A Rational Animal

Image from Dave Pollard’s how to save the world.

So today’s the postmark deadline for submitting my absentee ballot in the DPNM caucus.  I’ve been out of town on business (out of state, actually), which is why I needed the absentee ballot in the first place.   Has it arrived yet?

Do you really need an answer to that?

It should have been here about a week ago.  Ordinarily, it takes 24 hours for mail to reach this post office from Albuquerque.  But if it’s not here before the close of business today - with enough time for me to fill it out and get it in the mail with today’s postmark - I can’t vote.  And, no, traveling to Albuquerque to pick it up is not an option; aside from the shitty weather, my whole day is scheduled in a way that doesn’t leave time for a seven-hour side trip.

If it doesn’t arrive, I’m going to be seriously pissed.  Of course, I won’t be surprised.  I still remember vividly our illustrious state party’s rampant fuckupery during the ‘04 mess.  And ironically, I’ve been so fed up with our media-created frontrunners’ performance (or, rather, lack thereof), that I’ve been seriously considering withholding my vote entirely in the caucus.  But that’s my prerogative - not that of the party bureaucracy.

That said, even if it does arrive, I still may withhold my vote.  Or I may return the ballot with either 1) Bill Richardson as a write-in, or 2) a note saying that I’m voting for none of the above.  I’m way, way past my choking point.

Don’t get me wrong:  In the general election, I’ll pull the lever for Clinton, Edwards, or Obama over any Rethug any day of the week.  But I don’t have to like it.  They’re all grave disappointments, and it’s pitiful that, with the country in an utter shambles, our only choices are such a weak and soggy assortment.

At the moment, I’m leaning toward Edwards, which really pisses me off.  Wy?  because not only have I never particularly cared for Edwards, but it’s infuriating that in the first-ever election with a truly credible woman candidate and a truly credible African American candidate, I find myself feeling as though principle precludes me from voting for either (in the primary, not the general).  At what should be such a historic moment, to find myself feeling the need to cast a protest vote for the only other remaining candidate - who is a white male - is particularly galling to someone who has worked on civil rights issues her entire life.

I was going to outline the reasons why I’m so disgusted with all three candidates, but I’m finding that it’s going to take too much space.  Instead, I’m going to post an open letter to each of the candidates in turn.  I have no illusions that the posts will be seen by the campaigns, much less generate a response.  But maybe they’ll raise some questions in the minds of readers, or help them make sense of their own discomforts.  Or maybe they’ll just be cathartic for me.

That has its uses, too. 

I’ll have a longer post tomorrow about the Iowa caucus - and about the attendant terminal stupidity infecting our airwaves. 

But for now, somebody, please, stick a cork in him.

Update:  Okay, Hillary, I realize you don’t think he’s a real candidate - but would it have killed you to include Mike Gravel?  Sweet Jeebus, but they’re all narcissistic jackasses.

Okay, aside from the unfortunate hed ("Bill Richardson Seeks Clinton Scraps"), the latest NYO also has a halfway-decent piece on Bill.  I give it only a "halfway-decent" because, in addition to that stupid phrasing, it also includes a bit of the MSM focus on how far he supposedly lags behind Clinton and Obama.

On the other hand, reporter Jason horowitz has actually done a good job of packing the piece with résumé snippets and campaign anecdotes that demonstrate Richardson’s qualifications.  The third graf notes Richardson’s whirlwind appearance schedule on his trip this week to New York City:

The stocky, voluble governor of New Mexico had just finished a grueling day of stump speeches and political pitches to donors in six separate private fund-raisers around town. He capped that off with a speech, and then an hour-long question-and-answer session in a packed West Side bar full of young Democratic professionals. The next day, he had six more fund-raisers. On Wednesday, he was booked to appear on The Daily Show.

Ah, yes, The Daily Show.  The Daily Show, which I couldn’t watch tonight, because I’m stuck in fundyrepublicanville tonight, and absent a sat dish, no John Stewart, no Stephen Colbert.  No, the local cable company doesn’t make it a part of the cable package - unless, that is, you want to pay the premium rates that approach $100/month.  I don’t know about you, but there are many vastly more important things on which I could drop that hundred bucks a month than frigging television.  But I digress . . . .

Back to Horowitz’s coverage of Bill:  Grafs four, five, and six are devoted to Richardson’s experience and expertise.  One thing about Bill - he’s got a healthy ego, which he’s gonna need to overcome the MSM’s chosen narrative.  Fortunately, he ain’t shy about flogging his cred:

Mr. Richardson, whose long and impressive résumé in government and foreign affairs has earned him enough attention to gain him thinking-man’s-dark-horse status in the crowded field of Democratic nominees, is working hard to break into the elite club of front-runners, which includes Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

 

He served 15 years in Congress before acting as Energy Secretary in the Clinton administration and turning in a generally admired stint as U.N. ambassador. He is the first major Hispanic Presidential candidate, and his two terms as governor of traditionally Republican New Mexico are another asset—especially because, as he informed the young crowd sipping pints of ale Monday night, “We elect governors in this country.”

 

At the crammed event organized by Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century, a group of politically active professionals, Mr. Richardson reminded his audience several times that, as a foreign-policy envoy in Iraq and the Sudan, and as a governor, he had participated in the major events of the day while his rivals were onlookers, busy obsessing about the nuances of their Senate votes on Iraq. “A lot of candidates talk about voting a certain way, and ‘This is my position,’” he said. “I’ve done it. I’ve brought countries together.”

"The thinking man’s dark horse."  I like it, except for the obvious - um, Jason?  More than half of all voters are women.  And plenty of us are ‘thinking women" - women who intend to vote for Richardson precisely because we vote with our brains.

And thank God for Larry Sabato (now there’s a phrase that, a couple of years ago, I never thought I’d write).  He flogs Bill’s credentials, too:

“You look at those four”—Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Richardson—“and it’s almost embarrassing, because he is clearly the most qualified to be President,” said Larry Sabato, a political-science professor at the University of Virginia. “It has got to bother him that people with far less experience seem to be dominating the landscape. Richardson hasn’t made an impression on people.”

Except, of course, for that last line.  Sweet jumping Jeebus, people, could we remember that the election is twenty months away?!  But he’s right - it is embarrassing.  And I guarantee you that it bothers Bill, but ego notwithstanding, he’s also a very shrewd and seasoned pol.  He’s not going to let his game face slip this early, and certainly not over the issue of fundraising.  Why?  because the MSM are all wet when it comes to thise:

Mr. Richardson’s most pressing task, for now, is to post a respectable enough March 31 financial filing to keep things looking at least plausible.

Bullshit.  First of all, this March 31 (2007, mind you) is an utterly arbitrary deadline created by a lethal combo of the MSM, the Beltway elite, and their own personal frontrunner creations.  Second, Bill has no problem raising money.  In the 2006 gubernatorial race, he pulled in more than 70% of the vote.  His opponent (John Dendahl, about whom I’ll have more later) ran such a shitty campaign that Richardson really didn’t even need to lift a finger.  And yet he raked in the campaign contributions hand over a fist:  In a race that could hardly be called contested, in a small-population state known for campaigns on the cheap, Bill raised just shy of $14 million - for a campaign that could’ve been run for under $1 mil.  Yeah, he’s up against the Clinton Money Machine.  But a few months down the road, people are going to be very surprised at their relative stats.

The whole piece is interesting, but I really like one of the closing grafs:

On Monday night, as the wait staff of Zanzibar looked on in tight black clothes from behind a fluorescent-lit bar, Mr. Richardson stood on the stage and somewhat deliberately offered meaty policy answers to questions ranging from health care, taxes and civil unions to the war in Iraq and relations with Iran and North Korea.

And the hell of it is, alone among the candidates, he’s got hard experience in every single one of those areas.  Those who are ready to write him off now need to sit on their hands for a couple of months.  If there’s any justice to the universe at all, the Democratic primary landscape will change drastically over the months to come - and the Richardson campaign will be one of its most prominent new landmarks.

I read Indian County Today religiously.  Obviously, the primary reason is that they cover Native issues that are naturally of particular interest to me, but there’s another reason, too:  They cover some great stories that I don’t find anywhere else.  And last night, when I finally got to my hotel and logged on, lo and behold, what do I find on the home page of ICT?

You got it:  the first real interview with Bill Richardson the Presidential Candidate that I’ve seen anywhere. (Yeah, I know the NYT Mag did that one-page "Questions for . . ." piece a couple of weeks ago, and I’m glad, but that doesn’t qualify as a real interview.)  The interview, conducted by ICT Special Correspondent Sonny Skyhawk, appears under a hed that is actually a quote from Bill, extracted from the interview:  "I would have a cabinet department for Native American affairs."

Now, what first caught my attention wasn’t the photo of Bill, or anything else that identified him as the subject of the piece - all of that was "below the fold," so to speak, and I had to scroll down to see the synopsis.  But as soon as I saw the hed, two things immediately flashed through my mind in succession:  1) What an awesome idea! and 2) Hey!  Finally!  An interview with Bill!

The exchange begins as follows:

Sonny Skyhawk: How was it possible for you to establish such a strong rapport with the Pueblo population in New Mexico, and yet many other governors are having difficulty addressing the Native population in their own states?

Gov. Bill Richardson: Since the beginning, since I was a congressman, [the] Secretary of Energy, United Nations ambassador, I felt that our Native American people have not gotten the priority attention they deserve, so I’ve made them partners. 

Very true.  Now, don’t get me wrong; there are many issues on which Richardson is not regarded as particularly friendly to Native Americans.  But that’s true of any pol, and any constituency.  Among pols generally, and here in New Mexico specifically, Richardson has done by far the most to bring our tribe into the political and governmental processes and to make sure their concerns get a hearing.  And while I have no illusions about his motivation for doing so - he’s always had larger ambitions - I’ll take it any way it comes.  And the fact of the matter is that he has done a great deal for the tribes in this state over the last four years, and he’s created a great intertribal team of loyalists.

The piece begins with Richardson recounting his achievements on behalf of Native Americans in his various political roles over the years.  One of those achievements that I’ve always found aprticularly gratifying is this:

I’ve known some of these folks, and they’ve made outstanding contributions to the process of government in this state.  These are not simply patronage appointments:  These are professionals who, by their presence and input, have improved both the process and the result, and who have helped ensure that indigenous needs and concerns get addressed by a bureaucracy that has always been too willing to ignore their existence (until, of course, it’s time for non-Natives to bitch about the casinos, or tribal lands, or the fact that some Indian had the temerity to object to racist imagery).

In discussing the cabinet post, he had this to say:

If I’m elected president, I would propose to make the cabinet secretary of Indian Affairs the Secretary of Indian Affairs; I would make it cabinet level. I would try, because I believe within the Department of the Interior it does not get the attention it deserves. I would have a cabinet department for Native American affairs. […]

In terms of being governor, we have said that we recognize all tribes as equals, self-determination and government-to-government. And a Pueblo governor is equal to the governor of New Mexico. They’re citizens of New Mexico. I just feel very strongly about it and I’m going to continue doing that if I’m elected president.

Now, how many politicians - anywhere in this country - have you ever heard acknowledge that a "[tribal] governor is equal to the governor of [a state]?"  I’d pretty much guarantee that you haven’t.  Because tribal sovereignty is the proverbial elephant in the room, and no American pol wants to touch it with a barge pole.

Considering my own vested interests, if I had not already decided who to support in the primary, that one statement would have made up my mind for me.

I particularly like the substance of this next exchange: 

Skyhawk: As a candidate that is running for the highest office in this land, can you see the relationship with American Indians as being not only vital to the presidency but vital to the point that you try to acquire the acceptance of Native Americans throughout America?

Richardson: Yes, I would consider it a vital relationship and today it’s not considered that. I’m very concerned about the lack of commitment by the federal government, not just in the area of health care but also education. This is why in New Mexico, because there is no strong federal commitment, we have the statewide Indian Healthcare Act where the state, not takes over, but supplements the health care that is not happening [on the federal level].

I’m particularly concerned about the plight nationally: not just of reservation Native Americans, but urban Indians. Many are living in our cities, off the reservations, and they are not getting health care - they are not getting assistance. We need to develop some better delivery systems for urban Indians throughout the country in our major cities. I would consider it vital. I would make it a government-to-government relationship.

I would include also a number of initiatives that would bureaucratically elevate that status, such as a cabinet agency; such as an effort to deal with each tribe as a sovereign nation and I would try to resolve this Indian trust fund issue. I would try to resolve some of the issues related to waters and public lands and the disputes that exist. 

And then he gets specific:

First, I would fully fund the Indian Healthcare Act. There would be a stronger budget in my administration on Indian health care. When it comes to education and when it comes to childhood obesity, the highest suicide rate is among Indian kids. I would try to set up on the reservations, as I have here in New Mexico, school-based health clinics: health clinics in schools that are able to work with kids, counsel them and give them early intervention.

I feel like dancing right now.  Full funding for the IHCA is essential - the federal government’s failure to do so is killing our people.  And he’s right about suicide rates; to those I would add diabetes, alcoholism, and drug (especially meth) use rates.  

To my knowledge, this is the first interview that ICT has done with any of the ‘08 presidential candidates.  Of course, Richardson’s a natural choice, since we have so many different tribes in this state, and he has done so much more than most other pols to bring them thoroughly into the mainstream of the political process.  But I’m still glad to see ICT lead off with him - both for the exposure it gets him, and for the attention it calls to the benefits of treating Native Americans as political equals.  Maybe it’ll shame of few others out there into doing likewise.

[Sigh] . . . .  I addressed this last week, but apparently it’s already time for a refresher course.

The New York Times, in its haste to ensure that no one but Hillary, Obama, and Edwards gets any ink, begins what is supposedly straight reporting with the following:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the front-runner and will probably win the Democratic presidential nomination. Rudolph W. Giuliani could do well in Mississippi. And the length of the presidential campaign is insane.

Read that first sentence again.

WTF?

First of all, I have yet to see any hard evidence that Hillary is indeed the "front-runner."  The distance to Election Day ‘08 is so far that it renders such evaluations meaningless. 

But it’s the second half of that sentence that really sticks in my craw.  "[A]nd will probably win the Democratic presidential nomination"?  Sez who?  Robert Pear?  And since when has he become The Grand Electoral Oracle 20 Months Out?

Sweet jumping Jeebus on a pogo stick.  Note to Bill Keller:  This is supposed to be a news piece.  You know, that kind of writing that involves verifiable facts, not the author’s opinion?  Particularly when he seems to pull his opinions out of his ass.  I will be flatly astounded if Hillary is the nominee.  I don’t give a rat’s ass how much ink they’re giving her now, or how many millions she raises - I don’t see a plurality of DNC delegates voting for her, and I don’t think she can win the general.

Pear then devotes the remainder of the first third to the following dubious conclusion:

Democratic governors pleaded with their presidential candidates to ignore the fringes of the party and focus instead on the “middle 20 percent” of the electorate with a pragmatic, problem-solving agenda.

Of course, the only guv that he quotes in support of this proposition is Tennessee Blue Dog Phil Bredesen, who disses Pelosi but doesn’t actually say anything about this "middle 20 percent" that Pear finds so compelling.

And then . . . then the piece’s hed is discarded utterly, in favor of interviewing long-time GOP tool and current Mississippi guv Haley Barbour about Hillary’s chances.  Good ol’ Haley gets six - count ‘em, six - grafs all to his little ol’ self.

Pear next moves to a series of governors for comment.  He gives a little extra space to PA’s Ed Rendell, who has the only intelligent comment in the entire piece (Pear’s "reporting" included):

“I think it’s insane,” Mr. Rendell said in an interview. “The media has created a two-year presidential election cycle that’s very destructive to American politics. And the political system is complicit. We front-load our primaries so much that four or five states decide who the nominees are going to be. It’s over by February. And then we have a God-awful yearlong presidential campaign, general election campaign, which is too long and lends itself to all these negative attacks.”

No shit.  But blame Edwards, Hillary, and Obama and their handlers, and especially blame the MSM.  The rest of us would be content to labor quietly in the trenches for another eight months, and not have to listen to the squawking of the punditocracy.

Pear quotes governors Barbour and Bredesen, Rell and Rendell, Baldacci and Pawlenty and Ritter and Sebelius.  He also manages to get in references to GOP candidates Giuliani, McCain, and Brownback; to Dem candidates Clinton, Edwards, and Obama; and even to 2004 candidates Bush and Kerry. 

So who’s missing? 

Why, yes, that’s absolutely right.  Not a single, solitary word about Bill Richardson. 

In an alleged straight news story about both governors and presidential candidates, there is not a single fucking reference to the one person who not only fills both roles, but is also a major player on the national and international diplomatic stage.

Now, Bill’s not generally the type to allow others to label him, much less to marginalize him, and from what I’ve seen, he doesn’t take kindly to being ignored, either.  But I hope he’s ready for this.  The MSM have already staked out their turf, and have assigned roles to each of the players.  Richardson is this campaign’s Howard Dean:  the candidate who doesn’t fit the MSM’s insider narrative, but who could actually win, and who thus must be marginalized at all costs, at every opportunity. 

I hate the MSM. 

If you’re reading this later in the day, you can still watch it here.

So far, he’s doing his usual job of acquitting himself well.  What’s surprised me is that all callers so far have seemed sympathetic to him.  They’ve got three lines set up this morning:  One for Dems, one for the GOP, and one for us NM residents.  Calls so far:  one Georgia Democrat who is clearly a supporter ("I’ve been following you since you were in the Clinton Administration . . ."); one New Mexican from Roswell who didn’t identify her affiliation, but asked about vets’ issues and added that she hopes he wins the presidency; and one Republican who asked about a couple of different issues, but who was not merely polite, but seemingly receptive. 

Of course, each question gets a detailed answer - he’s as wonky as his buddy the Big Dog.  Personally, I like that in a candidate, but I realize that a lot of people want the snazzy and substanceless sound bites.

He’s saying right now that he’d send Jim Baker to Iran as his emissary to negotiate!  There’s a counterintuitive choice for a Democratic candidate. 

Now he’s moving on the latest caller’s second question, WRT veterans’ medical care in their home states.  So far, he’s talked about the fact that the federal vets’ death benefit was $11 lousy grand, and the fact that he’s arranged for NM vets to get $400K policies.

Well, just got the first marginally hostile question:  "What are you gonna do when negotiations with Iran fail?"  He refuses to be baited; good for him.  He’s pointing out that diplomacy should be the first option, with the sabre-rattling coming only upon diplomatic failure.  Not, of course, that the current pack of bulllies would ever dream of such an approach . . . .

Los Lunas, NM (I’ve been there a lot lately):  Question about negotiating with Iraqi anti-American elements.  Again, he’s stressing the importance of bringing Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia into the process.  The host’s first question - literally right out of the box - was:  "If you’re elected president, what will you do about Iraq?"  His response:  Set a timetable for withdrawal of troops within 12 months.  Use the promise of withdrawal as an incentive to get the players to do two things:  1) Bring together all three religious factions (Sunni, Shi’ite, Kurds) and trade withdrawal and reconstruction for creation of a three-state confederation, underneath a "federalized" Iraqi government, that would require true cooperative effort; and 2) creation of truly multilateral approach to security via bringing Jordan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., into a wide-ranging reconstruction effort that would commit all parties to ensuring security.
Ohio Dem: Wants to know about his commitment to Ohio, which is now an electoral "kingmaker," so to speak, and whether he’s taking PAC money.  WRT the former:  "I’m going to get myself in trouble here, because there are 49 other states" that are important, but acknowledges the role of Ohio and promises to campaign accordingly. WRT the latter:  Notes that he’s not independently wealthy, and is indeed taking PAC money, within campaign finance limits.

NM teacher, via e-mail: Wants to know about low teacher pay in NM; Richardson points out the changes he’s made already, as well as his bill before the current Lege.  What he hints at, but doesn’t say bluntly, is that we’re coming off several terms’ worth of GOP anti-union and anti-teacher policies that left our state’s educational system in the gutter.

Okay, on to Mike Gravel . . . .  I’ll have additional Richardson posts later today, too.

Update: Mike Gravel is obviously not my choice (although, were he by some freak chance to become the nominee, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat).  However, I think he knows that he has no real chance, and it has freed him to say what he really believes.  He was jsut asked a question by a [clearly conservative] Democratic caller who was agitating over the "homosexual agenda" and its supposed hold on the Democratic Party.  Gravel professed confusion about what the caller’s question was, then said, "Look, here’s what I think . . .," and promptly endorsed gay marriage.  Not civil unions, not domestic partnerships - marriage, for consenting adults, period.  He concluded with this:  "I think that it’s entirely right for a man and a woman to get married, a woman and a woman to get married, or a man and a man to get married.  I can’t be any more clear than that."  Bravo, Mike!!!  (He’s wrong on the sales tax, but that’s another post . . . .)

Props to Matt Yglesias for being the first member of Big Media to recognize what some of us have been saying for months:

Matt clearly has his finger on the MSM pulse, and recognizes that it only flutters into something resembling life when the narrative suits the media’s narrow purposes:

Exactly.  As I keep saying, the Beltway Bookies and Cocktail-Weenie Charlatans of the MSM have decided - nay, decreed - that the narrative shall be a nasty, vicious, and utterly vacuous Hillary v. Obama smackdown.  And they’ll be damned if they’ll let little things like facts get in the way.  Matt describes the phenomenon thusly:

What’s more, the change [in choosing whom to cover as a "serious" candidate] seems driven almost entirely by the national media, which simply decided unilaterally some years ago to only cover people who were already famous.

Although, as Matt also points out with a bit of wryly devastating understatement:

Here’s something else you might expect to garner some buzz: If that same Democrat also found some spare time in January to broker a cease-fire between the government of Sudan and some major rebel factions in Darfur. That kind of person might be someone who understands that these sort of humanitarian tragedies can’t just be ended purely through righteous indignation.

But now we’re getting back to the small matter of qualifications. Traditionally, Americans have turned to governors to serve as president, thinking that experience in executive office and with complicated managerial tasks outweighs the experience with federal policy issues that members of Congress can count in their favor. Happily, Richardson spent over a decade in the House of Representatives before becoming governor. In between, he was America’s ambassador the United Nations, wracking up a level of national security experience that none of the other contenders can match. And did I mention he was also Secretary of Energy? Too bad nobody thinks energy independence and global climate change are important policy areas in which it would be good for the chief executive to have some knowledge. Oh, well.

Knowledge?  Good heavens, why would we want that?  Just because we’ve spent the last six years with a culturally, functionally, and literally illiterate squatter in the Oval Office . . . .

But the MSM demand a serious candidate.  You might be thinking, How much more serious can you get than someone like Richardson?  You might think that.  But you would be wrong:

The point about Richardson is that in many respects he’s exactly the sort of person — a popular governor — who was taken seriously as a presidential contender in the very recent past. The list is long and familiar — Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush. The difference is that Richardson is also super-experienced.

In retrospect, however, Bush was less the last of the governor presidents than a transition to the new era in which, to be president, you need to be a famous celebrity. Mayors of New York City are always famous, because the people who run the media live in New York. Hence, Rudy Giuliani is a serious candidate (and even Michael Bloomberg is considered a more serious possibility than he should be). John McCain spent all of 1999, 2000, and 2001 chasing positive press and became famous in the process — so he’s a serious candidate. Barack Obama has an extremely interesting personal story and was one of the only Democratic successes in 2004, so he became famous and now he’s a serious candidate. John Edwards got famous running on a national ticket, so he’s a serious candidate. Hillary Clinton’s husband used to be president (you may have heard), so she’s famous and she’s a serious candidate. Most absurdly, Mitt Romney happened to preside over the Massachusetts gay marriage controversy, thus becoming famous and, therefore, a serious candidate.

‘Cause, you know, real legislative, executive, and administrative experience, coupled with real-world, hard-nosed, successful foreign policy expertise, are all so unserious. 

However, in his first graf, Matt also raises an issue that presents a huge problem for Richardson and his campaign - and it’s one where I think I can shed a little first-hand light:

Since I wanted to write a column on Richardson, I thought I’d look up the speech. So I popped his name into Google looking for his campaign website only to discover that it ranks below both his official site as Governor of New Mexico and his Wikipedia page. This is the sign of a presidential campaign that’s not getting much attention. 

Back before Richardson officially declared - back in the days, a few short weeks ago, when the grass-roots footsoldiers labored tirelessly to build a state-by-state "Draft Richardson" movement - I inadvertently contributed to a dust-up on one of "Draft Bill" blogs.  I didn’t respond at the time for two reasons, both practical ones:  1) At the time, I was on the road for nearly four weeks straight, with inconsistent Internet access and very little time for much besides work; and 2) it’s not polite to create a scene on someone else’s blog.  Guests shouldn’t make a habit of smashing the crcokery in the comments section.

Creating a scene on one’s own blog, however, is a very different thing.  Although it’s much later, I never intended this to go unanswered, and now, I think it’s time to start throwing a few things.

The first "Draft Bill" blog to come to my attention was Washington4Richardson, run by two ops from Washington State named Ken and Emmett, who are great guys.  On  01/03, Ken posted a notice that Murphy Putnam was rumored to be handling Richardson’s media.  Unfortunately, as Ken noted:

1/4/07 - Update: Murphy Putnam’s website is up and running, click on the link above.

Except that it wasn’t.  And two weeks later, it still wasn’t.  (Now, perhaps you could access something with IE; I use Firefox.  But for a national media firm on a presidential campaign, that’s inexcusable.)  Even now, what you see is useless: 

. 

But what’s really inexcusable is Murphy Putnam’s response.  In response to Ken’s post, I posted the following in his comments:

lilith said…

I’m equally unimpressed with their track record. According to CPI, for ‘03-’04, out of 26 candidates and more than $17 mil, their only wins were incumbents and one open seat. For all of the remaining open seats, their candidates lose, and every single challenger lost.

See http://www.public-i.org/consultants/list.aspx?act=conDetail&id=109515

First, if you’re the media firm for a presidential candidate, isn’t your job 1) to get supporters on board, and 2) refrain from alienating the supporters your candidate already has?

That’s what I thought.  Apparently, I was mistaken.  Herewith, Mark Putnam’s response, which I can only describe charitably as pissy:

Mark Putnam said…

Lilith,

You shouldn’t believe everything you read online.

1) In 2004, we produced the media for challenger John Barrow’s upset win over Rep. Max Burns in Georgia’s 12th District, one of only two Democratic upsets in 2004. John Barrow, for whatever reason, does not appear on the Public-I list of our clients, which is an indicator of the site’s reliability.

There were five Democratic incumbents defeated that year, mostly in Texas thanks to Tom DeLay’s redistricting plan. 2004 was not a good year for Democratic congressional candidates across the country. After 2006, it’s easy to think that Republican incumbents are easily defeated, but that was not the case in 2004. You can go to this CNN website to see for yourself:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/house/full.list/

2) There are many errors and misrepresentations in the Public-I website that you source, not the least of which is that John Barrow is left off the list of our clients. By using the word "received," the Public-I website leaves the impression that our firm’s compensation was over $17 million in 2003-2004, which is laughable. Ask Rep. Carson if he paid us over $4 million. He didn’t pay us anything even remotely in that universe. Those dollar amounts include media buys and production expenses (at no markup, by the way) that were channeled through our firm.

3) Of the losing challenger races you refer to in your post, some of them never got on the air in any serious fashion or were facing steep uphill battles from the outset. Again, it was a difficult year for Democrats to defeat incumbent Republicans — only two succeeded, one of which was our client.

4) In 2004, we won an open seat special election in one of the most Republican states in the country — South Dakota — with Rep. Herseth’s two-point victory over Larry Diedrich. Her "incumbent" victory cited on the Public-I website was a few months later, when she faced Diedrich again and widened her margin of victory.

In fact, I’d put our "red state" winning record up against anyone, including winning two gubernatorial campaigns in 2002 (TN and OK), another year in which Republicans dominated. One of which, Governor Henry, was a long-shot when he began the campaign. He defeated Steve Largent in what the New York Times called one of 2004’s biggest upsets.

So Lilith, before you cast aspersions, you should really research the whole record.

With regards,

- Mark Putnam

Okay, let’s unpack this, shall we?

First of all, what’s with the condescending opener?  I’ve been on the Web longer than the vast majority of people - at 15+ years, possibly longer than Putnam himself.  As a lawyer, policy and communications consultant, writer, editor, researcher, and pol op who has worked all over the country (including inside the much-vaunted Beltway), I’ve also got a far better grip on what sources are reliable than the average person.  But Putname first assumes that I must be some know-nothing hick, and secondarily assumes that he can talk to me as such.

Second, I really can’t think of a single reason why I would trust CNN’s reporting over CPI’s.  Over the years, I’ve known some of the folks at CPI, and I know their overall track record.  I’d put their data up against that of an entity that employs the likes of Wolf Blitzer and Glenn Beck any day of the week.  Yes, presumably it was a mistake to omit Barrow.  However, one omission doesn’t obviate the rest of the data - nor, in my view, does it particularly alter the track record.

Third, the money:  What exactly does "channeled through our firm" mean?  What it sounds like is what happens regularly in my experience:  The media firm takes care of all media, and the candidate pays for such.  The fact that they allegedly charged "no markup" for "media buys and production expenses" may mean that they made no profit on it, but it doesn’t follow that they weren’t paid.  Which also raises the question as to why there was no markup - if a media firm is good at its job, presumably its candidates are going to compensate them for media buys and production expenses, rather than getting them at cost.

Fourth:  This "steep uphill battles" business:  So frickin’ what?  That’s what media firms are paid to surmount.  I don’t deny that any Dem in Texas was going to face a steep uphill battle, but when you have a track record of loss after loss, you better be prepared to defend it on some basis other than that.

Fifth . . . oh, the hell with fifth.  It’s 3 AM, and I have to get ready to hit the road again, and I think the laundry list so far more than speaks for itself.  I will, however, note the following:

So Lilith, before you cast aspersions, you should really research the whole record.

Besides the missing comma after "So," this statement fails on so many levels that it’s almost - almost - funny.  "Casting aspersions?"  Is that what I was doing?  Funny, I thought I was making a legitimate point about inadequacies in the record, current online availability, or both, of a firm that supposedly makes its living as the expert in these matters - and that, as a supposed player in the big leagues, ought not to be quite such a hothouse flower about a little skepticism. 

And "research the whole record?"  I used a reputable source that is normally known for its accuracy, Putnam’s alleged personal experiences notwithstanding.  I wold have had zero reason to go to a sub-page on CNN’s Web site.  And frankly, if Murphy Putnam had done its job properly, its Web site would’ve been up, running, and flogging its "successes" for all it was worth.

And finally, that sneer of condescension again.  Way to support your client, Mark - by pissing off the grass-roots supporters before the campaign’s even launched.  I won’t stop backing Richardson simply because one of his media guys behaved like a putz, but I must admit that it does make me question his judgment a bit in choosing these guys.  And those questions are getting a whole lot louder and more insistent with every day that goes by that they can’t get Bill’s message out. 

Sure, the MSM are partly to blame.  But Murphy Putnam needs to step up - now.  And if they can’t, Bill needs to find someone who can.

I saw late Friday night that the A.P.’s Nedra Pickler was reporting that Bill would announce today.  Of course, La Pickler as the source didn’t inspire the sort of confidence I normally might have felt.

So I was gratified to awaken this morning to the following headline in the "Braeking News" section of the Santa Fe New Mexican:

Over the last two weeks, I’ve had a fairly substantial number of people ask me whether he’s running - and if so, when he’s going to announce.  I’ve told them the same thing I tell everyone else:  No, I’m not part of his inner circle; I’m not even at its fringes.  No, I have no "inside info," just the evidence of my own eyes and ears and my own take on his personality.  And with all those disclaimers, yes, I’m sure he’s running, and I think he’ll announce within [X] period.

Damn, I’m good!

Actually, a lot of state pols, flacks, and ops - including many who are far more in the loop than I - have believed this for a long time.   But I have to say that I truly believe one of the reasons that he made the decision to go for it is because of the massive grass-roots "Draft Bill" movement that has sprung up around the country.  Washington4Richardson is the first that came to my attention, and courtesy of Ken and Emmett, I learned of a whole country’s worth of "Draft Bill" sites.  They’re all blogrolled at right; if you are (or think you might become) a Richardson backer, go show ‘em some love and thank ‘em for everything they’re doing.  (And if you run a site that I’ve missed, leave me a note in the comments; I’ll get you blogrolled.)  Special thanks, though, are due to Ken and Emmett, who have done an incredible job of popularizing this effort beyond their home state.  Looks like the focus of our February Meetup’s changed a bit, huh, guys?