Michael Hanscom

Lane and Tina have both posted their impressions of the caucus session for their corner of Iowa, on Eat Your Vegetables and Kickass Sociology, respectively. Some interesting comments, especially as I’m planning on hitting the local precinct caucus for my area of Seattle in early February. Apparently it was all a lot more chaotic and a lot less inspiring than either of them had hoped for.

From Lane:

Overall, i’m not a fan of the caucus system. First problem is that it is so open to corruption and influence. Note the count totals. There were 533 people eligible to vote but the first round had just 519 votes cast. The second round, mysteriously had 535 votes. Likely just bad counting, but it’s also two more people than were eligible to vote and i saw at least 10 people head home after the first round.

[…]

I’m glad we got to experience it. After hearing so much about the Iowa caucuses, it was great to be part of one, registering people, observing, and shaking my head at this weird brand of Iowa democracy – a democracy of those who are the most organized and aggressive.

And from Tina:

The opportunity for corruption in this process is enormous. Nobody could hear what was going on, the campaign leaders are striking deals with each other, but no one knows what the deals are. The campaign leaders are in charge of counting their own constituents. The rest of the people are sitting or standing around like sheep while all of this goes on around them. If they move, perhaps to talk with someone over from another campaign, they might not get counted. It was nowhere near the robust, townhall meeting exchange of views that I was hoping for. And it took forever – over 4 hours (not counting the platform stuff that makes up the 2nd half of the caucus). I was exhausted by the end of it.

In sum, Iowa Caucus = Political Circus. I didn’t witness any advantage over a ballot-based primary, and saw lots of disadvantages. How disappointing.

Hopefully things here in Washington will be a little more organized and less exasperating than what they went through. Never having done the caucus thing before (Alaska either doesn’t have caucuses, or I wasn’t interested enough to know about them when I lived there), it’ll be an entirely new thing for me. I’ll see what I think of it all come Feb. 7th.

iTunes: “MTV Grind Vol. 1 (full mix)” by Various Artists from the album MTV Grind Vol. 1 (full mix) (1997, 55:19).

There’s a lot of good food for thought in the comment thread for this Daily Kos post-Iowa look at the Dem contenders. Some good discussion on whether Dean has suffered as bad of a blow as it may seem, and if so, then who might be the best person to pick up the nomination.

Most people that aren’t solidly entrenched in Dean‘s camp seem to be leaning towards either Kerry or Edwards — not terribly surprising, as they got the top two spots in the Iowa caucuses — with a few leaning towards Clark.

For myself — well, at least for the moment, Dean is still my favorite of the bunch. Kerry has never particularly impressed me (he comes off as too much of a “traditional politician”, Clark I think would make a great VP or cabinet member (his military background strikes me as better fitting to a supporting role), and Edwards I just don’t know much about.

Any supporters of Kerry, Edwards, or Clark want to present a case why I should look more seriously at their campaign? I’m curious.

[Update:]{.underline}

Essentially the same question is being asked on Daily Kos — and apparently generating a good amount of answers. Worth looking into.

iTunes: “Bostich” by Yello from the album Essential (1980, 4:36).

I was only able to watch the first few minutes of the State of the Union tonight before customers came in and I had to actually work for my paycheck (such a sorry state of affairs, really). I did, however, get one laugh out of what I saw.

I’m used to the apparently mandatory applause after every sentence (though whether they’re applauding what was said, or the fact that he managed to get through one more sentence without stumbling, I’m not sure about). I was quite pleasantly surprised tonight when after mentioning that the Patriot Act expires in the near future, the Democratic portion of Congress interrupted Bush’s speech at that point to start applauding.

Not only do I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but seeing Bush’s annoyance as he turned toward the applauding people and shook his head (“No, no, that’s not where you’re supposed to clap! You missed your cue!”) was priceless.

I’ll get to go over the transcript of the speech and hopefully catch an archived webcast after I get home tonight. Until then, though, I’ll just carry that moment around in my head for the rest of the evening.

Highly recommended reading: The American Prospect’s America as a One-Party State.

America has had periods of single-party dominance before. It happened under FDR’s New Deal, in the Republican 1920s and in the early 19th-century “Era of Good Feeling.” But if President Bush is re-elected, we will be close to a tipping point of fundamental change in the political system itself. The United States could become a nation in which the dominant party rules for a prolonged period, marginalizes a token opposition and is extremely difficult to dislodge because democracy itself is rigged. This would be unprecedented in U.S. history.

iTunes: “Liar (1991)” by Queen from the album Queen (1973, 6:26).