Vermont planned to cast its votes unanimously for Barack Obama, but…

The process leading up to near-the-end-of-the-alphabet-Vermont was entertaining from the floor. California with its huge swath of votes passed when their turn came along, presumably to give Obama’s home state of Illinois the opportunity to put him over the top. Illinois, however, passed as well, likely for the same reason (math can be unforgiving), although there was a bit of muttering about the possibility that some of the leapfrogging was because Hillary Clinton had not arrived.

On the lead up to Vermont’s turn, word came down from on high that the process was (believe it or not) moving too quickly, and Senator Leahy was asked to take up some extra time.

Then things got crazier.

New Mexico “yielded” its vote back to Illinois when its time came, and Illinois then yielded to New York as Clinton moved through the crowd, suggesting that at least some of the math games were in fact due to her absence. Made for a nice entrance cameo, though (in sharp contast to the BAD image that would have spread across the media if she had been elsewhere when Obama had gone over the top). Clinton herself then stepped forward and, in a complete surprise to everyone near me, formally moved to pass on the remainder of the roll call vote ENTIRELY and that the body vote by acclamation to nominate Obama.

The motion was seconded with a roar. The approval of the motion an even louder roar…. the “no” vote opportunity was abruptly sped by more quickly than anyone could really respond (one wonders if there would have been any at all, frankly – this place seems pretty unified).

All I can say is that I didn’t see that coming… and neither did the Vermont delegation, who went from planning for an extra long announcement, to none at all. Ah well. As theater, though, it was a truly effective moment.

(Side note: Massachusetts paid homage to their numerous successful sports teams in announcing their votes… as you can imagine, here in Denver, there were a fair amount of boos at the mention of the Red Sox. Heh.)

The delegate count got to New York where Senator Hillary Clinton asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi to suspend the rules and nominate Barack Obama outright. It’s official. Howard Dean said expect the unexpected with Hillary Clinton. That’s an understatement.

Pelosi just announces Obama accepted the nomination.

The Pepsi Arena is going wild. The Big Tent is going wild.

It’s done. It’s all over.

… now back to some Fat Tire Ales.

Crossposted at Docudharma.

I just talked to Jane Hamsher of FDL who told me an ABC News producer was arrested for taking pictures of fat cat donors coming out of a fund raiser. Here’s the diary she wrote at Firedoglake. But Brian Ross of ABC News has the story. Check it out.

As Julie Waters likes to say….

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

Here’s the link to the story. They’re not just going after activists…. now they’re going after…

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

Sweet Jesus! What have we come to? Spread the word…. and more to come.

(Originally posted at the Guardian website – will be a bit of a rerun if you’ve been viewing the zannel vids)

There are many metrics by which one might differentiate the Republican from the Democratic national convention, but if there is one that has struck me immediately since my arrival in Denver, it’s the fact that it seems, no matter where I go, somebody wants to hand me a condom.

And it’s not simply at the events, such as the star-studded celebrity gala Monday night hosted by Rolling Stone and Trojan Condoms. The event showcased a stand up performance by comedian Bill Maher and featured luminaries on the red carpet such as Spike Lee, Susan Sarandon and Alan Cumming – and of course, plenty of condoms. Young, lightly clad women passing them out at the door, carnival-style condom trivia games, a condom bus. Additionally, there are several evening mixers hosted by Planned Parenthood with plenty more available.

But people are also handing them out on street corners and in doorways, and the overall effect is to put sexual health and pregnancy-prevention consciousness front and centre – which is clearly a good thing (and, I suspect, a good message for many of the convention-goers on this particular trip).

Nevertheless, despite the quality and importance of the messaging, there’s no getting around the fact that being handed a condom by a complete stranger every hour or two is inherently amusing.

And it’s happened enough that it becomes possible to glean patterns in the distribution. The first condom I was given was a standard lubricated Trojan, quite unremarkable. The second, however, was a larger-sized “magnum” version. I laughed and thanked the young man handing them out for his vote of confidence, and the next day my first condom was also a magnum. Perhaps I was impressing people more than I believed?

But then I noticed the pattern: the women distributing the merchandise had exclusively handed me standard-issue Trojans, while the men – to a person – offered the jumbo editions.

Now, I am not one to speak to the social-psychological implications behind which condom I’m handed. Perhaps, if I were a man passing them out, passing out a large-sized condom to a fellow male of the species would feel like a friendly pat on the back, and I would save the standard sized for the women. It doesn’t seem too likely that the choice of condom had sexual innuendo attached, but if it did … well, the mind boggles.

I won’t be attending the Republican convention. As a partisan progressive Democrat, I’d have no interest beyond the anthropological, and that would get old fast. Something tells me, though, that in contrast to the plentiful prophylactics and accompanying messaging here in Denver, the RNC will be more of a, shall we say, abstinence-only affair.

Today's Free Press article on new income data from the Census Bureau may have unintentionally caused some confusion (http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080827/NEWS01/80827030)

The article refers to a decline in the two-year moving average for median household income. It quoted several people who were at pains to explain the data. A little context will help.

First, the source of the data is the March Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS). It measures self reported income for the previous year. While the national sample for the CPS is quite large, the state samples are small and not always representative. This means that in any given single year, the sample might include too many high- or low-income respondents to be a fair representation. That's why Census publishes two- and three-year moving averages. This smoothes out the spikes in those odd (anomalous) years. Obviously, a three-year moving average will be less likely to show large spikes than the two-year average. The table below shows this clearly.

VT inflation adjusted median household income: Two and three-year moving averages (Census)

Notice how the annual % change is usually much greater in the two-year average.

three year rolling average: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08B.html

two-year rolling average: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08A.html

Second, the article referred to the change from 2005 to 2007 (4.7%). I'm not sure why the reporter used the change over two years instead of one (2006 to 2007), but the one-year change was 6%. This was more than twice the change in the three-year rolling average of 2.9%. Clearly, something is going on and it's not good. But the change appears to be less dramatic than first reported.

In any case, the response from the Governor's spokesperson was noteworthy for several reasons. Here's what the article reported:

“Jason Gibbs, spokesman for Gov. Jim Douglas, said the administration is leery of the Census numbers given that poverty levels have not increased and per-capita income has risen. He said one possible explanation for the decline in household income over the two-year period is the state's aging demographics. As more people retire, their household income declines, he said.”

1. While it's understandable that the Governor would be disappointed in such figures, it is a bit disingenuous to blame the Census Bureau, especially since the CPS is also the source of the monthly unemployment data (which the Gov. likes to cite when he thinks it reflects well on him). In any event, I have indicated above why I think the two-year figures are less than optimal, but even the three-year figures show a decline. We cannot wish this away or blame someone else.

2. The reference to rising per capita income demonstrates either a failure to understand the data or an attempt to mislead readers. Per capita income is simply total income divided by total population. It ignores the distribution of income, which is why the median is a better measure (the midpoint – ½ above and ½ below). The two measures are apples and oranges. Total income is heavily influenced by non-wage income (interest, capital gains, and dividends). And since almost half of all new income is going to the top 0.25%, it's not necessarily surprising to see an increase in per capita income as median incomes decline. They are not mutually exclusive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/business/economy/26income.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=income&st=cse&oref=slogin

3. The suggestion that the decline may be related to an aging population is similarly uninformed. Although VT – like most other states – is aging, the number of additional people reaching retirement in any given year is much too small to effect the median household income.

Number of Vermonters 65 and older (Census estimates)

2006 — 82,966

2007 — 84,425 (change = 1,459; 0.2% of the total 621,254)

Census reports there were 240,634 households in VT in 2000. Nationally, the average household size for those 65 – 74 is 1.89 persons

(http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2007/tabAVG1.xls).

Thus, the 1,459 additional people over 64 in 2007 represent about 772 households or three tenths of 1% of all households. It is inconceivable that these few additional elderly households could have a measurable impact on the statewide median household income.

Moreover, according to the VT Tax Department, the average income of Vermonters 65 and older is higher than the statewide average income so it's not at all certain that the aging factor is relevant here.

Note: Howard Dean also complained about the reliability of the income data in the `90s when it showed a decline. Wouldn't it be refreshing if elected officials just acknowledged the problem?

From Politico’s Ben Smith:

Leahy told Vogel yesterday the media has given McCain a free pass on flubs including mixing up Middle East geography, Shiite and Sunni Muslims, and referring to Russia’s relationship Czechoslovakia – a country that hasn’t existed for 15 years

With Democrats on the precipice of raising the age issue against John McCain, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont seemed to cross the line completely, then immediately backtrack, my colleague Ken Vogel reports.

…The press “let Ronald Regan get away with” slips, Leahy said, though he denied he was suggesting that McCain was experiencing mental decline.

“No, I’m just saying he gets a free ride,” Leahy said.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t see Leahy broaching age at all. He’s no spring chicken himself, after all. I see him broaching the issue of incompetence, and the refusal of the traditional media to face such questions. I see no mention of McCain’s age being mentioned, and even the new media ubersite Huffington Post is casting this as an attack based on age. User diarists on dKos are all a-twitter.

Hogwash. It’s about competence, and we have to be able to have the conversation plainly, without falling into the trap about people’s birthdates and courting charges of ageism that would hurt us in the senior community needlessly.

That said, Leahy needs to firm up his point, lest he invite just this kind of criticism.

When I went to the “gala” Monday night featuring the likes of Bill Maher, Susan Sarandon, etc, I had in mind a diary juxtaposing the well-intentioned frivolity of the event against the simultaneous “serious” conventioneering happening – in that case, a speech by Michelle Obama. Over the last day, though, I’ve changed my mind. There is no juxtaposition – the gala affair actually fit right in to the greater context.

And before you assume that’s a sneer, put-down, or dismissal of the convention – it’s not. It’s just a… thing.

I suppose if I’d thought about it very deeply I would’ve come to this conclusion anyway, but being immersed in it now makes it easier to recognize. A political convention like this is always made up of 1 part politics, a pinch of activism, and about 10 parts fluff. Fluff like the kind of marshmallow fluff that doesn’t have any nutritional value, but it really makes the people who reach for it feel good. It’s simply the nature of the beast, and the longer I’m here, the more I feel that those who are criticizing it so venemously are criticizing it on their personal terms, rather than on its own terms. Call it a pep rally, a revival tent, or whatever – these conventions serve to gather, energize and support the faithful, and in the process do some basic (and I mean really, really basic) messaging to the traditional media. Although the traditional media coverage has been (for the most part) predictably banal, it’s clear at this point that – barring any big disaster – those goals are being met.

But I’ll go a step further still. This convention, with all its obligatory pageantry and silly peripherals, is accomplishing more than what a traditional convention does, and although its happening organically, the DNC deserves a share of credit for helping seed the process.

The presence of new media and their (our) impact on the character of the overall event is pronounced, and seems to be growing daily. In fact, the traditional media have been roving for something different to cover as their largely fabricated “disaffected PUMA” storyline has fizzled, and the Recreate 68 protests have not been entertainingly violent enough (its a real crime that the media only want to cover “lifestyle anarchist” style, slash-and-burn protests and are neglecting some of the extraordinary and effective demonstrations underway by groups like Iraq Veterans Against the War and the like…. but that’s a diary for another time).

Increasingly, those traditional media folks are gravitating to the “Big Tent” new media hub, where unknowns like myself are only a table or two away from luminaries like Markos Moulitsas and Jane Hamsher. Today, especially, you couldn’t spit without hitting a professional journalist. Two reporters from The Financial Times stopped by to speak to me this morning. JDRyan called me from his cell and reported that a journalist from an Italian paper had stopped him to chat in the street. And I’m still on call to possibly talk to local Denver TV.

Increasingly, the emergence and convergence of new, citizen media are becoming, if not the story, certainly a story. And in a classic case of self-fulfilling storylines, the more such coverage increases, the more prominent, meaningful and significant the new media become. More attention makes us a bigger part of the story, and the bigger a part of the story we are, the more good we can do – and influencing the very traditional media that we’re all interfacing with is a big step towards maximizing that effect.

The point is, there’s a real community of progressive, citizen media – and its maturing daily before my eyes. It’s a process that couldn’t possibly be unfolding in such a way without the catalyst of the convention to power it. And that’s just a simple fact.

A lot of people deserve credit for making this happen, but clearly DNC Chair Howard Dean is among those on the top of the list. Dean has a real affinity for the blogs, and his opening the convention (and the convention floor) to bloggers and new media sites in such an unprecedented way set the stage.

Also at the top of that list are Markos Moulitsas and his cohorts at Daily Kos (even that Kagro guy). The extra-convention blogger space dubbed The Big Tent is more than just a new media hub, its a full blown incubator – and, as mentioned above, a space where the new and old media are increasingly coming together.

So a big thank you to both of our hosts is in order. Whatever else comes out of this convention, progressive citizen media has been given a real steroid shot in the arm, and the repercussions of that shot are likely to be many and varied… and very, very interesting…

This just in from Kevin J. Kelley:

Vermont’s Clinton and Obama delegates have reached agreement on how they will vote when the state’s turn comes toward the end of this evening’s roll-call vote at the Democratic Convention. A statement of unity, drafted last night with the help of former Governor Madeleine Kunin, recognizes the historic achievement of Hillary Clinton’s campaign as a prelude to a unanimous Vermont delegate vote for Barack Obama.

Kevin is posting updates on Blurt, the Seven Days Staff Blog. Click here to read the rest of his post…

Too much to say, too little time. I got into the Pepsi Arena but my pass was only good for the hallways, not the arena itself. Still… I got some good pictures. JD Ryan said it best about the convention. It’s too damn surreal. I would add that when you get in the arena, you’ll notice it DEFINITELY doesn’t have the feel of a “people’s party.” It’s a good thing the blogosphere is filling in that hole.  

Stay tuned y’all. Here’s my slide show from yesterday, If you have any questions, Comment here and I’ll respond. All of you at Docudharma GREEN MOUNTAIN DAILY are the best!

– Christian

h/t to Raw Story for covering this. Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!, and A-list bloggers Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher were all shut out of a Blue Dog Democratic party sponsored by AT & T. All three of them had press credentials. Here’s how Amy Goodman covered the event. Welcome to the Dems version of Dick Cheney’s energy council.