So I woke up this morning, checked my email, saw the letter from Hillary, felt sad for about 2 1/2 seconds, and then Laurie Anderson's phase-shifted cartoon voice came into my head, going:

    "O-kay. I can cope. I can adapt."

Now that I've had my 2 1/2 seconds of grieving, we can get on with our work. Of course I have a few words of advice for our nominee, as I'm sure doesn't surprise you. Only advice, mind you - I know some of you are sensitive about being told what to do. So....

May I respectfully suggest choosing Hillary now. Like by Saturday. Two months before the convention. Everyone's been talking about how important it is to have everything settled, to have the party healed, to be unified. I've had my 2 1/2 seconds and feel refreshed and ready to go. I don't know how you all are doing. Need more time? Will Sunday do? I'm a patient chimp, no problem.

I'll address a few points that may be bothering you. I've said them before, but in a consolation post maybe they'll take on a new light.

First, the Big Dog? Bill? Don't worry about him, he's a big lovable goof when he's floating around Davos trying to save the world. His political days are over, everyone knows that - whether it was his heart surgery or age, whatever. Forget the UN, but he'll be too busy running around the world to interfere in the White House, since Second Ladies aren't exactly the most sought after news stories. Plus, he likes campaigning, not sitting around the house (he gets in trouble when he has too little to do, you'll be reminding yourselves, so yes, back on the speech circuit he goes). And you'll see Bill in a whole different light when he's picking on McCain. And the press will too.

Second, Hillary sabotaging Barack? Come on, that's one for the tabloids. What does it gain her? She's going for the nomination in 2012, back on the trail in 2010? Just as soon as she finishes hammering nails into her toes. She's already old enough for this line of work, and there's more promise in this position, provided it's not just decorative, to keep her busy and happy.

Third, she'll want to be co-President? What exactly does that mean? There's only one person who signs bills, one person who gives the State of the Union address. Much of what a president does is delegated (how did W rack up all those frequent flier miles to Crawford?). And in the shape government's in, there's enough work for 10 co-presidents. But as people have been saying for months, it's not like Hillary was in the White House for 8 years directing every detail, or even that Bill followed every piece of political advice she gave in that time. So she already knows the limitations - First Lady or VP, damn close to the top, but not #1 yourself.

Fourth, those negative campaign comments? They go away in a heartbeat. That inexperience thing? Barack and Hillary will be there in the White House, working it out - she'll know who to call if he doesn't, together they have the judgment and the experience. The ideas guy and the details gal. Isn't that what she implied with the whole MLK/LBJ flare-up? You don't have to believe it yourself, but in terms of smacking down McCain, it works. We'll be double- and triple-checking CIA reports and being appropriately skeptical about foreign military adventures, while McCain will be repeating Mission Accomplished, Surge and 100 More Years. Hillary can spearhead diplomatic initiatives before they rise to the presidential level, laying the proper groundwork to ensure "negotiate without pre-conditions" is a good idea.

And I've flacked this site a number of times, but it's worth looking at thehillaryiknow.com in this context. Because I few years ago I heard Hillary mention, "women make lists" and it stuck with me. They're organized in the way that they remember birthdays and weddings, who wears what size, when the dental appointment is, which spices are almost out in the cupboard, even while juggling a full work load. People ask Hillary for stuff and she gets back to them. She remembers. This kind of attention to detail can be really valuable in a White House juggling priorities and often moving from crisis to crisis. And she's much more personable than she's been given credit for.

Anyway, that's probably enough to mull over in your jubilation. For some I'm sure this would be a bitter pill to swallow, but I used to think the same about coffee and now I'm hooked. Congratulations, Barack Obama, and enjoy your party. The Claret's on me.

I came across a picture today at a blog few of you would like. Rosa Parks, not following the rules. Being disobedient. I was going to chuckle and keep going - too partisan. But then the metaphor and irony stuck with me a bit more, expanded in my head.

There's Butch Cassidy saying,  "First thing's, we gotta discuss the rules." "But Butch, there's never been no rules before!" Kick. Scream. Drop. "Right. There are no rules". This is classic America. We may have rules, but our history is based on bending rules, getting the most out of them you might say. "Think Different". I've worked around the world under a lot of rules. And the Americans were out front in being willing to break the rules to get things done - written rules or informed rules in our heads. And also out in front in helping complete strangers.

Some of us know about the horrors of World War I, where bright generals sent wave after wave of tender soldiers across the lines to be cut up like so much dog meat. Following the accepted rules of warfare, not questioning authority or the new conditions in the field. Americans invented modern warfare in the Civil War, and with our quick response in the field, our tying in new management techniques in with improved logistics, we're easily the best in the world. If people play be the rules. But if the rules are pushed a bit, homemade bombs in the road, suicide bombers, war carried out through public opinion and the media, hijacked planes flown into buildings, we quickly come to the limit of rules, replaced by the marketplace of ideas.

How much of the malfeasance of the last 8 years was abetted by people following the rules, while the other guys weren't? Take it back farther - the entire history of Whitewater, Florida 2000 and in California putting Schwarzenegger in office was formed around taking the rules and pushing them until they sagged. Obama got into office the first time by challenging the signatures of his 3 opponents - he ended up running unopposed. Just following the rules.

This is the way America works. Read "Blood Meridian" to get a more accurate feel of the Mexican Wars. Read a high school text to have it smoothed over for general consumption.

I saw an interesting analysis of America's passive-aggressive nature as viewed through Tom and Jerry - the image of being ultimately restrained until finally provoked into using overwhelming force. Only the framework draws the opponent in, is set up in advance to give us the moral excuse - "we were just defending ourselves". Nowhere is that self-serving dishonest narrative more obvious than in our history in Latin America. But I digress.

America breaks the world's rules. While the rest of the world seeks job security, we go for job churn. We're more successful so we take less vacation. Other countries try to grow jobs - we send them elsewhere and then make more. We take predictions of food shortages and shatter them (here's an article from 1914 shattering similar food myths to those we contend with today). We take management principles and turn them on their head. We have people's revolution enshrined as one of the founding principles of the country. And of course in terms of politics, rights, changes to the law, the to-and-fro between people power and corporations, much of it lies in changing and breaking the rules, not just blindly following them. If someone's going to represent America, he/she has to understand the many sides - the fairness, the pushiness, the self-excusing, the openness, the fighting, the clever, the entitled, the myth building.

Gandhi won by appealing to the Raj and the army in the field, but with the wives in their sewing circles back in London. He refused to fight while fighting. He broke all the rules.

Rosa Parks got on that bus knowing she would be arrested. She was chosen because she had a clean impeccable background - keep the message simple and uncluttered. She and the NAACP could have waited and fought to change the bus laws in the legislature instead. But sometimes justice delayed is justice denied. Sometimes following the rules is futile. They took the direct route. They followed what is right and let the rules catch up to them. That took cleverness and courage.

For those who keep harping that Hillary's name recognition was an invaluable asset, Vanity Unfair produces an end-of-primary Turd in the Punchbowl to remind us that all politics is personal, and by personal I mean anti-Clinton. And as Bill takes time to remind us, while Vanity Unfair makes it a point to document every time Bill's been in the same city district as a woman and gets all excited about his post-presidential wealth, they ignore anything to do with his actual charity work, which from the looks of it ain't too shabby. These are the Clinton Rules in action, the ones in place in 1992 for the election, in 1997 when they dragged Bill into court to discuss non-existent "distinguishing characteristics", when Hillary ran for the Senate (a Cubs fan? a Yankees fan?), and of course the current campaign, what with more WaPo "cleavage-gate" and NYTimes "bimbo eruptions" innuendo. When people say she was "inevitable" or "mismanaged her campaign", I try to point out that this was the starting point of her campaign, the communal media smear, even ingested and sublimated by much of the so-called progressive movement. Go back through Daily Howler archives where it's chronicled. Because you can't toss around Rove speak without getting it on you, however post-divisive post-partisan you think you are. And you can't ignore the smears and act like they won't affect you, they're beneath you. Because that's the muck the Democrats have been swimming in for 15 years, and the pool's not getting shallower - we just added a new layer and a deeper extension. I'll leave you with Shakesville comments while I'm off to disinfect.

I'd gotten used to assuming, like Atrios, that almost every other day was a "What Digby Says" day, just because she's so consistent with the right touch on matters. And today was another. On reconciliation, the photo finish, and the nature of compaigns and campaigners.

But now I'm wondering whether I'm off the rails - whether Digby is actually a force here anymore, or if she's just seen as a Hillary shillary. Perhaps we've reached a bifurcation in our blogging as well - MyDD goes one way, DailyKos another, never again to meet. For most of them I wouldn't care. But for Digby, it seems a shame - from the years when she wasn't outed as a woman to the years since, she's always had a top-notch style. But maybe she's too old, maybe she's a white 2nd wave feminist, maybe she's too focused on Washington, maybe too divisive and not progressive enough. We'll see where things turn as the dust settles. But she'll always be on my blogroll.

PS - day-old bread sale, and still a few cookies left over at Risk Acceptance, half price, free cup of joe. Didn't sell as well as I thought it would, probably that Sunday buffet and now everone's trying to lose weight. These fat free diets are killing my business.

In this installment of Dr. Des, I attempt to probe into the mind of our intrepid traveller. Well, in a closely constrained context - think of it as "What's Eating Gilbert Glad". Why can't he just get along? (And not in the "go away" sense). And I have an inkling it's related to him in another life - i.e. "on my other blog I'm a trained professional". And that profession is Project Management.

In Project Management, you tend to have a defined set of deliverables, a set of stakeholders, constraints such as staffing, time and money, and an often fuzzy consideration called "risk acceptance". Non-project people often lose sight of this last concept, but for the finance department, that can be much more important than the value of a project. Finance calculates risk as part of the bottom line, in advance. Too much risk = unsustainable project. Less profit with less risk is a better bargain, and finance people aren't wont to come it at 3am.

In the current campaign, we have a number of distinct stakeholders, and several grades of risk valuation and acceptable stakeholder outcomes. But first we should note that our project is in mid-stream: behind schedule, way over budget, hopelessly mismanaged and with great loss of team morale. Almost all stakeholders are furiously unhappy. For the Project Directorate (or Programme Board, depending on your methodology), you have several options of bringing the project back into scope, though sticking with the current Project Manager (PM) and management team is not one of them for a variety of obvious reasons.

So what are the deliverables? Let's label one as simply turning part of the project over to an operations team. Let's call that the biggest deliverable, since most of government is an operations system with various contingency plans and incremental change, but these types of change orders are not projects in themselves. Operations in itself is not a project. Be forewarned. They have two very different approaches for two very different requirements.

The second set of deliverables are specific large features - withdrawal from Iraq, universal health care (or something approximating), and... what was that third one? Okay, let's just say we have two main feature enhancements until I remember. Two is a good number for a complicated project.

The third proposed item is less a deliverable than a change in project methodology, a different way of getting things done. While project methodologies and tools have come in and out of fashion over the years (PMI, CMMI, Total Quality Management, Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma, PRINCE2, ERP), they're significant changes of mindset and vision, requiring complete team buy-in, top down sponsoring, retraining at all levels of the organization, and of course a hugely mixed record of success under different conditions. As you might imagine, the risk associated with converting to a whole different type of management is much larger than risk associated with changing a management team. Think of it as a top-to-bottom change of corporate strategy and tactics.

So Mr. Glad, as an experienced Project Manager, immediately gets warning bells going off in his head. Because besides hearing talk of a new methodology, he's yet to see the manual on this technique (because it isn't even described yet), the test scenario of this technique (because AFAWK it's not even an academic exercise yet), and of course no contingency backout details (because there are no head-in details as yet either). In short, the project mandate asks for a widget and the prospective PM is offering the moon. Standard PMP practice calls this "gold plating" - adding features or outcomes to a project that are not required but have the effect of increasing the risk. While to the lay person, gold plating seems like "doing a good job", to a PM it's a dangerous unnecessary practice that threatens the project needlessly.

But another phenomenon of projects that Mr. Glad has undoubtedly seen is the walk-in resume, the person who personifies the perfect CV, ready to ascend the throne or at least the CEO position of most corporations. One of the neat things about the projects world is that they work quite the opposite of many traditional jobs. A project worker whether low or high level has a thoroughly utilitarian function for the project. In the case of a worker, there's a set of a few required skills plus the mindset and attitude to deliver the work packages assigned within scope and tolerance. For the PM, the responsibilities of management are a bit greater, but they're still relatively modest. A PM needs primarily to get the deliverables in on time and scope, and most else is dressing (continuity and morale of project members being an example of side considerations). So when a Program Manager is looking for a specific PM for a specific project, he/she is typically looking for someone with just enough knowledge, the right experience to ramp up on the project quickly, the right resources to easily and effectively keep the project running smoothly, and the communications skills to keep all the stakeholders and workers properly informed of progress and requirements.

Projects can vary between field specific and generalized, in that there might be some particular technical or professional area knowledge that is required to effectively handle the project requirements. The closer to a similar type of project a PM's had, the less risk there is in carrying out the new project. Large companies with a large project portfolio like to keep continuity across projects along with cross-training to keep managers from having too much responsibility in an area of inexperience, but to give them skills to effectively take on new projects in a different area if needed. There's also a Project Office that helps with documentation, resources and expertise/consulting, but it's generally considered bad practice to rely too much on this office as part of a Project Plan.

So in any case, Mr. Glad as a certified PM must certainly have his head exploding like attack ships off the shoulder of Orion. Because here he's face to face with an applicant proposing not to just do the project, but Mr. Glad's job, and the one above him. Without a Project Mandate. Without a Project Plan. Without any budget or specific time constraints or delimited deliverables or Risk Analysis. Without a specific Needs Assessment or Business Case. With over half the Stakeholders already alienated. Without anything but the most tenuous experience in a project highly tangential to this one, one with far less demanding requirements of area-specific knowledge, far fewer and less demanding stakeholders, and few of the network of resources and professional contacts typically at hand for a project of this scope.

And for Billy Glad, his first priority is a modest ambition, undoubtedly to get the project back within scope, goals 1 & 2, to have the team meeting forecasts and making promised progress, to deliver work packages and progress reports on time, to make stakeholders content again, to reach the point where project completion becomes plannable again. He's probably greatly uncomfortable with proposed deliverable #3, as it violates all tenets of project management and lies outside his expertise to manage as well. He's well aware that in terms of this kind of proposal, a project should start over, redefining the mandate, the deliverables, the stakeholders, the risk, re-run the analysis and break it down into the schedules and available resources and individual work assignments needed to complete.  And he understands that new PM's are inherently poor with time and effort estimating - either hugely optimistic or demanding schedule slack that is unrealistic and doesn't effectively and efficiently utilitize the resources available to the organization. And did I mention problems of dealing with unreliable or demanding vendors, vagaries of outsourced work and changes in the marketplace?

You see, the PMI tells Billy Glad that if he's overseeing such a project, that it's his job to note his objections in the Risk Log and to the Management Board, and to maintain his integrity to his field and his customer as a professional PM. Which in this case would likely mean to resign rather than mislead the client. Only this time, Mr. Glad is just a time traveller, watching a catastrophe unveil itself as he passes by, like the glitter of C-beams in the dark. For him, all these moments will be lost, like tears in the rain. For the rest of us,
we will be left to live in our poorly conceived house, watering our too small garden with our inadequate watercan. But that is the risk we chose.