The Democratic Do-Over

The last post in this space critiquing the efforts of the Clark County Democratic Party's performance at the county convention generated more feedback than all prior posts combined.  Nearly all of the comments were resoundingly negative.  For some, it appears that the criticisms touched a nerve in regards to the efficacy of the Clark County Democrats' effort.  Others dismissed my comments as reflecting the inchoate ramblings of an academic too ensconced in the ivory tower.  And still others took umbrage with my choice of syntax.    

Fortunately for apologists of the Clark County Democratic Party and its leader, John Hunt, the organization will get an opportunity at redemption on April 12th.  More importantly, after failing to adequately plan for the November Jefferson-Jackson dinner and the turnout at the January caucuses and the February convention, it appears that the county leadership has finally eschewed its bunker mentality and defensive posturing and has taken the requisite steps to organize an event that is commensurate with the enthusiasm of Clark County Democrats. 

The decision to hold the rescheduled county convention at the Thomas and Mack is a no-brainer.  Indeed, after comments that I made to Molly Ball about last month's fiasco were published in the Las Vegas Review Journal, I received a voicemail message from a Thomas and Mack employee suggesting that the site would be an ideal location for such an event.  The decision to credential participants in advance of the 12th will eliminate the long lines and standing around that have been the hallmarks of county Democratic events thus far.  It is also perfectly reasonable for the county party organization to put together a directory of the delegates who will be attending the rescheduled convention.  And who knows, having a roster that actually identifies the party's most fervent supporters might prove useful come next fall (now that is planning ahead!).  And not to out do themselves, the county Democrats' decision to allow for all day balloting indicates that they have finally realized that there is no need to inconvenience otherwise busy convention goers by requiring them to all meet in the same place at the same time.  This also means that convention participants will not be subjected to speeches by party luminaries that thus far have done nothing but raise the ire of caucus and convention participants and needlessly delay the conducting of actual party business.

The amazing part is that it took an event like the February county convention for these procedures to be implemented.  But as Will Rogers says...

As the Gibbonses (and the Media) Turn

            Recent reports that Nevada's first couple may be going their separate ways should not come as much of a surprise.  After all, she remained in Nevada throughout his years in the House of Representatives and no sooner had Jim Gibbons announced that he was entering the governor's race then Dawn maneuvered to replace her husband in Congress (which, incidentally, would have put Nevada's first lady twenty-six hundred miles away from the governor's mansion). 

More interesting, however, has been the hand-wringing of Nevada's media about how to handle the story:  Is this a private matter that should be kept as such or because of the visibility of the couple, their marital status is a concern that merits coverage?  Ah, journalistic dilemmas in the age of tabloid reporting and infotainment.  My take on this is that in this case it should probably be reported, but then left at that.  The reason being is that to their credit, the Gibbonses never tried to play the family values card or advertise themselves as giving voters a two-for-one bargain.  However, when politicians who piously hold themselves and their families up as paragons of all that is virtuous and right and then behave antithetically, the media is obligated to address such hypocrisy (preferably with extreme prejudice).  But barring such duplicity (which recently has been the stock in trade of Governor Gibbons' former co-partisans in Congress) the private lives of politicians should remain just that, private.