campaign has been: this candidate is different, this campaign is different, and those differences are the evidence proving that, unlike the politics-as-usual candidates, Dean will do everything he can to keep his promises.

Two other campaign developments: First, this report from the Washington Post:

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who has made a fight against corporate special interests a centerpiece of his front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, has raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years, federal records show.

Hmm. Politics as usual, anyone? Kerry's campaign was crashing last fall; he turned it around by turning up the rhetoric and stealing lines and themes from Howard Dean. One of those themes was "fighting special interests." However:

The note of reality is [Kerry] has been brought to you by special interests," said Charles Lewis of the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group that has closely studied the senator's relationship with special interests. "It's very hard [for Kerry] to utter this rhetoric without some hollowness to it."

Will voters agree? Will they appreciate this "hollowness," or will they continue to vote for Kerry as the "safe," default choice? Remember: We went with "safe" Gore in 2000—Democratic primary voters figured Gore was just boring enough not to offend anyone, but her turned out to be so boring he put everyone to sleep. Gore's changed; Kerry is now taking his former role.

The other campaign development comes in the form of a speculation about where the Dean campaign's money went. Thanks to a couple of lines in the NY Times, some are asking if Joe Trippi abused his position for personal gain. The Times wrote:

Tricia Enright, the [Dean] campaign's communications director, said Dr. Dean was forming "a new creative team" to overhaul its television advertisements. She said the campaign was not firing its media firm, in which Mr. Trippi is a partner. Many Dean supporters have been critical of the ad campaign, particularly in Iowa. Some questioned the arrangements by which Mr. Trippi forfeited a salary as a campaign manager but collected commissions — said to be as high as 15 percent in some cases — based on advertising buys.

Something to think about, certainly. The above article was written in part by Jodi Wilgoren, whose coverage of the Dean campaign has been so negative it inspired its own blog to call her on her most egregious slants. Still, since the Dean campaign has relied so heavily on "regular folks" for its financing, it has a special burden to account for how it spends those funds. The campaign has raised nearly $2 million since Iowa, so it doesn't seem like Dean's supporters are too worried about this yet, but it's something the campaign will definitely need to address at some point.

Posted 06:55 PM | Comments (1) | election 2004

Grade Explosion

Glorfindel of Gondolin dares to post his 1L grades—and gets kicked around for it in the comments. Yikes.

One of the more thoughtful commenters writes:

I've always considered that grades in law school (or any school) are like salaries at an office. You can bitch about them, talk about them in vague terms, but it's just impolite to talk about them. Why? Because the next guy might be doing the same job, just as well, but getting less money (for whatever reason). It's not fair, it's life, and it's polite just to leave that stuff off limits.

But see, this is the problem. So long as we keep salaries and grades secret, relegated to the realm of the "impolite" and the "personal," they'll retain their power over us. The issue of talking about income is the best example: We try to pretend that how much money we make doesn't matter, that we live in a classless society, that we're all middle class, etc. But rather than helping smooth social differences or improve our society in some other way, this willed ignorance about the huge income inequalities in the U.S. simply acts as a screen to hide the brutal effects of those inequalities from our collective "middle class" consciousness. We don't need to worry about poor people, because we're all middle class, right? And so long as we make sure we don't talk about income, we can also be sure our little "middle class" fantasy remains intact. Yay.

Grades work a little differently, I think, but they do seem to be much more powerful and influential as dark secrets we hide than they would be as bits of information we openly share. I suspect that the people who most fiercely refuse to discuss grades are those to whom they mean the most, either because those people have really high or really low grades, and either very proud or very ashamed of those grades. As with income, so with grades—the people on the extremes fear they have something to hide. If you have top grades, you don't want to tell because you're afraid people will think you're bragging, or that people will expect more from you, or that people will be afraid of you or more competitive with you or whatever. If you have bottom grades, you don't want to tell because you're afraid people will think you're stupid, they won't want to talk with you or study with you, they'll be unable to take anything you say seriously, etc.

But imagine a scenario where everyone gets their grades and then freely discusses them. Wouldn't that drain all the power from those little symbols? Wouldn't that show the world that grades are just stupid letters? Wouldn't that make law students collectively seem much smarter, much more mature, much more wise, showing that they understand that those letters have a huge arbitrary component and exist for one rotten thing only, namely, to divide law students into different brackets for employers to choose from? And most of all, wouldn't it show all those people on the top and bottom that nobody really cares half as much about their grades as they do?

Maybe. Maybe not. But after the rhetorical trouncing Carey got for publishing his grades, I'm less optimistic that people are ready to give it a try.

Posted 05:19 AM | Comments (10) | law school

Dean Machine Retooling

One way to describe Roy Neel, Dean's new campaign manager, is as "something of an old hand", but another way is simply "Washington Insider." It's that latter description that has some people ready to give up on Dean (cf, David Corn), and while jumping the "dis-endorsing" wagon might seem tempting, I'll let the option pass, joining other Dean supporters who are accepting the changes "wistfully":

"People working for the Dean campaign might be somewhat demoralized that he picked this Washington insider," [anderbilt University professor Bruce] Barry said, "but they might be energized by the fact that he's reinvented his campaign. He's not standing still."

The L.A. Times provides a few more details on the staff change, and the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz rounds up a bit of the reaction to the change, while the Daily Kos thread on the subject generated more than 400 comments from all over the map.

In Dean's new strategy, it appears he'll largely be skipping the Feb. 3 races, hoping to get wins in Washington, Michigan, and Wisconsin, instead. (Does it make any difference that the Detroit Free Press appears to have endorsed Kerry?) It appears the Dean money advantage is more or less gone, but the campaign took in over $250,000 Wednesday alone in online donations. According to Blog for America:

This race is about the next seven weeks, not the next seven states. We will not let the pundits call this race, the people will, and that means this race comes down to winning delegates. Today, Howard Dean is winning the nomination fight with 114 of the delegates.

We are set to win the nomination because we have two things our opponents don't have and cannot build in the next six weeks:

1) Over 620,000 people who have invested their time and money into our campaign and who if anything are recommitted after Iowa and New Hampshire.

2) The ability to replenish. We raised $2.2 million since the Iowa Caucuses, including more than $480,000 raised online since the New Hampshire Primary.

And perhaps more important is the media's ongoing fascination with the Dean campaign:

John Kerry may be the front-runner, political analysts say, but Dean is the story.

Walter Shapiro agrees. Why the fascination? Because Dean is different. He's a different candidate who has run a different campaign. And that difference, as Martha used to say, is a good thing. The media attention can be a less good thing, but it may prove ok in the end. The major networks are now admitting that they blew "the scream" way out of proportion.

The Democratic establishment is loving Kerry right now—even Clinton is saying positive things about Kerry today, although he didn't give a formal endorsement. But the question voters should ask remains: What has the Democratic establishment produced in the last four years? Nada.

So Switch to Dean (it's cheaper than switching to a Mac and, difficult as it might be to imagine, the payback will be even greater).

Posted 05:11 AM | election 2004

Thank you, Joe Trippi!

The big news on the Dean campaign trail today:

Campaign manager Joe Trippi resigned after Dean promoted Roy Neel, a longtime aide to former vice president Al Gore, to chief executive officer. Trippi had been credited with organizing the 2003 drive that brought the former Vermont governor from obscurity to a temporary position atop the polls.

Although I have mixed feelings about Trippi leaving (especially considering his replacement is the consummate "Washington insider"), but one thing is certain: For the past year, Trippi has been the most important person in the campaign besides Dean himself, and America owes him a great deal of thanks for having the faith and vision to plant and grow a real, decentralized, grassroots campaign. Chris Lydon (whose reaction to NH is brilliant: "In his confused reiterations, his no-apology apologies about an unpopular war in Iraq, Kerry has conceded a point to Dean, not won one.") interviewed Trippi back in November and that interview captures Trippi's brilliant vision. Trippi may be out of this campaign, but his vision need not die, nor has it been discredited. It almost worked, and what it started may work yet. There's still time, and hope.

Of course, Dean has a lot of work to do. The campaign is saying it has to win at least one state to stay viable, so it's focusing on the "delegate-rich states most likely to determine this year's Democratic presidential nominee": Michigan, Washington, Wisconsin, Missouri, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Arizona.

Some Dean supporters have taken the first week of voting especially hard, saying things like they'd rather vote Bush than Kerry, or not vote at all if Dean doesn't win. I do hope these people will eventually come around to see that even Kerry would be much better for them and our world's future than Bush. But while it may be fun to mock the disappointment of "Deaniacs" right now, it seems only fair to point out that Dean has done more than anyone in this race to bring new people into the electoral process. This means a certain percentage of his supporters only care about this election because of him -- many of them have never voted before, or not in a long time. I suspect it's mostly those political neophytes who are packing up the toys. Dean has inspired people, but it's too much to ask for him and his campaign to also have taught them -- in such a short time -- how the political roller-coaster works and why they need not tear out their hair just because he hasn't won the first two contests (and may not win the nomination). Still, fun as it is, rather than ridicule these people, I think we ought to be concerned about them. If Dean doesn't win (and I still have hope he can), we may end up with an even more cynical, embittered, and apathetic electorate than we started with, and that won't be good for anyone (except, of course, G.W. Bush, and since he's not good for anyone but corporations, that's not really an exception with any meaning).

Thanks largely to Trippi, Dean's campaign has become a movement, and I hope, whatever happens, that movement will live on somehow so that all the energy and talent and passion that has taken Dean so far can continue to lead the Democratic party and/or America more generally in positive, more hopeful, more socially just directions.

Posted 06:39 AM | Comments (1) | election 2004

SCOTUS Humpty Dumpty

After overdosing on Democratic primary news recently, we now return to our regularly scheduled programming, which, at the moment, is a memo in support of a post-trial motion to acquit on charges of using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

In U.S. v. Sumler, 294 F.3d 579, 583 (3d Cir. 2002), the court is discussing what it means to "use" a firearm in connection with 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Specifically, can a person "use" a firearm when that person receives the firearm as payment for drugs? (The SCOTUS has settled the question of whether giving a gun in exchange for drugs is "use," but the circuits are split on the question of receiving.) Eventually, this court says "yes, receiving a gun as payment for drugs is 'use' for purposes of this statute," but along the way it has to respond to the counter-argument that "there  is no grammatically correct way to express that a person receiving a payment is thereby 'using' the payment." United States v. Westmoreland, 122 F.3d (7th Cir. 1997). To this the Sumler court says:

Although we grant legitimacy to that argument, we cannot evade the brute fact that the Supreme Court in both Bailey and Smith explained that the word "use" means "barter." We recall Judge Learned Hand's admonition, "but it is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary . . . . " Cabel v. Markham, 148 F.2d 737, 739 (2d Cir. 1945). Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass stated it best when he said, "When I use a word . . . it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less." L. Carroll, Through the Looking Glass & What Alice Found There 124, reprinted in Journeys in Wonderland (Derrydale 1979). We too are not free to ignore a dictated definition.

The Third Circuit just compared the Supreme Court to Humpty Dumpty! I'm loving that.

Posted 07:05 AM | law general law school

Thanks, NH

Congratulations to John Kerry, but also to Howard Dean who came back from a pretty serious pummeling to take a strong second. You gotta love this: The only thing positive the AP can find to say about Dean is that he kept his cool after his "loss." That takes for granted that he somehow lost his cool sometime, but I'll leave that argument for the history books. I predict it won't be more than a year or two before we see the books analyzing what happened in the 2004 primaries, and regardless of who wins, when the dust settles even Dean's staunchest critics will be forced to admit that the media's treatment of Dean in the last week was among the least professional, most sensational, and most unfair coverage of a presidential candidate of this race.

Is Dean angry? Brent Simmons and his many readers offer a great discussion of that question with opinions from all sides [link via Scripting News.] Why haven't we seen more thoughtful analysis like this in the mainstream media?

But like I said, it's time to move forward. Dean still leads in delegates and the next few weeks promise many more opportunities for voters around the country to choose who they want to be the next President. Another plus: Bush remains under pressure over the fact that Iraq was not an imminent threat when Bush went to war.

The conventional wisdom is that Kerry's got the best chance to beat Bush. Although I don't understand why people think that, if it turns out to be true -- if Kerry gets the nomination and then wins the White House -- I'll be fairly glad to be proven wrong. My hope has been, and remains, that in Dean we have a candidate who can both beat Bush and really start fixing the things that are broken in American politics. If beating Bush is all we can get, I'll take that, sure; but I still hope for more.

Posted 06:54 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004

An open letter to voters:

This is what a U.S. President ought to sound like:

I'm a doctor, and I was proud to be governor of Vermont, where we balanced our budgets, where we made sure every single child in our state had health insurance, where we are proud to be stewards of our natural resources, where we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all are created equal, that all are endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And where we, like all Americans, love our country and want our flag to stand for freedom and justice for all. And where our flag is not the property of either party, that flag belongs to every single American.

We seek the Great Restoration Of American Values. I'm tired of being divided. I don't want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore. I want an America that looks like America, where we're all included, hand in hand, black and white, gay and straight, man and woman. America! Stand up for America!

We seek to build a community of millions. And strengthen the voice of our people. And like the founders of the Republic, we seek change. I ask all Americans, regardless of party, to meet with me across this nation to come together in common cause to forge a new American century. Help us in the quest for a return to greatness and a return to high moral purpose to the United States Of America.

The truth is, the future of our country lies in your hands not mine. You have the power to reclaim our nation's destiny. You have the power to rid Washington of the politics of money. You have the power to make right just as important as might. You have the power to give America a reason to vote again. You have the power to restore our nation to fiscal sanity and bring jobs back to our people. You have the power to take back the Democratic party. You have the power to take our country back. And you have the power to take the White House back in 2004. You have the power!

Download the remix. Read the speech. Think. Does that sound like the usual empty rhetoric you usually hear from politicians? Are you happy with what professional politicians have been doing with your money and your country in recent decades?

Listen. Read. Think. Vote. Use your power.

Thank you.

Note: As mentioned below, Musclehead also quoted from this remix in a post yesterday, and I originally saw some of these lyrics printed in a comment on Blog for America.

Posted 06:57 AM | election 2004

From the Frothy Lips

Musclehead, who beat me to the next post about the "Faulkner Remix", has been thinking out loud a little about Howard Dean. It's nice when people acknowledge the quality and value of Dean's message, but it's incredible to hear the news recently with so many people saying things like this: "I like what Dean has to say and the fact that he breathed life back into a Democratic party that seemed to be in something like a terminal coma, but now that all the candidates have adopted his best ideas, I'm supporting Kerry (or Edwards)."

How does that work? Why? Dean's got the best message, but we're going to vote for someone else?

Dean's message is the antidote to the politics of the last 25 or 30 years where citizens have been reduced to passive recipients of a "message" and where the only thing that's asked of them is a check and a vote. Kerry's asking people to be consumers—to consume his campaign, just like they consume their fast food dinner and their new outfit from the mall. A campaign like Kerry's offers absolutely nothing new, nothing that we haven't seen a dozen times before in Democratic campaigns. Dean, on the other hand, is all about making a new start, doing things differently, better. Dean's asking people to stand up, to work for change, to make things happen for themselves. Is that what people are afraid of? Do people support someone like Kerry because he says nice things but asks nothing from them other than for their vote (and maybe some cash)?

I don't know. But I do know that not all of Dean's supporters tend to shoot from the "frothy lips," and neither does Dean (at least not all the time). The Dean tent has never included only "Bush-bashers" or "radicals"; there's always been and there remains an abundance of room for the many moderates and centrists out there. Read the Blog for America comments and you'll see a lot of this, especially recently.

Here's a theory: So long as Democrats shy away from the passion and the vigorous activism that many of Dean's supporters have shown in this campaign, the Democrats will lose to those who have embraced passion and who have far more money and resources than Democrats -- the Republican far right and corporate America.

Just a theory...

Posted 06:53 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004

The Day Before NH

Today is a Snow Day here in D.C. and it would be hard for me to be more pleased since I spent too much time this weekend watching the news that wasn't, and too little time writing the brief that isn't. (If anyone wants to send me a nice, tidy, post-trial motion to acquit on charges of "using" guns in connection with a drug trafficking crime after the D accepted a gun as payment for marijuana, just let me know.)

In 36-40 hours, we should know what NH voters think of the Democratic candidates, and that may or may not mean much for what happens next week in the overall race. In their most recent poll (released this morning) Zogby's calling it a statistical dead heat between Kerry and Dean (more info), while yesterday's polls show wider margins.

Of course, NH is supposedly "the graveyard of pollsters," so who knows? Whatever happens, the Repubs are looking forward to running against a "liberal, liberal, liberal." It's telling that Republicans say that Lieberman would be the biggest threat to Bush; they're just spinning. Most of the 2002 Dems took the Lieberman "centrist" approach and were beaten soundly. If it comes down to Kerry, he'll lose for the same reasons Gore lost—he's easy to lock up in a "boring liberal" box. If it comes down to Edwards, he'll have a challenge to stay out of the "eager and energetic but too young and inexperienced" box. And, of course, if it comes down to Dean they're already trying to lock him into the "angry and unpresidential" box, but that's the becoming a huge strength for Dean: If he beats that rap with a comeback in the next few weeks, the Republicans will have to come up with a new weapon against him because the "angry" one will be pretty well defused.

Bush got into the act yesterday with jabs along the above lines at both Dean and Kerry. About "the speech," Bush said:

Boy that speech in Iowa was something else," a guest at the no-media-allowed Alfalfa Club dinner Saturday quoted Bush as saying, The Washington Post reported.

"Talk about shock and awe. Saddam Hussein felt so bad for Governor Dean that he offered him his hole."

Ha ha ha. Very nice. Of course, if the Dems compared Bush to Saddam in this way, we'd probably hear indignant outrage from the Right, but whatever. Bush wasn't finished:

Then we have Senator (John) Kerry. I think Kerry's position on the war in Iraq (news - web sites) is politically brilliant. In New Hampshire yesterday, he stated he had voted for the war, adding that he was strongly opposed to it," Bush reportedly said.

At least Bush is sticking to the facts on this one. I saw an interview yesterday where Ted Kennedy tried to explain how he could support Kerry, despite the fact that Kerry voted for the most recent Iraq war, while Kennedy has been staunchly against it. Kennedy said that he and Kerry were actually of like mind about the war, they just voted differently. Hmm. And that makes sense how?

But the Republican's can also attack Kerry for other reasons, including the fact that he's got a seriously questionable record on important votes, including the fact that in 2003 he only managed to be present for 28% of his Senate votes. Wow, that's certainly the record of a dedicated representative. Not. But he can ice-skate, windsurf, and ride a Harley, so who cares about his record, right?

I think the Washington Post's John Harris sums up the last week pretty well when he writes:

Tuesday's vote has come down to a classic contest of novelty vs. convention.

It's exactly what Dean has been saying for the last year. Now the question is: Will primary voters (the "base" of the party) give general election voters a candidate they can be excited about and find a reason to vote for (Dean) or a candidate who will bore them to death and encourage them just to continue their pattern of not voting (Kerry)?

Dave Winer has been making some great comments on the media circus, the Democratic primaries and the, Dean campaign. See most of Saturday's posts, and several of yesterday's, including this gem:

Watching Tim Russert interview Wesley Clark this morning, it occurred to me how dysfunctional the system is. I saw the Great Dean Scream another dozen times. I heard the chief of the Democratic Party asked if he thought it was the end of the Dean campaign and he said the obvious -- it wasn't, and it should't be. Then they asked if Clark had screwed up by letting Michael Moore call the President a deserter. Later Russert repeatedly asked Clark to denounce Moore for saying that, but he wouldn't. The system is so perverse that Clark just danced instead of coming out and saying the obvious, yes, he's President, and yes, he got elected without his character getting the kind of examination the Democrats are getting. "So Tim, let's turn it around," Clark might have said, "Why didn't you grill Bush on that during the 2000 election? How did he become President without that getting vetted?" I might go further and wonder how he got the nomination without his military service being fully examined. And then to nail it, ask Tim to play the Dean Scream a few more times. (I'm starting to like it.) If the Republicans cry bloody murder, let's go back and figure out who painted Dean with "angry" label. Yeah, it was the Republicans, in case you were wondering.

With brilliant concision, Winer hits the nail on the head. We need candidates who approach the media with precisely this sort of aggressive quick thinking that turns their questions right back on their hypocrisy and failures—not to pick on the media, but to force them to do a better job, for all our sakes.

(BTW, I also saw that Russert interview with Terry McAuliffe and I was glad to see him standing firm on the fact that Bush went AWOL in 1972 when he simply didn't show up for a year of Air National Guard service. Maybe "deserter" is the wrong term; I don't know. What would be more appropriate?)

Posted 07:05 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004

If Chewbacca Lives on Endor...

Although a few days ago many were mourning the demise of the Dean campaign, that campaign is far from over. For several days last week the media—intentionally or not—almost assassinate Dean's campaign with a variation on the Chewbacca Defense, which was more like a Chewbacca Indictment and went something like this:

Voters of this supposed America, Howard Dean's supporters would certainly want you to believe that he is a great candidate for president with the best vision for America's future and the best ability to realize that vision, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost supported him myself. But Voters of this supposed America, I have one final thing I want you to consider.

[Roll tape of Dean's post-caucus Iowa speech.] Voters, this is Howard Dean screaming at the top of his hoarse voice. Howard Dean is not a plastic person who has compromised with special interests for decades and missed a majority of his Senate voites. And Howard Dean is not a cipher who's not sure from day to day where his loyalties lie. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont, yell at the top of his hoarse voice to be heard over a cheering, raucous crowd? That does not make sense.

But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with whether Dean would make a great candidate, and whether he could defeat Bush. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with your decision about who to vote for. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm the media working for a major communications conglomerate that benefits from the most sensational news we can find or create, and I'm talkin' about someone screaming to be heard at a raucous rally. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember when you're in that voting box deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Voters of this supposed America, it does not make sense. If Howard Dean screamed in Iowa, you must not support Howard Dean.

I know he seems like a terrific candidate, a fresh face with courage and conviction and great ideas and the most inspirational and populist campaign in modern history. But Voters, this is him screaming. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about screaming when the future of the United States is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If screaming does not make sense you must indict. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey.

The media never rests.

But hey, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me—we've seen this tactic before, and most of us aren't falling for it this time. Thanks largely to Thursday's New Hampshire debate, followed by the homerun Dean and his wife hit in their interview with Diane Sawyer, Dean's back in the hunt.

Already beginning yesterday morning, Dean's Monday night, post-caucus speech began being referred to by some as only a "memorably loud speech," rather than a "screech" or a "yowl" or whatever. See the speech for yourself, in context, in this video shot from down in the crowd. Also check out Dave Winer's explanation of the speech:

So Dean gets a bit whacky, but after seeing it so many times, the shock value is fading. Taken at face value it wasn't anger, it was a steam-letting, and an attempt to rally the troops, and totally understandable. The press, as usual, is making a big deal of catching a candidate being a human being. But that's what he is. He's not an actor, he's not a commercial, he's not a deodorant, he's not a product, and I'm glad we have a chance to have this discussion. I'm not a Dean supporter (yet, but I'm getting there) and they didn't ask me to say this, but please, it's time for the press to let us have an election, or maybe it's time for us to have an election without them.

So yeah, Dean gave a rousing speech, but I simply don't understand why it was remarkable in any way except to show that Dean and his supporters were undaunted by the results of the Iowa caucus. Look at the definition of campaign—"An operation or series of operations energetically pursued to accomplish a purpose"—and then explain how and why people made such a big deal over this.

But as we put this behind this behind us, it's worth taking a look at the bright sides, and there are many. First, among the many, many audio remixes of the so-called "I have a scream" speech, a few are actually pretty good.

Another bright side: Now that Dean supporters have seen such a vivid example of how the media can twist and blow up any single image and soundbite to destroy a candidate, those who stuck with Dean, and even those who wavered and returned, as well as those who come to support him in the future—all of us have been handed a great lesson in what it will take to win the nomination and the White House. We need not excuse every foible or mistake, but we can't rely on the media to tell us what to think of what happens on the campaign either. Like Winer said, perhaps it's time to have a campaign without the media.

Final bright side: The inspiration of those who didn't let all the spin get to them, but spun right back to turn the speech into a great thing for the campaign. On the official Dean Campaign blog, one person who was at the post-caucus party in Iowa where Dean made his infamous speech describes what it was like to be there (the comment is about a dozen from the top):

I was there, and when I first heard the crowd, I wasn't in the mood. I was tired, I was depressed from watching the returns, and I felt like my effort was for nothing.

And then Howard took the stage, and I started to get more pumped. I remembered why I'd come to Iowa. And I don't care what the pundits say about that yawp. Man, that was what Walt Whitman talked about. "I sound my barbaric yawp from the rooftops of the world." We needed to hear that yawp.

I can't think of anything Howard could've said that would've pleased the crowd, the pundits, and the people watching on tv. I'm glad he spoke to us. He'll be speaking with the rest of the country all this week. That night, he was looking out for the people who'd given their time and energy for him.

And that's why I'm a Dean supporter. On to California!

Posted by [removed] at January 22, 2004 01:35 AM

(The commenter seems to be affiliated with Cyclists for Dean, which is planning a coast-to-coast Ride to Take Back America! Now that is my kind of campaigning. Do I really need legal experience this summer? Can't I just ride my bike across the country with a bunch of Dean supporters? ;-))

From another comment, a little further down in the thread, comes a well-written version of the best take on the speech:

It's our democracy he's fighting for, damn it.  Being emotionally engaged in something of such high stakes is no flaw, in my opinion.  There's a time to be deliberative and detached... and there's a time to be activated and engaged. Among his supporters, after such a blow, he became as impassioned as many motivational speakers I've seen... and more authentically so because it was spontaneous.

At the risk of sounding "intemperate" myself: If you're not angry about what Bush has done to the environment, education, foreign relations, U.S. workers, our judiciary, and on and on; if you're filled with passion to send this administration packing and get the U.S. back on a sustainable and sane path, you're just not paying attention.

Posted 09:43 AM | Comments (6) | election 2004

Grades.

Four out of five are in, and they're fine. Not awful, I don't think, but clearly not great. It's hard to tell; how fine are the distinctions between "bad" and "ok"? I assume some of our profs will be giving us grade distributions sometime soon so we can all see more precisely where we fall in the pecking order, because that matters, right? And, of course, the torts grade remains a mystery, and I suppose it could change the overall outcome significantly downward, but I doubt it. I put in the same sort of performance in that class and exam as in the others, so I assume the results will be similar.

Thanks to everyone for the comments about how grades are working at other schools. My only real concern with the fact that grades come so late at GW (and apparently at many other schools, as well) is that there's so much money on the line. If law school tuition weren't extortionate, it would be a different story; but that's not the world we live in.

In the end, I guess it's no big deal. I'm sure having to wait three weeks into a semester for last semester's grades will end up ranking among the least of the annoyances with which I'll have dealt by the time law school is over. Perspective, right? As Transmogriflaw pointed out in his comment, the real problem is simply the obsession with grades in law school. His analysis, I think, is spot-on—the legal world simply has few other ways to divide and categorize students, so grades take on an inordinate importance. However, it's not that there are no other evaluative measures; what about participation in extracurriculars, performance on skills boards, work and volunteer experience, former career and educational experience, etc? So perhaps it's not a lack of measures, but a culture of quantification that only understands measures when they're reduced to hard numbers. Of course, these difficult-to-quantify measures might not be very good predictors of success in the practice of law, but are grades really good predictors of that?

Posted 08:33 AM | Comments (9) | law school

Grades?

If you're a law student: When did you get your grades?

I ask because at GW, we're going to get our grades today. Yes, today—a full three weeks after the semester began. That seems pretty late to me, and pretty disrespectful on GW's part. It's as if the school is saying: "We know you got almost zero feedback last semester and you'd really like to know how you did so you can start figuring out how to do better, but, well, too bad for you!" But perhaps its standard practice for law schools to wait to release grades until everyone has already accepted their loan checks and made a fairly significant commitment to the spring semester—great business practice! At least we know where these schools' priorities lie.*

Whatever. We'll get our grades today, so yesterday ProfCivPro gave us three reasons to keep grades in perspective:

1. They're 1st semester grades. You've got lots of time to improve.
2. They are only grades. Grades are not an accurate reflection of intelligence, knowledge, or capability; they're simply the only thing we've come up with that's workable.
3. The Big Picture: Keep in mind that a few weeks from now, your grades won't seem very significant, nor are they significant compared with the rest of your life.

All helpful advice. But the trouble is really on point 2. Yes, they're only grades, but do prospective employers realize that? Some do, but I'm sure some don't. Knowing that some employers weed out potential candidates on the basis of GPA alone makes the "grades don't really mean anything" argument a bit less persuasive.

Still, point 2 is absolutely correct: Grades are very close to meaningless. As a teacher, I tried to find ways to avoid giving grades at all, but that wasn't really possible in a school that required me to fill out grading bubble-sheets at the end of every semester, thereby reducing everything my students had done for three months to a single letter. The best I could come up with was a self-grading system that I won't go into here. A lot of very smart people have made a lot of very smart arguments about the evils of grades and have proposed much better systems of evaluation that would give students better feedback, and thereby do more to help them learn. These systems would also give employers or anyone else who cared to look at the evaluations a much better idea of the student's strengths and weaknesses. But such systems are not "efficient," they take time, and in our system, we care less about quality than we do about quantity. Reduce everything to numbers, then we can crunch them and compare them and make fast, simple decisions with zero thought or meaning! Yay!

* "Law school" is perhaps a misnomer; "law business" or "J.D. factory" would probably be more appropriate. Also, I anticipate that anyone wishing to defend GW or law schools who release grades late generally will argue that law profs grade their own exams, and they each have 100 students or more, and it just takes time. All true. But to me that's just another argument for smaller classes and perhaps for longer breaks between semesters.

Posted 06:34 AM | Comments (15) | law school

Organized Resistance

If you're in D.C., check out the National Conference on Organized Resistance (NCOR) happening this weekend at American University. NCOR's brief description of the conference:

The National Conference on Organized Resistance (NCOR) is in its seventh successful year. In years past, this conference has played a significant role in coordinating a dialogue between activist groups, and sparking in-depth discussion of the strategies and tactics of our various social justice movements. This year, NCOR again envisions being a forum for cutting edge discussion for people of all different levels of involvement. Last year, over 1,000 people converged on Washington, DC for a weekend of experience, discussion, planning, and protest. Don't miss this year!

It would be interesting to poll attendees. Who is the presidential candidate of this social justice crowd?

Posted 06:47 AM | Comments (1) | general politics law general law school

The Changing Race

If you had any doubt that the media was dead set against Howard Dean, just look at what they've done with his post-primary speech Monday night—calling it a "yowl" and a "howl" , "overheated" and "screechy." Give me a break! I saw the speech live when he gave it, and I thought it was an energetic and passionate thank-you to his loyal supporters, and an admirable attempt to encourage their continued support. If the media was going to be fair to Dean, all of these stories would recognize that, rather than how "bizarre" the speech was, or rather than characterizing it as yet another "gaffe." The guy probably hadn't slept much in a few days, he was obviously losing his voice, and he just wanted to show the gathered crowd of thousands that his 3rd-place showing in Iowa, his campaign was going to move confidently on to the next primaries. Why can't the media say that? It's not because it's factually untrue; it's because they've chosen another spin. They've declared Dean to be angry and gaffe-prone and unpredictable, and they're making sure their predictions turn out to be true by seizing every opportunity to spin things in that direction and say, "See, I told you so." Now they're already writing Dean's obituary.

Why does this matter? Is this just the boohooing of a disappointed Deaniac? Perhaps. But I'm not the only one who thinks that the Dean campaign has become more than just a campaign for president—it's become a test of whether internet organizing, coupled with grass-roots, on-the-ground organizing, can have any real effect on the status quo in the U.S. If Dean simply gets crushed in the rest of the primaries, there are going to be a lot of people who are going to consider giving up hope in their ability to affect the democratic process in this country. Not least among these people are those in the progressive wing of the Democratic party, many of whom chose not to support Kucinich or to press for some 3rd-party alternative in the hope that their support of Dean would ensure he could beat Bush. They and many other Dean supporters have dedicated massive energy and time and other resources to building Dean's campaign, and it's that kind of public-spirited dedication, that kind of community-building, that kind of hope for a better future that this country really needs. If Dean gets crushed and even a small percentage of those people give up the fight, the U.S. will have lost a lot more than a presidential candidate.

Michael Moore is among those who has recognized this problem. In another somewhat inexplicable message (following his endorsement of Clark, I mean), Moore tells Dean supporters: Don't give up. He's not clear what it is we're not supposed to give up, but the implication is we shouldn't give up hope that a good candidate will defeat Bush or the fight to make that happen. Moore writes:

As one who does not support Dean, I would like to say this to you: DON'T GIVE UP. You have done an incredible thing. You inspired an entire nation to stand up to George W. Bush. Your impact on this election will be felt for years to come. Every bit of energy you put into Dr. Dean's candidacy was -- and is -- worth it. He took on Bush when others wouldn't. He put corporate America on notice that he is coming after them. And he called the Democrats out for what they truly are: a bunch of spineless, wishy-washy appeasers who have sold out the working people of America. Everyone in every campaign owes you and your candidate a huge debt of thanks.

Moore goes on to detail the contributions the Dean campaign and its supporters have made to the election process already. It's good stuff, all true, and worth a look—especially if you're a Dean supporter. Sure, it all seems a little backhanded coming from someone who doesn't support Dean, but, well, Michael Moore is just like that, I guess.

Here's hoping Kerry and Clark will beat each other up in New Hampshire over who's the most kick-ass big bad military man and Dean's new focus will be what Granite Staters want to hear. The debate tonight will be crucial. Dean's never been stellar in the debates as far as I'm concerned, so we'll see how it goes...

I can't even get started with the SOTU address except to agree with this Canadian writer who said it was:

riddled with disingenuous, at times dishonest, formulations as well as logical inconsistencies.

For a little perspective on the heavily saturated spin Bush smirked at us all on Tuesday, read this annotated critique of the speech's foreign policy aspects. If you find other good critiques and analyses of the speech, please point to them in the comments.

Posted 06:41 AM | Comments (4) | election 2004

Thanks

The pace of work at school is heating up and I've been a little busy with the EJF Auction, but thanks to Carey and Adam for their very kind words.

Posted 06:32 AM | meta-blogging

So it begins....

Congratulations to the Johns, Kerry and Edwards, winners by a mile in the Iowa caucuses. Meanwhile, Dean finishes a fairly distant third. Gephardt will bow out today.

The pundits are all asking: What happened to Dean? Can he recover? Dean's response is that he lost support because he was the focus of everyone's fire. Salon's Josh Benson cautions against reading too much into these results:

Tonight's results are going to be imbued with all sorts of meaning over the next week that they may not deserve: Just as the consensus drumbeat for the last several months was that the contests will be Dean's to lose, his rejection by Iowa voters will doubtless be overinterpreted as a sign that he can't win anywhere. He told supporters last night that he would press his campaign in every state of the nation -- and, perhaps more than any other candidate, he has the money and the organization to do so.

About those pundits who are saying that Iowans got cold feet about Dean because, in the final analysis, they worried he wouldn't be able to beat Bush: Perhaps they're right. Of course, an idea like this can quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As Kucinich said to people who said they like him but worry he's unelectable, "I'm electable if you vote for me!"

Speaking of Kucinich, part of Edwards' big gain may have come from Kucinich supporters after the two candidates made a pact to get their supporters to support each other if one of the candidates wasn't "viable" in a particular caucus. Why Kucinich would make a deal like this with Edwards is baffling. Was Kucinich's anti-war rhetoric completely empty?

The silver lining in the Iowa outcome for a Dean supporter is that from now on the media's focus should be on Kerry and Edwards at least as much as it's on Dean. This should mean Dean can spend less time defending himself against charges of being "too angry" or whatever, and spend more time talking about how he plans to improve foreign relations, dramatically decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil, improve education, provide healthcare for everyone, etc.

The media frenzy over the Iowa outcome has already begun with a story suggesting that the boost from Iowa may be short-lived. Will Kerry and Edwards be able to withstand that "frontrunner" scrutiny? We'll see. I think Edwards is a fine candidate (so does Cicero's Ghost) and he's saying many of the right things, but Kerry worries me more, for reasons related to why Clark bothers me. I suspect a lot of support for Kerry and Clark comes from their military background, and that just seems a poor qualification to vote on. We don't need someone in the White House with more experience fighting other nations and other soldiers , we need someone in the White House with more experience fighting for health care and civil rights and the environment.

One other campaign note: Clark won McGovern's support today, which may or may not be a good thing for Clark in New Hampshire.

Meanwhile, Bush gives his State of the Union address tonight where he'll almost certainly tell more lies and make more empty promises. How can this guy have a 58% approval rating?

Posted 05:35 AM | Comments (7) | election 2004

MLK Jr. & Caucus Day

Unless you've been living under a whole pile of rocks, you probably know that the Iowa caucuses are tonight, the first binding vote in the nation for the Democratic nominee for president. Bitter cold, record turnout, close 4-way race, etc. In the headlines, Dean got some kind words (but no endorsement) from former President Jimmy Carter, and Dean's wife, Judy Steinberg Dean, has joined Dean at some campaign appearances. I swear Dean simply looks happier and more relaxed in the pictures with his wife. Sometimes Dean's smile looks a little forced and awkward, but in most of the pics with his wife, he looks as happy as a kid in a candy store.

Question: Why does this story refer to "Judy Dean" instead of "Judy Steinberg Dean"? Previously I'd always heard the longer name, and sometimes simply "Judy Steinberg," dropping the "Dean" part altogether. Is this something the Dean campaign wanted, or is the press just doing this on its own? Curious.

There's not much more to say about the caucuses tonight that you can't see on every media outlet around. For once I'm not complaining about the media's saturation coverage of an event; the presidential race deserves a media orgy, because what's more important in a democracy than elections?

Musclehead has made it clear that I've done enough whining about the negative coverage of Dean, and I agree—it's not like any of this was unexpected, or that Dean didn't, to some extent, throw down the gauntlet and ask for it. That's why he's my choice, by the way—because he was willing to say bluntly that the cowardice that reigned among Democrats for the past four years was a loser's game. I think Dean may have lost momentum when he began retreating from that blunt, challenging position, and started trying to sound more "moderate" or "reasonable" or whatever. Not to malign Al Gore, but is it any coincidence this shift became really pronounced around the time of Gore's endorsement?

However, the problem with the media is not so much what the negative coverage has done to Dean's campaign, it's what it did to Al Gore's campaign in 2000 and what it will likely do to the Democratic nominee's campaign this fall if something doesn't change. Will the media give Bush a pass on all the negatives of his administration, while beating the Dem's negatives like dead horses? I guess we'll see.

But before that, Musclehead's gone out on a limb with some predicted results, and the Daily Kos is having a contest for predictions. The prize is a set of really cheesy but really cool buttons, which if you really loved me you'd buy for me. ;-) Everyone is still picking Dean as the winner, possibly because he's got such a great "ground game". And regardless of what you think of Dean, the support he's getting in Iowa from people around the country who have travelled there to help is pretty phenomenal. The campaign is calling it the "Perfect Storm" and Blog for America (the official Dean campaign blog) has a fun little anti-FAQ about all those volunteers, answering questions with questions instead of answers:

Your Question: Are all our Perfect Storm volunteers more of those sushi eating, Volvo driving, latte sipping, body piercing, New York Times reading kind of kids?  Our Question: Will any of you dare pose that question to one of the 180TEXANS who arrived Friday on 3 Big Buses?  Will any of us be lucky enough to be there if you do?

Your Question: Would some kid riding the train from California to Philly who encountered 20 Californians on their way to Iowa really be so inspired that he would change his plans and get off the train in the Hawkeye State? 
Our Question: Could we make this stuff up if we tried?

But while the Iowa caucuses are important, today is also the Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday, meaning lots of people (L and myself included) have the day off, but also meaning it's a good time to give some thought to why we have such a holiday in the first place. According to Julian Bond, a professor at the University of Virginia who worked beside King in the civil rights movement:

"It's a day that we're not working but we do something he would have done -- help clean a neighborhood, work in a soup kitchen. That's the upside."

The downside, Bond said, is the evidence of what people have forgotten. The last five years of King's life -- when he opposed the Vietnam War and advocated the redistribution of wealth so more people could enjoy prosperity -- are hardly mentioned, he said. Memories seem to stop in 1963 at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial, where King said, "I have a dream" and so much more.

"It's as if he gave the speech on Aug. 28 and died on Aug. 29," Bond said. "It's a shame -- we only celebrate half the man."

It's almost painful to think about King's life and work, and then to read President Bush's official statement about the holiday, in which Bush says:

America has come far in realizing Dr. King's dream, but there is still work to be done. In remembering Dr. King's vision and life of service, we renew our commitment to guaranteeing the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.

Oh yeah, that must be why Bush is fighting so hard to ensure he's got the power to imprison U.S. citizens indefinitely and without charges. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, justice for all, etc. Right.

Regardless of who eventually wins the Democratic nomination this year, one thing is certain: That person will do infinitely more than Bush to carry on the kind of work King gave his life for.

Posted 08:40 AM | Comments (6) | election 2004

Bikes, Brakes, and Cold

The recent "arctic blasts" in the northeastern U.S. has brought miserable cold, but it has also revealed a weakness in the "roller brake" on my bike—it simply doesn't work when the temperature falls too far below zero. I have a Bianchi Milano, which I bought on eBay about two years ago, primarily because it's one of the few bikes available with Shimano's Nexus hub. As Shimano describes it:

Nexus is unique in that its internally geared rear hubs and hub roller brakes (or coaster brake) eliminate the need for derailleurs and brake calipers. The result is a more streamlined, cleaner-looking and less complicated bike that requires less maintenance and adjustment. The Nexus bike is just the thing for commuting, fitness cycling, fun riding, or going on errands around town.

See that part about "less maintenance and adjustment"? As far as the hub itself goes, that's absolutely true. In two years of almost daily riding (commuting, mostly), I haven't needed to do anything but keep the chain lubricated. But while shifting still works like a dream, the rear brake just seizes up when the temperature gets below a certain point. Thank goodness the brake gets stuck open, so you can't pull the brake lever; otherwise, the rear wheel wouldn't move at all. When this happens, I can still ride mostly safely because the front v-brakes provide plenty of stoppage, regardless of the temperature—especially with new Kool-Stop Thinline brake pads. But still, having no rear brake is annoying—especially when dumb car drivers decide you don't deserve space on their road and cut you off. (Note to car drivers: Do bikes on city streets annoy you? You annoy the bikers. So there.)

A guy rode up to me the other day at stoplight on a brand new, shiny black Milano. From him I learned that City Bikes in D.C. sells and services the Milano. Maybe they can figure out the brake issue...

Posted 06:58 AM | life generally

Upside Down

What a week. Up is down, down is up. I do not like green eggs and ham. Going to the moon and Mars? Sure, but only if we spend twice as much money immediately on research and development efforts for sustainable energy—wind, solar, biomass, etc. If we don't get serious about developing and using sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels, we won't have a planet to live on. Energy and environmental policies have become matters of national security. Just ask Al Gore, who said yesterday in a major speech on the environment:

Instead of spending enormous sums of money on an unimaginative and retread effort to make a tiny portion of the Moon habitable for a handful of people, we should focus instead on a massive effort to ensure that the Earth is habitable for future generations.

If we make that choice, the U.S. can strengthen our economy with a new generation of advanced technologies, create millions of good new jobs, and inspire the world with a bold and moral vision of humankind’s future.

Links to streaming video of Gore's speech are here. Gore used the subject of the environment to illustrate how the Bush administration is the willing puppet of corporate America:

The Bush White House represents a new departure in the history of the Presidency. He is so eager to accommodate his supporters and contributors that there seems to be very little that he is not willing to do for them at the expense of the public interest. To mention only one example, we’ve seen him work tirelessly to allow his friends to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Indeed, it seems at times as if the Bush-Cheney Administration is wholly owned by the coal, oil, utility and mining companies.

While President Bush likes to project an image of strength and courage, the truth is that in the presence of his large financial contributors he is a moral coward – so weak that he seldom if ever says “No” to them on anything – no matter what the public interest might mandate.

Ah, but Bush is strong and courageous. I mean, he's defending (heterosexual) marriage, isn't he? What absolute crap. You can talk all you want about "strengthening families" or whatever, but if you'd like to reduce the rate of divorce, reduce domestic violence, reduce youth (and overall) crime rates and give children more secure and stable platforms from which to become happy, healthy, productive citizens, then put $1.5 billion into the war on poverty.

And what's this? Kerry and Edwards are now "surging" in Iowa?

A Research 2000 poll released Thursday showed Dean at 22 percent, Kerry at 21 percent, Gephardt at 18 percent and Edwards at 18 percent. The undecided vote was at 13 percent and other candidates were in single digits.

Here's an even more astonishing poll. Gee, I wonder if the media's demonstrable bias against Dean could have anything to do with this.

Howard Dean received significantly more criticism on network newscasts than the other Democratic presidential contenders, who were the subjects of more favorable coverage, according to a study released Thursday.

More than three-quarters of the coverage of Dean's foes by the nightly news programs was favorable, while a majority of attention to Dean was negative, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found.

It's certainly something to consider the next time you hear a constant drumbeat of news against Dean.

Related: What the hell is Michael Moore doing promoting Wesley Clark? Apologies to Musclehead, who's also supporting Clark, but Clark gives me the heebie jeebies. The guy's a cipher, an opportunist, he whines, he "consulted" with the media on the war while at the same time lobbying for the defense industry in congress. He's proven himself to be an establishment compromiser in the same league with Kerry and Gephardt. But what really gets me about Clark is not the guy himself, but what I fear animates too many of his supporters, namely the same fear that keeps so many in Bush's thrall. "He's a General," they say, "so he can protect us." Whatever. We're not going to make the world a better place if we start from fear. As cliche as it sounds, we have to start from hope. And yeah, ok, I understand there may be a thin line between fear and hope, and that his supporters may believe that Clark offers hope for a better future. However, I just don't see what he's done to support such a belief. But hey, he's got the support of Madonna, and now Michael Moore. Yay. The real question is: Does he have a car like this?

And speaking of endorsements: Thank you, Carol Moseley-Braun. I, too, hope the "Men Only" sign on the White House comes down soon, but first we need to get the "President Bush" sign off of the Oval Office door. In addition to the fact that she made a valiant effort against immense odds, I'll remember Moseley-Braun's campaign for the great story she told in a couple of debates about a time when she was young and the toilet was overflowing. Her mom sent her dad to the hardware store to get something to fix the toilet, and her dad brought back a lawn mower. The story illustrated what Bush does with every problem. If terrorism's the toilet, Iraq is the lawn mower. Get it?

Posted 06:01 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004 general politics

Welcome Back

Lots of people started law school again last Monday, and it doesn't sound like there's a heckuva lot of excitement about that. Welcome back to DG, Mixtape Marathon, and Cicero's Ghost. Bekah was greeted with locked doors and spilled coffee, while the Ghost's Socratic dialogue with himself about the experience of returning to law school sounds like the loop my head's been playing for the past week and a half. And we'll have fun fun fun 'til the law school takes our free time away...

Posted 07:04 AM | law school

Dean wins D.C.

The results are in from D.C.'s first-in-the-nation, nonbinding, protest primary designed mostly to bring national attention to the problem of lack of congressional representation for District voters. With 16% of registered Democrats voting, the totals were:

1. Dean: 43%
2. Sharpton: 34%
3. Mosely-Braun: 12%
4. Kucinich: 8%

The other major candidates did not participate in deference to the whines of the DNC, which was miffed because D.C. was usurping its role as the supreme authority in the Democratic party by holding the D.C. primary before New Hampshire's. Whatever. It's still a good thing for Dean:

Dean thanked his campaign workers in a speaker-phone call from Vermont that was amplified to about 150 supporters in a Connecticut Avenue bar. He reiterated his support for giving the city voting rights in Congress and called it wrong that five of his rivals opted out of the contest.

He also said he won the vote among an electorate with a majority of African American voters -- defying critics and some political analysts who questioned his appeal to this historically crucial voting bloc for Democrats. Vermont has few minorities and little representation of blacks in its state government, as Sharpton has pointed out in recent days.

"We're going to build a rainbow coalition to take over this country for the people who own it," Dean told his supporters.

In Iowa, where the votes will count next Tuesday, the campaigns are trotting out new ads against each other and trying to solidify whatever support they've got. A lot of Iowans probably won't be too sad this time next week when all the hullaballoo is over. Neither will I.

Dean may get another little boost when he gets some words of praise (but no actual endorsement) from Jimmy Carter on Sunday. Will this help or hurt in New Hampshire, where Dean's been slipping and Clark's been gaining?

On the other side, Bush still trusts his teflon—no matter what happens, Bush can count on the love, affection, worship, and positive spin he's gotten from the media since, well, forever. Still, almost everyone seems to be pointing out the sharp contrast between the administration's response to recent criticisms from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and its response to an earlier scandal:

The administration responded with alacrity [to O'Neill's allegations]. Only a day [after the allegations went public] it called for a probe into how government documents labeled "secret" could be aired on the O'Neill interview on national network TV in prime time.

But this response contrasted strikingly with the far slower response the White House had in approving a probe on who leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak last July. The issue flared again last week when Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York claimed the White House had so far only "partially cooperated" with a Justice Department probe into the affair.

Perhaps Wes Clark had the best spin on it:

"They're not concerned about national security, but they're real concerned about political security," Clark said.

Thank goodness for teflon, huh?

Posted 05:09 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004 general politics

The Nation's First Primary: DC

D.C.'s "nonbinding" Presidential Primary is today. I encourage you to vote if you're registered in the district. The First Primary Blog offers arguments about why you should vote for Kucinich, Sharpton, or Dean, and DC First offers a Voter Guide where you can compare the candidates with respect to DC issues.

The DC primary is intended to bring national attention to the fact that DC residents have only a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives, and no representation in the Senate. Before I moved here I knew nothing about this, and when I first heard about it I thought perhaps people were making a mountain out of a molehill. However, if we believe that we should make our representative democracy as much "one person, one vote" as possible, then there's really no way to justify the current situation in D.C. What should I do if I want to affect federal policy? Who is my representative? To whom do I petition my grievances? If you're pretty cynical, you may believe that personal calls, letters, and emails to elected Reps. and Senators is not really effective, however, at least if you live anywhere but D.C., you have the option. It's sort of the principle of the thing. Why should D.C. residents be treated differently from any other U.S. citizen?

Finally, although it's true that the D.C. Primary is, technically, nonbinding, it could give a small boost to its winner in Iowa and Newhampshire. So vote if you can, will you? The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics can tell you where to vote, and here's a sample ballot.

Your humble blogger stupidly missed the deadline to register and won't be voting, so will someone please cast a vote for Dean or Kucinich for me? Thanks! D.C. will also have a caucus on February 14th to choose its delegates for the National Democratic Convention. I've now registered, and I should be all set for that.

In other campaign news, Dean is supposedly going on the offensive in Iowa:

"I'm tired of being a pincushion here."

Dean may or may not be doing the right thing—he may convince supporters that his opponents are being unfair or inaccurate, but he may also just increase the material the press will then use to caricature him. Salon describes that process in a detailed report of how the media has been a mouthpiece for Republican talking points against Dean:

The former Vermont governor remains the front-runner among Democratic voters, but he's gotten increasingly caustic treatment from the media, which has dwelled on three big themes -- that Dean's angry, gaffe-prone and probably not electable -- while giving comparatively far less ink to the doctor's policy and political prescriptions that have catapulted him ahead of the Democratic field. Newsweek's critical Jan. 12 cover story, "All the Rage: Dean's Shoot-From-the-Hip Style and Shifting Views Might Doom Him in November," achieved a nifty trifecta that covered anger, gaffes and electability, all three of the main media raps against Dean.

The story goes on to argue that Dean is nowhere near as angry, gaffe-prone, or unelectable as the media suggests, just as Al Gore was nowhere near as untrustworthy, stiff and unlikable as the coverage of him in 2000 suggested. As a Dean supporter I'm obviously biased, but why must the media hammer the Democratic frontrunner so hard?

Speaking of caricatures, Dean supporters are fighting back against the attack ad that says they're all freak shows. (People, just own your freak showness! Freak Shows for Dean!) You gotta love this one and this one.

There were probably a few Dean supporters in the audience last night when MoveOn.org announced the winners of its Bush In 30 Seconds ad contest. Child's Play was the big winner overall; a great choice, in my opinion. Look for it on your tv sometime in the next year.

Meanwhile, the NY Times reports on the dark art of caucusing [link via Political Wire]. MSNBC also tries to explain how caucuses work:

Caucuses begin with supporters of candidates clustered in corners of middle-school libraries, courthouse hallways or kitchens and living rooms. Space is designated for uncommitted voters.

Democrats have a complex system, one that uses a mathematical formula to calculate support — and ultimately award delegates to county, state and national conventions — based on percentages.

For a candidate to be considered viable, he or she must have the support of at least 15 percent of the meeting’s participants, party rules state. Those lacking often are lobbied to join with neighbors supporting more popular candidates.

“That’s when it gets kind of crazy,” said Mark Daley, spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party. “There will be people screaming back and forth ... and senior citizens with calculators trying to do the math.”

Reassuring, isn't it?

Posted 06:37 AM | election 2004

El Embajada de El Salvador

Twice since moving to D.C. proper I've been stopped on the street by people who speak little to no English trying to get directions to the Embassy of El Salvador. Twice I've just had to say, "No se." But here it is, not far at all (map). But look at those streets! Giving directions in Spanish should be fun. But at least I'll be helping out next time if I can say, "El calle California y veintetres." Yeah, I need to remember that.

Posted 05:07 AM | Comments (2) | life generally

Book Revolution?

NPR's Morning Edition is running a story on the Fastback Book Binder from Powis Parker, Inc.. The story's teaser is that, with this new, simple, low-cost book binder, there's no reason for any book to ever go out of print again. Why? How?

This booklover's utopia would happen like this: Publishers would put their book catalogs online (probably within a subscription-only database). Bookstores would own Fastback book binders. When you want a book that's not in your library, you'd go to the bookstore. If they don't have the book on the shelf, they could go to the online catalog of books, download the one you want, and print and bind a copy for you in a matter of minutes and at a cost of a few dollars. How awesome would that be?

But even if we don't reach that point right away, how cool would it be to replace all your three-ring binders and plastic-spiral bound photo-copied packets of paper with real bound books? It could happen:

Though Parker is still interested in expanding his firm's geographic reach, these days he's also using technological breakthroughs to enter new areas—most notably the rapidly growing on-demand publishing market. Later this year, he plans to unveil a new digital machine, called Model 8, that can be used to create documents and books from a desktop environment.

The digital version of Fastback will be able to bind documents up to 350 pages in the time it takes to walk to the water cooler.

"Right now, 98 percent of these kinds of documents created in offices or homes are bound with punch holes and rings," Parker said. "That gives you a pretty good idea of the size of the market we can go after."

I believe the NPR story pegged the price of these new digital machines at only $1300/ea. Cool.

Posted 05:57 AM | ai books life generally

You Deserve a Break Today

Today's Quote: "People are getting smarter nowadays. They are letting lawyers, instead of their consciences, be their guides." —Will Rogers

That would be funny if it weren't true. Somehow I've developed this idea that there has been a shift in the U.S. from a culture in which people tended to refrain from doing Act X because they thought Act X was wrong, to a culture where people only refrain from doing Act X if there's a law against it (and they think they'll get caught). In hugely general terms, it seems plausible to argue that such is shift is visible in the switch from some idea of "natural law" (say, in the 18th and perhaps early 19th centuries) to the more secular view we have today of the law as a social creation. But I think there's more to it than that, something having to do with a late 20th century shift in society and its laws from some sense of community responsibility to a near obsession with individual rights and liberties at the expense of all other values. Maybe. It's Monday, I'm just thinking out loud here.

And really what I'm thinking about is how great it would have been to have an extra week of holiday break, pace Three Years of Hell (which has undergone a nice redesign over the break), DG, and Musclehead (which has also been redesigned, but which may not be back to regularly scheduled programming yet). I suppose the bright side of starting earlier is that GW should also finish up a little earlier in the spring, something for which I'm sure I'll be grateful when the time comes. Next year the effect could be even more pronounced: GW is currently considering switching 2Ls and 3Ls from a 14-week semester to a 13-week semester. I haven't been following the issue too closely, but it sounds like the change would require us to switch from 50-minute classes to hour-long classes or something. Sounds fine with me.

If my holiday break had been longer, the main thing I would have done with the extra time would have been applying for summer work. I spent the bulk of yesterday sharpening the resume and crafting 15 cover letters for the upcoming Georgetown/GW Public Interest/Government Interview Program. I also investigated the Peggy Browning Fund Fellowships, applications for which are due (meaning must be received by) Jan. 15th. Looks like I'll be sending some overnight mailings in the next day or two.

What is that they say about rest for the wicked? Oops! My cauldron's smoking—gotta run.

Posted 05:38 AM | Comments (1) | law general law school

Freak Shows for Dean

The Club for Growth has been airing a second ad in Iowa attacking Dean. According to the Washington Times:

In the ad, a farmer says he thinks that "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ..." before the farmer's wife then finishes the sentence: "... Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs."

So what is that ad saying? Is it trying to imply that people who do these things aren't welcome in Iowa? Is this directed at Dean or his supporters, or both? And since when are balancing budgets and getting perfect ratings from the NRA "left-wing"?

Whatever the ad's trying to say, it's brilliant. I mean, they got me. Ok, they didn't get it perfect, but close enough for horseshoes or hand grenades. I don't want to hike taxes, but I do want to redistrbute the tax burden. I don't want to expand government, but would like it to work better (more efficiently, to use the language neocons can understand), and for the benefit of citizens rather than for the benefit of corporations. I drink lattes occasionally, but mostly I'm just a coffee w/a bit of milk kind of person. Sushi's great, but I eat it rarely. I've never driven a Volvo, but I do think the new Cross Country is an awesome vehicle. Volvos are also infamous for being among the safest cars on the road, so is the Club for Growth trying to say that wanting to be safe is some kind of freak-show thing? I used to read the New York Times online fairly regularly, but have tried to avoid it since it started charging for access to articles older than a few days. I don't love Hollywood—but I do enjoy watching movies (who doesn't)? And left-wing? Yeah, sure. Freak show? You got me.

Freak Shows for Dean!

Now, will someone please make a t-shirt of this? (The URL is available, too!)

You could probably also sell a few of these shirts to the folks at Wyoming for Dean, too. Not a lot of sushi in Wyoming, they're not much into tax hikes or big government, nor do many people I know there read the New York Times. But one thing Wyoming-ites love to do is to give the "Eastern establishment" the finger, and what better way to do that than to support the candidate the establishment seems intent on discrediting?

In other election news, the first "primary" in the nation is this Tuesday, right here in DC. No, it's not binding, but it's still worth the effort to vote for your candidate just to give him/her that extra little boost to take into Iowa and New Hampshire. Besides, a bigger turnout will help D.C.'s cause, and all D.C. wants is equality. Meanwhile, thousands of volunteers are descending on Iowa in preparation for the Jan. 19th caucus, and Clark is supposedly surging in New Hampshire.

It should all be very interesting, but you know, I'm ready for a decision. Time's a-wasting kids. It's time to get a Democratic nominee chosen so the Democrats can start fighting the real battle—against the Bush Republicans.

Posted 09:24 AM | Comments (1) | election 2004

Blitzed

It's Saturday, which means week one, semester 2, of law school is technically over. Yet, now is when the work begins. The first week was a whirlwind of new classes and readings, writing and research assignments, meetings, and reminders of all the things I simply don't have time for. After a semester, I feel much more sure about what I need to do to be prepared for finals. Good thing there's no chance I'll get the time to do much of it. Case briefing? Yeah, right. Outlining? Yeah right. The briefing is hardly necessary (at least not in the way I used to do it), but frequent post-class summaries of what we've covered in the past few days would be a great way to build an outline. Maybe I'll shave off a couple of hours sleep time and squeeze that in.

And don't mention applying for jobs. What? When? How? Whatever.

On the positive side, ProfProperty is proving to be a fun guy w/a great take on things. In fact, for two days running he's taken potshots at last semester's ProfTorts (my ideological nemesis) and the Chicago School of law and economics, which is certainly starting off on the right (or left, as it may be) foot. I'm loving ConLaw and, well, Contracts and CivPro... Yeah.

Also on the positive side, the GW/Georgetown Public Interest/Government Interview Program is coming up Feb 7. You can see from last year's list of participating employers that it's a pretty big deal, and therefore I have high hopes it will provide a great way to get a summer job. The other day, in preparation for the program, GW invited seven recent GW graduates who now work in public interest law to come tell us about their experiences and what they look for in interns/employees. As far as what they're looking for, they all said much the same things:

1. Demonstrated commitment to public interest work. They're looking for concrete evidence on a resume, not necessarily in their own particular area of work, but in some position or volunteer experience that shows you're not just looking for a brief fling with the "little people."
2. Related, but different: A real interest in the organization you're interviewing with. Research the organization so you can show that interest intelligently.
3. Good writing skills, which you can best demonstrate on your cover letter.
4. A memorable and entertaining interview. Especially in a big "career fair" atmosphere, it's important to impress your interviewer in some way so they'll remember you. Try to have a conversation with your interviewer. Make the interviewer's day interesting. A sense of humor is often good. Be interested in and be interesting to him or her. The best way to do this is to research the organization ahead of time and practice your interview skills.

In addition to those interviewing tips, they gave some great general advice for people interested in public interest work, including:

• Commit your life to using the law for social change. Comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comforted.
• In law school, volunteer instead of working on a journal.
• Be aware that you might trade the stresses of working in a firm (stesses mentioned included overwork and a huge lack of satisfaction in the work you do) for the stresses of being broke. All agreed they weren't rich, but all agreed they wouldn't trade their lives for any other. How many firm lawyers can say that?

All of this was music to my ears. Finally there were people at GW speaking my language! Plus, the room was filled with students who had come to listen to the speakers, which was a great reminder that not everyone at GW is there just to make as much money as they possibly can.

So that's all good, once I get time to actually fill out all the paperwork to participate in the interview program. Standing in the way of that goal is a good-sized research project about someone charged w/use of a gun in connection w/selling drugs and the applicable standard for a post-trial motion to acquit. And reading. And planning an auction. Yeah.

If posts are less than frequent for a while, the above is why.

p.s.: Apologies to Glorfindel of Gondolin, whom I mistakenly suggested was female. Glorfindel is male. Thanks to Heidi for the clarification.

Posted 10:06 AM | Comments (2) | law school

Blogability

Do you use a Mac to blog? Would you like to make your blogging life infinitely better? Then don't wait, get your copy of ecto now! ecto is the evolution of what was formerly known as Kung-Log, which was already a great blogging client, now made even better. Since I started using Kung-Log about a year ago (give or take), I've probably actually logged into my Moveable Type installation less than once a month. ecto even allows you to upload files and images, and it converts images to jpgs and allows you to reduce their quality to optimal web-size. Categories, multiple blogs, multiple identities, comment and formatting options—ecto is all that and a bag of chips. Try it, you'll like it!

But while ecto is all that, it doesn't yet allow you to control comment spam. Yesterday, ai was the lucky recipient of a massive comment spam attack—about 100 crappy cliche comments all linking to porn and shady online pharmaceutical sites. Getting rid of all that wasn't fun, but next time I think I'll have much less to deal with because ai is now equipped with MT-Blacklist from Jay Allen. MT-Blacklist seems to build on MT's ability to block comments from specific IP addresses by making it easy for MT users to share their lists of blocked sites. Take that, spammers! ;-)

One more thing: If you have any extra time on your hands and you use MT, you're sure to have hours of fun with the MT Plug-In Directory. I used to have time to play around with things like this. Right about now I'm wondering: Will I ever have that time again?

Posted 09:33 AM | meta-blogging

Good Start

"There is never a deed so foul that something couldn't be said for the guy; that's why there are lawyers." —Melvin Belli

For Christmas my mother bought me a "Lawyers Jokes Quotes and Anecdotes 2004 Calendar," from which I took the above quotation. Excerpts from the calendar may become a regular feature. We'll see.

But this quote is appropriate for the moment, since I've been thinking a bit about what it would be like to be a criminal defense attorney. Another Christmas gift (I had an incredible Christmas), this one from L, was How Can You Defend Those People? by James S. Kunen. The book details his experience as a public defender in DC for 2.5 years in the late 1970s. So far, it's quite compelling and makes me think I'd fit as a PD better than I would in many other types of practice. One thing I certainly seem to have in common with Kunen is a lack of respect for law school. Here's how Kunen describes it:

School is school. You sit in chairs that are attached to the floor. You write down what the teacher says (or borrow the notes of someone who did). When the time comes, you memorize it and spit it back out. . . . Law school is not, contrary to the mystification heaped around it by people who have done time there, difficult. Boring would be a better word, but not tremendously or profoundly boring, just boring in the ordinary, everyday sense, which leaves room for the occasional peak of interest by which the valleys of torpor are defined (25).

I'm not sure about the boring part. It's hard to nail down what it is I feel sitting in class with a hundred students, watching the time tick by and knowing that there's absolutely no way we're going to talk about more than one (if even that) of the interesting questions I thought were raised by the previous night's reading. It's boring, but it's also frustrating, disappointing, discouraging, even aggravating because it seems destined to end up doing a disservice to society by producing lawyers who think well in terms of the formal and technical aspects of law, but not necessarily so well in terms of people and reality. Kunen has something to say about that as well, noting that the reading in law school covers every kind of human behavior, but does so in a horribly detached way:

No one seems to suffer in all these tales of woe, the pain having disappeared with the people who felt it. One gets the impression that human life is like nothing so much as an unending Saturday morning cartoon—woops! pow! oof! (26)

I'll get you, you wascally wabbit!

But really, the failures of law school and the law are almost infinite. One of my goals for this semester is to watch for the brighter moments and make the most of them, and after the first two days of class, I remain very hopeful that ConLaw will provide plenty of bright spots. It certainly started off well. Here's how ProfConLaw introduced the course:

The guardians of our liberties are lawyers. There's always been some kind of crisis (right now it's terrorism) and liberties are placed under pressure. The reason liberties withstand this pressure is because of lawyers. Learning constitutional law is almost a duty, an obligation you take up when you become a lawyer.

It's an obligation I'm glad to take up. Can you think of a better epitaph than "Guardian of Liberty"? Yeah, probably, but you could do worse.

Outside the mystified halls of law school, tonight is 2004's first Meetup for Dean, and as Jim Moore says, if you haven't done it already, there's no better time to pick a campaign and get involved. If you don't, the choice will be made for you, and why would you want that?

Also, don't miss the 15 final contenders in the Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. They're all very impressive and I can't wait to see any one of them on national tv, but my favorites are probably "In My Country," "Polygraph," and "Gone in 30 Seconds." And, of course, the absolute minimalist, Mac-loving best: "Desktop"! (All links are to "high bandwidth" versions; lower bandwidth versions are available at the Bush in 30 Seconds page.)

Posted 06:52 AM | Comments (3) | election 2004 law school

Amazon: the Wal-Mart of Books?

A bit of a tangent: After reading a post and comments at Glorfindel of Gondolin about why she doesn't link to Amazon.com when she refers to books and other kinds of things Amazon sells, I'm experimenting with alternatives myself. One thing I've seen people do rather than link to Amazon is to link to a google search for the title, which allows those interested to easily get more info about the book or whatever, but gives them the choice of whether to go to Amazon or some other source for that info.

I'm not really sure how I could give up Amazon for a lot of things, and I'm extremely ambivalent about whether doing so is really necessary. Is Amazon the Wal-Mart of online stores?

In the "yes" column, Amazon probably dominates a lot of online sales categories, and this is almost certainly hurting lots of smaller players and local businesses—it has absolutely decreased the sales of many local bookstores. These are bad things.

In the "I don't know" column, does Amazon pay workers poorly and mistreat them? Does Amazon give its employees quality benefits? I doubt Amazon is unionized, and I'm almost certain that Powell's Books is.

In the "it may already be too late" column, so many independent booksellers have already been forced out of business by competition from Barnes & Noble, Borders, and Amazon, that probably the majority of those left standing have a loyal customer base that's not going to be affected by online links to competitors.

Let me know if you have any thoughts on this...

Posted 06:34 AM | Comments (4) | life generally meta-blogging

MacWorld '04

Today Steve Jobs delivered the keynote address at Macworld Expo in San Francisco, introducing the iPod mini and GarageBand. The new little iPod is cute, but it needs to be at least $100 cheaper to be a success. I was also hoping for a flash-based iPod with a user-replaceable battery, but I guess those things were too much to hope for. GarageBand, on the other hand, looks like loads of fun. Grab a USB keyboard and mix your masterpiece on your Mac! The possibilities are endless. What would high school have been like if we'd had toys like these?

Posted 06:38 PM | Comments (1) | mac geek

Happy 2004!

Whoop! Here it is. Ready or not, 2004 (and for me, the second semester of law school) is upon us. I know, I know, it's actually been upon us for several days now, but I've been out of town and far away from blogability. In fact, I was so far out of the news and information loop, I didn't even realize I was supposed to be on heightened alert. The past two weeks were filled with ping-pong, pinochle, and poker, ice fishing, ice skating, snowmobiling, driving, getting stuck in the snow, getting unstuck, wrapping presents, unwrapping presents, playing a newly discovered card game called Wizard, and eating lots and lots of very good food. Best of all, I spent the whole time with friends and family and hardly thought about law school at all. :-)

But now it all begins again—law school, that is. GW Law School will begin this semester on a sad note, mourning the unexplained death of a one-L whose body was found floating in the Potomac the morning after finals ended last semester. It looks like "foul play" was involved, but regardless of how it happened, it's a tragic loss. Welcome to the nation's capital, everyone!

Of course, we'll all have to move beyond that, and this semester should be packed, not only with classes, but also with the summer job search (which I've yet to begin) and the planning and execution of an EJF Auction. Of course, the classes are supposed to be the priority. This semester they'll include two carryovers from last semester—Contracts and CivPro—and two new contenders: Constitutional Law I and Property. I'm looking forward to ConLaw because, well, I'm more big-picture than fine detail, and questions of Constitutional law are more often big issues. Property I'm just not going to speculate on; I've heard bad things, but then, I can say that about every class/subject. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt; innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Good luck to everyone. May we all have a great 2004. (Only 10 short months until Bush loses in a landslide and gets a one-way ticket back to Crawford, TX!)

Posted 06:33 AM | law school life generally