Tuesday: To Tell The Truth

Some of us may remember a show from the 60s called, To Tell The Truth. That was where B list celebrities, like Kitty Carlisle Hart and Orson Bean got to be panelists in a game show against three contestents. Hmmm, maybe it was the other way around… Anyway, the premise of the show was there was a true story that went along with one of the contestants. One of them was telling the truth about his identity, the other two were bluffing and it was the job of the panelists to figure out who was who.

I was thinking about this game show this morning because we’re now getting into the post primary season recaps and only some of these people are telling the truth, or their version of it. If you watch the clip above, it becomes pretty clear who is telling the truth and who is telling a Whale’s Tale. There is an internal consistency from the truth teller. The others know bits and pieces but have to start making it up when they get to knitty gritty details.

So it is with our primary season recaps. The contestants will present bits and pieces but only a few will have the internal consistency that proves them credible. How do you know who it is? As you can see from the clip above, only one of the panelists picked the correct contestant and the reasoning was spurious. Unfortunately, this is probably pretty accurate in real life as well. If you tell a tale well enough, you can come off as pretty believable. But sometimes, all it takes is a pretty smile. How do we determine the truth teller? For myself, I compare what I know, what I saw with my own lying eyes, to the versions of the story and I look for consistency. I’m data driven.

This morning, I present you with two stories that recap the primary season. Read them carefully and decide: which contestant is telling the truth or at least a closer version of it?

First up: Taylor Marsh writes “Hillary Supporters Ask: How’d She Lose To This Guy?” in which she attempts to answer what we’ve all been wondering for a while now, how is it that a woman with every advantage in experience, knowledge, breadth of support, institutional history, etc, lose to a neophyte with a pastor problem?

Now consider: Anglachel attempts to address the same question in “Media Whores Online”. She comes at the problem a little differently.

Will the realist please stand up.

Now that you’ve had your fill of truth and consequences (totally different show), get your blood pumping, PUMAs. Remember who you are. You’re the new radicals, the ones that will not be submit to the establishment. The ones who want to subvert the dominant paradigm. The ones who don’t trust anyone under thirty (with the exception of Regency and his/her friends)

One more thing: Regarding the report that Clinton is releasing her delegates, here is a report from our own Conflucian, captsfufp who was in on the conference call last night. It doesn’t sound to me like she released them but read it for yourself:

captsfufp

Okay, I’m drinking a coke, so I think I have what passes for a “second wind” in me, so I’m ready to give my report to y’all loyal Confluencians.

First of all, let me briefly introduce myself (while preserving what passes for virtual anonymity). I’m a 27-yr-old white male, former Army captain, and Iraq vet in NC. I’m a pledged delegate for Sen. Clinton, elected about a month ago (we still have to complete our delegate slate in NC at our state convention later in the month).

Second, tonight was a conference call for all Clinton delegates (there was even one Minnesota superdelegate on…a very nice lady who was uncommitted, nod-wink. I’m sure I could Google her and find her name. A good HRc supporter). The format was an introduction of Sen. Clinton by Mayor Nutter of Philly, Sen. Clinton’s remarks, then Harold Ickes remarks, followed by him taking questions of delegates.

There was an amusing part in the beginning, when the mayor, the senator, and Mr. Ickes didn’t know if the call was “on” and we all heard Ickes yelling in his very Ickes-manner at staff in the background. Poor staffers!!! Us demure Southerners couldn’t take such things…

But Mayor Nutter gave a great introduction, talking about his support for Sen. Clinton. I can’t remember exactly, but he was either intentionally or accidentally having a tense problem (”I support her…er, I supported her at the time…”). But he’s great, I know that. He’s a great supporter of her, obviously.

Then Sen. Clinton spoke. Squeeeeeeee! Sorry, I’m still a fanboy when it comes to her. But my squeeee-ness went up…and then down. I’m reading off some notes, so I’m sorry I can’t capture all her remarks. But she essentially thanked all of her supporters, specifically us delegates who volunteered, worked, donated, etc. She did say she won more votes than ANY OTHER PERSON in primary election history. She talked about the great turnout for all Dems in all the primaries.

Then she began talking about ~sigh~ uniting behind him (it’s sad I can’t say his name, and I apologize for that. It’s immature). I know she didn’t say this exactly, but on my notes, I wrote “Keep faith, but integrate,” i.e. she’s going to keep on being a fighter for her causes but that she ran for president so a Democrat could be elected to the White House in November. McCain = Bad, Obama = Good, basically. She spoke about her issues, etc. She thanked everyone again and turned it over to Ickes.

Ickes spoke about how the delegates would still be coordinated by the campaign (that may be the only part of the campaign that’ll probably have jobs until August, I guess!). And, I thought this was interesting…he stated that the reason that Hillary technically ’suspended” her campaign was so that she could still receive the superdelegates votes from the other primaries. I don’t know which ones he was referring to specifically, but he said that if she had conceded (I forget what word he used), those 190 delegates (don’t ask me where this number comes from) would have gone to … him. But by merely suspending her campaign, those Clinton votes would be reflected by those 190 delegates

But he reiterated that she would do whatever it takes to support … him. This was also interesting: He said in the coming weeks there would be discussions with … his campaign and her about how her issues would be reflected and how Denver would be treated. This is just me speaking, and I may be wrong, but what he seemed to be alluding to was making a decision about whether she would be a candidate for nomination or not. But there should be some talks and decision in a few weeks about how she “will come to Denver.” But she’ll (obviously!) be taking a break from such things for the next few weeks.

He then took questions from some delegates. I only wrote most of these down, not all. First question I don’t think he answered (b/c I don’t think the questioner stated the question right), but I think what the delegate was asking was, if people were resigning from the party, how this would affect their delegate status. But, and I think the delegate was from NY, was more or less commenting that HRC supporters were leaving the party and how that might hurt some people (he said NY was not a good place to be w/o a party). He just asked for more guidance from the campaign about this.

Ickes responded that a period of time is required for things to settle down (not exact words). And he recognized that. And reiterated…go team, basically.

Another delegate asked about HRC being on the ticket. Ickes responded that, ultimately, the VP question is up to … him.

Ickes, in response to another question, stated that no party rules actually require delegates to vote for their pledged delegates (this was in response to a “when are we released?” question). Though, I think that works both ways!

Ickes also seemed to be saying (this is what I got from it, I may be wrong), that HRC would be leveraging her delegates to get spots for her people on the platform committee, etc., at Denver. IMHO, I think it’s retarded (I apologize if there’s a better word to use…), b/c the platform is worth #%&@. Seriously…raise your hand if you’ve ever read the party platform? That’s what I thought. IMHO, the only leveraging is getting a role in picking A) the VP pick or B) the next DNC chair or C) potential future administration people. But whatever, that’s just me…

A final question asked if there would be any thought about changing the rules, re: electing a nominee. Ickes did say (and I think this was just more his opinion, b/c what can HE really do?), that he thought some rules should be examined, specifically mentioning the caucus processes. That may get looked at in Denver. But, again, just me, I think if we aren’t going to use superdelegates (as we should have, in this instance), then just get rid of them. I like proportional delegate apportioning myself, even though we did “lose” b/c of it. But, whatever, I’m open to thoughts.

I won’t give you all my thoughts on everything, b/c this has gone on long enough, but that’s more or less what happened. I’ll be more than happy to answer any questions….