Letting Go: A Political Counter-Tradition
Some late comments inspired by, but not directly responsive to, Amanda Marcotte's initial post here:
The history of American presidential campaigns from the 1960s to the present has been one of ever-tighter control – the candidate, the process, the message have to be planned out, and the gameplan executed with total discipline. From the 1950s when the candidates barely knew what was going on among the wheeler-dealers who would decide their fate, through the chaotic haze of the “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail” years to the tighter discipline of Carter, then Reagan, and reaching its apotheosis in Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, the movement has been toward politics that leaves nothing to chance, where everything that can be known about every voter is known, where there are no surprises and no grand gambles.
The iconic political figure is the man (sometimes a woman) with a phone on each ear, taking in information and screaming directives, usually in a profane stream which is fortunately not preserved in a Googleable cache.
Such campaigns have to do everything for themselves, because everything must be managed. External organizations, backers, funders, etc. are of value only to the extent that their energy or money or votes can be food for the campaign machine, used by the campaign to execute its plan.
In a politics that is all about discipline, the “gaffe” -- which is by definition a lapse of discipline – is everything, and campaigns live to catch the other side in a gaffe and to avoid the slip themselves. Such a politics is uninspiring and unengaging, and ultimately hugely narrows the range of choices and options available in the political arena. Because it seeks to limit politics to that which can be managed, it is inevitably a smaller, narrower politics.
In this decade, though, a counter-tradition has begun to emerge, fueled in part by the internet but in part by the inherent limits of the tight-discipline model: Letting Go. Self-organized politics, in which some large portion of the campaign is allowed to exist, even encouraged to exist, outside of the control of the campaign itself. Blogs are a huge part of it, but they are not all of it.
Letting Go takes a lot of daring, given the culture of politics as discipline. It's like going to a Japanese restaurant and eating whatever you're served. Not everyone can do that. But the rewards are great, not just for the campaign itself, but for the political culture that will develop over time as a result of a more open, daring, and larger politics.
Any campaign that devotes a lot of energy to field organizing is to some extent Letting Go, because field is out there, doing its thing, and you can't fully control it, the way you control your ads, your ad buys, your speeches, and even the press. Paul Wellstone's campaigns Let Go, and it paid off. I witnessed the beginnings of Letting Go on the internet in the Bradley campaign of 2000 – masterminded by Lynn Reed, a pioneer of internet politics -- which distributed tools to let people put up their own websites and organize their own volunteer networks – techniques that were fully realized four years later in the Dean campaign. The ultimate Letting Go campaign was Ned Lamont's. That involved blogs but also hordes of volunteers who largely created the campaign on their own. Consider for example the “Kiss Float,” the giant paper-mache mockup of Lieberman and Bush playing tonsil-hockey, which dogged Lieberman through the primary campaign – no campaign could ever decide to make the “Kiss Float.” Even if someone came up with the idea, the reasons not to do it would always outweigh the case for doing it. I have to say, I found it amazing that for all the blogs, as well as outside organizations, that considered themselves allies of that campaign, for all the potential embarrassment, the only actually regrettable move was Jane Hamsher's caricature of Lieberman in blackface, which the campaign could legitimately say it had nothing to do with. The entire Lieberman campaign at the end of that primary was devoted to searching every blog, no matter how osbscure, to find that “gaffe,” and with that one exception, the best they could come up with were some sarcastic comments on a thread somewhere. That suggests to me that the benefits of Letting Go, which were enough to win a primary against an incumbent Senator who started the year with very high approval within his own party, far outweighed the one trivial controversy that resulted.
But the tradition of tight campaign control and the counter-tradition of Letting Go grind against each other and create awkward conflicts. The model of politics that involves the endless hunt for gaffes, the model rewarded and perpetuated by The Washington Post, can find plenty of material in the open field of the new politics. Amanda's experience is one example: Yes, things she wrote in the past were taken out of context – but taking things out of context is the whole game. Everything comes down to fights about things taken out of context.
But there is also tension between the tight control model and the Letting Go model of politics that is embodied in the hiring of Marcotte and McEwen itself. The Edwards campaign wasn't Letting Go in hiring two prominent and brilliant bloggers; they were trying to bring the blog-spirit into the controlled space of the campaign. I suspect they saw blogs in a way similar to the Washington Post's description yesterday: “bloggers, trial lawyers and labor leaders, the trifecta of Democratic interest groups.” A campaign needs a high-profile labor supporter, a link to the politically active trial lawyer donors (not a problem for Edwards) and a high-profile link to the lefty bloggers.
But that's wrong, and should be resisted fiercely. “Bloggers” are not an interest group; as a group they have no common “interest” except perhaps a love of the First Amendment. What they are, in politics, is one component – and one component only – of an alternative way of doing business, one that has brings with it all sorts of new possibilities. The bloggers' voice can be vulgar, can be fierce, can be wonky (there is a level of serious policy development going on right now here, at TAPPED and elsewhere that will be incredibly useful to campaigns), can be satirical, can be critical of its own favored candidates. But that voice cannot be and should not be the voice of the campaign itself. The candidates who will take advantage of the new politics are those who can let go and live with those voices on the outside, whether bloggers or field organizers.
For all of the breast-beating about American Entrepreneurial Spirit, politics is the ultimate "risk averse" enterprise now that it is strictly an investment scheme for profit.
Dump the FCC rules, provide access through mandated free media time. The perversion of language and law that equates money and free speech has created this "Ponzi" scheme, with the voters being the last suckers investors to get in.....
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
February 22, 2007 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bloggers' voice can be vulgar, can be fierce, can be wonky (there is a level of serious policy development going on right now here, at TAPPED and elsewhere that will be incredibly useful to campaigns), can be satirical, can be critical of its own favored candidates. But that voice cannot be and should not be the voice of the campaign itself. The candidates who will take advantage of the new politics are those who can let go and live with those voices on the outside, whether bloggers or field organizers.
This is all of Life, is it not?
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
February 22, 2007 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You talk about "letting go" as purely a style issue. I would argue that that's the same problem our trivial politics already have, in different clothing. The real "letting go" is breaking with the orthodoxies of your base and taking on one of your own party's sacred cows. The first Democrat to back school choice and vouchers, for instance, could change our politics for a generation. But no one dares do that, because their money would dry up the week after.
It's not about talking potty-mouth. It's about not being a prisoner of your base, on either side. Poll-driven candidates hug the shoreline of their base and dare not disturb it; they compete in the tiny middle ground on the indefinables of likability. The real visionaries know when to shaft their base and strike out for uncharted territory. The last one of those we had was probably Nixon.
February 22, 2007 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been reading John Kenneth Galbraith's biography. His relentlessly dry wit keeps you laughing and moving through 600 pages.
It supplies much evidence that there isn't that much new under the sun.
One thing that really struck me was the description of the Adlai Stevenson campaign in '52. It's an amazingly apt analogue to the Kerry campaign of '04. The dynamics of GOP bellicosity and Dem attempts to prove they aren't 'soft' haven't changed a wit in 50 years.
Galbraith describes his attempts, along with Arthur Schlesinger, to, you know, actually delineate positions in speeches, while Stevenson seemed to want euphony and lyricism for it's own sake. Stevenson was worried about appearing too 'left' by having Galbraith on board, and he called his speech writers 'advisers - it really smacked of Gore being criticized for hiring the 'earth tone' image adviser 2000.
Galbraith worked for Kennedy in '60, and he notes that the tendency to speak in generalized, meaningless terms had already crystalized by then. Kennedy always talked about "getting this country moving again." What does that mean?
February 22, 2007 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Kennedy always talked about "getting this country moving again." What does that mean?"
About as much as "The Audacity of Hope."
I'm surprised if Galbraith doesn't mention Tom Dewey's '48 campaign-- well, not surprised that Galbraith focuses on things he was involved with-- because Dewey was generally thought to have blown a shoo-in race by being so completely vaporous in his speeches.
Good thing they fixed that, eh?
February 22, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
message deleted-- posted in wrong spot
February 22, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Basically, whatever the main post is, you go off an a tangent to bash Democrats.
February 22, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me but, no offense to the writer, have any of our featured guests over the past couple of days who've written in connection with Amandagate offered us anything that we the collective TPM posters have not already discussed ad nauseum?
C'mon guys and gals, tell us something we don't know!
February 22, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
bslev: "C'mon guys and gals, tell us something we don't know!" That's the problem: the kind of people who read and comment here are endlessly fascinated by blogging. It alone may mean that there's much to be gained by using the Internet, as Dean first did, to organize, mobilize, and raise money; but nothing to be gained by hiring bloggers.
That is, most people won't recognize what that is and who these guys are, and they won't care. That just leaves the bloggosphere, which can only be alienated, as appears here. The little manufactured scandal will be forgotten soon evey on the right, and the bulk of the public beyond that weren't aware of it to begin with -- nothing like Swift Boating or even the current little flap over, of all things, what a guy in Hollywood thinks. But TPM readers will remember and hold a grudge against Edwards for it. Oh, well.
Mark is right that it goes back to a tension between organization and assembling a wide base of active, motivated supporters. The problem and paradox is that by hiring bloggers, one wants the latter but also wants them to serve as the former. Surely every organization has a staffer who wrote something inane on his or her MySpace page, but then such a person isn't being hired for his or her visibility on MySpace.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
February 22, 2007 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's called discussion. It involves bringing up alternate points to prompt further discussion. It's become very rare here, and has become quite extinct in other parts of the Internet.
As a taxpayer in Cook County, Illinois with kids of necessity in private school, well, Democrats who don't dare break ranks with the machine are frequently on my mind, yes. But to your point, school choice is only one example, and there are obviously issues on the right and the Republican side which would be the equivalent. The difference is, it's fairly easy to think of ways in which the leading GOP candidates at this (verrrrry early) point break ranks with their base-- and certainly with the current president. Giuliani on gun control and abortion, McCain on campaign finance and immigration, Romney being for abortion before he was against it. Can you name any way in which any major Democratic candidate has significantly broken the mold yet?
Thanks for the 1 rating, I gave your deep insight a 5.
February 22, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Treating the bloggers as if they were an interest group
Hey, you know, that's right. Clinton's taken a different tack--trying to create an entirely false online persona, with a completely filtered web log.
That may explain why vetting didn't happen or was incomplete--it was seen as checking off a special interest box. In fact, it was something of a coup in beginning--it looked like a real commitment to the blogosphere.
So they don't get it, yet. Penetrating Presidential politics is the hardest of all, so it's not surprising.
The problem they're going to all face (and the reason Dean took off) is that the blogosphere very sensitive to inauthenticity. Presidential campaigns, on the other hand, strive to remove all authenticity in order to control the message.
But, hey, Lamont got it. Tester gets it--the authenticity part if not the blogger part. Webb gets it. Feingold's always gotten it.
It's only a matter of time before the need for authenticity makes it way into presidential politics. Oh, and one thing about Lamont and Dean--they didn't control what took place. From what I've read he and Trippi found themselves on a tiger and held on for dear life. Tom Swan knew what he was doing, but that also meant relinquishing a lot of message control. No problem for him--the campaign was a 100-1 shot, and wouldn't have worked if Lieberman had not been so incredibly incompetent in the primary.
In fact, you could argue that the mistake the campaign made was not dancing with who brung 'em, when they listened to the Dem leadership's promises to talk Lieberman down.
Lotsa time to go. And you have seen Obama's MySpace numbers......
February 22, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't blame me, I voted for Tony Pereica! Forest Claypool is commisioner of my district in the NW side (Portage Park) and I dragged my wife to the primary to vote for him, and I think she ended up cancelling my vote by accidentally punching Stroger.
The shameless nepotism displayed by him, and Beavers (hey, my daughter would be great for my job) along with the interim Board president's retiring on a president's pension after serving their only a few months, it serves to remind you why one party rule is rapacious, vamipiric and oppressive.
The so called 'non partisan' elections have only served to further reinforce incumbent inevitability, because a bunch of Democrats run against the head of the party in the city - how can they pillory the guy that
1. they will surely lose to
2. They will have to come crawling back to after they lose.
Liberalism isn't blind loyalty. Parties are about power, not principles and we should never confuse the two.
February 22, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
In line with what I was saying about how self-directed the blog community can get, can I just note here that we're thus mimicking the media game of focusing on the horse race in way I find truly dissatisfying and damaging. All these posts and comments on blogs, on Hillary vs Obama over so little. And not one post on, say, the British anti-surge or the hypocrisy of the Bushie response that it means things are going well, as if they could have it both ways, both urgently needing a surge and welcoming withdrawal. Even Edwards on health care (or the follow-up today on a poll related to health care) seems mostly reserved for those routine "Election Central" news items.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
February 22, 2007 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark, I understand what you are saying about Amanda and Melissa, but I wonder what you think of the actual Edwards blog. The way that it's set up is very similar to DailyKos, where anyone can post anything about the candidate, rivals, or issues. That is about as Letting Go as you can get.
February 22, 2007 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another tidbit on the Stevenson campaign. He and Eisenhower were the first to use television ads. (Random trivia: Eisenhower was also the last president to fun a "whistle stop" campaign, where he gave speeches from the caboose of a train.) Eisenhower's campaign produced a series of 20 second spots that ran in a variety of places throughout primetime. They were little dialogues or stories, involving the candidate and some "regular people." Stevenson's campaign, on the other hand, purchased airtime in 30 minute blocks, from 10:30 -11pm eastern. And Stevenson gave a speech during that time.
With that context, it's no wonder that Richard Hofstadter opened his Anti-Intellectualism in American Life with a discussion of the '52 campaign and election!
February 22, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Mark doesn't happen to find convenient is the fact that we are in this horrendous state of affairs, the war, the environmental crisis, the dire poverty, the health care crisis, because a political ideology decided to conduct an experiment, to actually rationalize allowing a far right wing candidate take office and to help facilitate that outcome.
The thing of this is, they felt protected from having to share in the suffering, the sacrifice. They like to holler and complain about the results, and attempt to lay the blame at others instead of seeking to take responsibility for their part.
Mark's rationale is to blame the process, and to demand that we should all embrace the politics of hatred and discrimination and whatever agenda is promoted by whatever faction of the blogosphere wishes to throw. That respect, tolerance and a standing up against bigotry and prejudice is just too "controlling". Sorry, but that is anti-American, it's dicriminatory and just plain wrong. It's also a sign of a willingness to ignore the suffering of the most powerless.
However, if Mark wants to open himself up to a similar risk, in the interest of proving his point, I'm sure we'd all love it if he would for example, throw caution to the wind. Dare to give away his income and resources, dare to quit his day job. Dare to go and try and exist out there on the street and deal with the type of inhumanity you don't seem to mind heaping on the shoulders of others.
Then talk to us about what we should dare to do.
February 22, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Giuliani on gun control and abortion, McCain on campaign finance and immigration, Romney being for abortion before he was against it.
I don't see your point. These are all positions that they're going to need to rescind prior viewpoints to get them through the GOP primary process.
They aren't all "breaking ranks" -- they're backtracking.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 22, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The entire Lieberman campaign at the end of that primary was devoted to searching every blog, no matter how osbscure, to find that “gaffe,” and with that one exception, the best they could come up with were some sarcastic comments on a thread somewhere.
Perhaps Bill Donohue could have given some pointers?
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 22, 2007 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark's rationale is to blame the process, and to demand that we should all embrace the politics of hatred and discrimination and whatever agenda is promoted by whatever faction of the blogosphere wishes to throw. That respect, tolerance and a standing up against bigotry and prejudice is just too "controlling".
Yes, that is exactly what Mark said.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 22, 2007 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the nazi style holocaust jokes of that Lamont campaign blogger, the one from the HuffPo?
I think you made the only pointer needed.. it's just another citation of the hatred and intolerance, the cruelty of the leftist extreme.
I think it's also an example of the intelligence and overall decency of the American people, because they didn't fall for it when the nutroots ran Dean, they didn't fall for it when the nutroots ran Lamont, and they won't fall for it at any time in the future. :)
February 22, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are we forgetting the fabulous Dick Tuck who, posing as a railroad employee, signalled a train to pull out of the station while Richard Milhous Nixon was still giving his speech from the rear car?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,907660-2,00.html (a great article)
February 22, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or, it was just a joke.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 22, 2007 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, Mary -- why are you here? To simply call people leftists and nazis?
What you do here is lecture. What everyone else attempts to do is dialog. There's a big difference.
The thing of it is, in a few instances lately, I've actually read some pretty damn coherent and interesting points from you. In between, you know, the "pez head" and "nazis" and all that.
You could actually bring something to the discourse here. But, I don't know what it is...maybe you're too angry, or something. But your tone is offensive and confrontational, and completely dismissive of any point of view that's not your own.
You don't hide your contempt for everyone else here, and that's why I just don't get what you're doing...?
Anyway, I'll go back to blogging, and you can, predictably, go back to calling me some name for saying what I'm saying.
You might want to think about it, though.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 22, 2007 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think my favorite Tuck stunt was hiring 24 very pregnant women to stand outside the Republican convention, wearing sashes with RMN's slogan, "Nixon's the One!"
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 22, 2007 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but dialog isn't defined by labeling people who disagree with your fascistic rationales, trolls, or the attempt to censor their statements by exploiting the karma rating system.
You can't have it both ways.. but I'm sure you feel the need to try and crack the whip, even in the extremely limited forum you have available to you.. the anonymous atmosphere of the internet that allows moral cowards like yourself to act like you have the brass.
I can laugh because I know your type. I recorded a green party politician from RI back in 2000, and handed copies of the tape out in the communities he used to believe he could put one over on... thinking they'd vote for him, all the while he believed those people "needed to be forced off their lazy asses and into the movement". He sure got one hell of a surprise when he started going door to door in that same community. He knew after that that he had no credibility any more.
I've been taking screen caps of the comments and articles from the fascistic, fundamentalist left here for the past few days. I'm printing them out and I'm distributing them into the true grassroots community all across the country.. how's that activism for you?
The democratic party doesn't need to be redefined, we know what that crap was all about, an attempt by a bunch of low life elites who want to feel free to hate and discriminate.
Just like Ho Dean, you've screamed, and it's all over now.
We're reclaiming the democratic party, it's the only party that cares about the most important issues facing the American people. You all want to co-opt something, go join in with the right wing, because that is your true ideological match.
February 22, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very astute analysis of the incident. Edwards might have been better off either sticking with total control or 'letting go', but trying to maintain a controlled campaign while treating 'letting go' as just another constituency was really the worst of both worlds.
(That said, we're still a year out from the first primary. Edwards (or other candidates) may yet learn, may yet become less risk-averse.)
February 22, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet it bothers you when your mindset is compared, rather accurately, to that of the nazis...
You are pathetic.
February 22, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that you're speaking of a hypothetical in the past tense, I don't think the confusion is at my end.
I very much doubt that, for instance, McCain will ever come out against McCain-Feingold. "I sponsored it before I voted against it?"
February 22, 2007 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But hey, let's be fair and see what else Mary in RI has to say:
Dialog isn't defined by labeling. Savor the irony.
February 22, 2007 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't be the only person who's noticed that all the candidates who allegedly "let go" also lost. Can I?
In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace
The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer
February 22, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
.> I can't be the only person who's noticed
> that all the candidates who allegedly
> "let go" also lost. Can I?
Sure. As long as you also note that the majority of Dem candidates who "held tight" also lost.
The problem is that liberals in general, and the Democrats in particular, do not have anything to match the Radical Right's control over the majority of the traditional media and its feed sources. The Radicals either outright own or make common cause with the owners of most of the media. The Dems can't match this because (a) they don't have the money (b) the media is no longer for sale.
So, how to fight back? The answer is to choose a ground and method that is to your advantage, not to play on the Radicals' field. Will it work? I don't know, but I am pretty sure 2006 was not won by standard DC insider tactics.
sPh
February 22, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
A minority of one is still greater than none at all.
2006 was won by the Iraq war and Bush's astonishing incompetence. Neither is a permanent fixture of the landscape, but the Democrats as the butt of all jokes political seems to be. I don't see how "letting go" is going to change that.
In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace
The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer
February 22, 2007 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
...sigh...I tried. Really, I tried.
So, again, why exactly are you here?
And, please, why are we both posting in an "anonymous forum," but I'm the moral coward and you're not?
Just the fact that you believe this is an "anonymous forum" tells me you really just don't get what's happening in the blogosphere. I don't think it's anonymous at all...I know lots of people here. You don't, and you don't want to. You have no use for us fascists; you find us contemptable.
Why are you here?
What do you add to the discourse and community of TPM Cafe?
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 22, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: dancing iwth the ones who brung them. The bloggers aren't the ones that brung them.. that might be the hook, line and sinker that Kos or whomever else sold you.. but it's simply not the case.
Also, re: being sensitive to authenticity.. sorry, but that one had me rolling off the couch laughing big time. The thing is, if the say, blogosphere actually allowed free and open debate, ie didn't rationalize censorship, then thoes who were attempting to raise questions about Dean's lousy record as governor of Vermont, would have been able to do so, respectfully, and to have the subject and the evidence dicussed, so as to make rational and informed decisions. But as things stood, the blogosphere being more like the church of bullshit, all dogma and don't dare question it.. well, authenticity isn't something it can lay claim to having.. sorry, but that's the truth.
The blogosphere, and that part of it that is leftist or progressive is a rather miniscule portion of those who voted for democrats. The rationale that the blogosphere should have a controlling interest in the democratic party is not only anti-democratic, it's hypocritical, and it ain't never gonna happen.
The myth that say, the Joe Trippis and the Kos's can control the party was exposed for the joke that it was last November.
So it's basically up to the lot of you to decide, do you want to join in a true grassroots movement, or delude yourself into believeing that you are some elite group that is an entity unto itself? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but frankly the Kossack or Deanocrat mindset is one of the most ludicrous delusions I've ever seen. Frankly, it makes blue collar workers who rationalized voting for Bush look alot brighter by comparison.. because they could come to their senses.
What your lot have been sold on, is the sort of idiocy that renders one so bigheaded and self centered, that returning to earth becomes less likely as time goes on.
February 22, 2007 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
WaPo
It's also likely that he will not apply for federal funding under FECA.
February 23, 2007 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mary, don't you see?
When you compare me, or any of us here, to Nazis, the effect is, you come out looking like a joke.
No one takes you seriously.
And then you wonder about troll ratings, and censorship. You get troll rated because of your contempt and disrepect for the rest of the community here.
It's not us -- it's you.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 23, 2007 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another aspect of the idea of their being not much new under the political sun that I should have mentioned given the Geffen/Billary/'Bama story in reference to Galbraith's bio:
He speaks in some detail about the need for Democrats to travel to the west coast (logistics were more limiting then - no jet liners) to hold fundraisers with producers.
"This they called 'Hollywood money.'" said Galbraith.
February 23, 2007 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, MaryfromRI,
Have a bowl of soup, drink some green tea and breath...breath.
If this isn't an egalitarian enough forum, what would be?
Is TPM really right wing?
February 23, 2007 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink