Playing With the Big Boys Now...And Getting Noticed

You bloggers really are becoming the 800 pound Gorilla in the room.

That is what a good friend said to me today (paraphrased), I think with some surprise behind it. He will laugh that I am using that line, but in retrospect it really sets the tone for this evening.

My friend is a major player in Brooklyn politics. I'd say who because I have lots good to say and he has some ambitions, but I think he prefers to keep his name out of the blogs. But today he said that bloggers have become the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room. I laughed and let it pass as we talked about local politics. But tonight I kept coming back to that statement as I stood, among some of the biggest big wigs of the party, and realized that it was true.

Yesterday a bunch of us got invited as guests to a major DCCC dinner in Manhattan honoring Nancy Pelosi. This really was playing with the big boys, and we got invited. The venue was Cipriani, a prime ballroom on Wall Street with Corinthian columns that make everyone, even Eliot Spitzer, look short. The ceiling is dilapidated and needs major restoration, but the rest of the place was spectacular...in a way that is gaudy and I largely dislike. But this is the kind of place where the big boys play.

I got there early. The doorman sneered at me, and asked in disbelief, "Are you a guest?" I said yes and he ushered me in. Largely he was the only one to condescend. With the exception of a few snotty big shots, people were very friendly and enthusiastic. I got a glass of red wine (an excellent Merlot) and was settling into observation mode. Just as a string quartet poised way up on a balcony began playing, Eliot Spitzer walked into the still largely empty room. I should have gone up and said hello.

Here is where I am incompetent when it comes to these things. Instead of going up and Shmoozing with Spitzer when almost no one else was about, I stopped and realized that the string quartet, playing Mozart, I believe, was really, really good. I mean, I know some musicians and even know someone who was once a president of an orchestra. So I know that most musicians at a gig are half hearted and are mainly hoping for some leftovers from the event. These guys were REALLY good. From the first few bars I was caught listening to some really good music...and missed cornering Spitzer. Ah, well. Mozart is immortal. Spitzer has not yet achieved this.

Cipriani provided a magnificent bar, with excellent red wine (my choice) and largely anything else you could want. People filed in, mostly white and mostly insiders. Liza and, much later, Michael Bouldin walked in like they owned the place...clearly out of place but also clearly in charge of themselves. Michael in particular looked from side to side with a sardonic look, practically the only male there who disdained to wear a tie. People moved aside a bit as he strode in. Liza went off quickly to do what I didn't: corner Spitzer.

Liza spent lots of time shmoozing in a way I seldom can aim for. Michael was the guy with the camera right in Nancy Pelosi's face. I am sure you will get plenty from them later...stuff I missed.

This is NYC. So I was surprised that I got in but few black politicians were there. Charlie Rangel was very prominent, but few other minorities were there at all. Of those who I saw, the mostly looked tentative and out of place, except Liza who was in command from what I saw. Michael and Liza illustrated early on the 800 lb. Gorilla phenomenon. Even Spitzer seemed eager to talk to Liza.

There was some issue seating me. They didn't seem sure what to do with me. I got moved around a tad, but I got the feeling that they specifically wanted me next to a specific person. Not sure why, but he was quite interesting. He goes back a bit, being on staff of someone who was fired in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. His stories of that weekend were priceless. And his take, contrary to many people I know, is that Nixon was way worse of a threat to American democracy than Bush. My wife things Nixon would be envious of the way Bush and his handlers have subverted America, but my neighbor during dinner expressed how Nixon, perhaps because he actually had a brain, was a far worse threat. Which is worse, an evil genius or a fool who gets power. This is a debate I have had with people since Reagan. But it was interesting hearing it from someone who was in the center of Nixon's attack on democracy.

Nancy Pelosi was great. She spoke strongly of offering America a "new order for the future." She specifically expressed a desire to find bipartisan solutions where possible, and where it wasn't possible to stand firm against the worst actions of the Republican Party. She also expressed the importance of proving to America that the "new order for the future" was a program of actual practical legislation that would benefit a majority of hard working Americans. She seemed very cognizant of the need to prove ourselves to a skeptical America.

At first I noticed something odd. As Nancy Pelosi spoke, a handful of Congress Critters lined up with her on stage (my congresswoman, Yvette Clarke, was absent). Oddly, despite his introducing the proceedings, Charlie Rangel as well as Jerrold Nadler, seemed out of place on stage. This was nothing anyone on stage seemed to realize. But body language and position on stage seemed to exclude Rangel and Nadler, even though they were prominently placed on stage. This changed somewhat when Pelosi specifically praised Rangel, but to me there was an odd period where the two most prominent NYC Congress Critters on stage seemed almost excluded.

But the message was a great one. Inclusion: the Democrats as the party of a broad, national coalition. Accountability: realization that the voters are watching and that we have something to prove. Hope: an enthusiasm for getting practical things done that is refreshing after years of Republicans telling us nothing can be done.

I had to leave early, after the excellent dinner (though you can find better in some not so expensive Park Slope restaurants!) and right after the soft chocolate dessert (a chocolate soufflé that reminded me of an EXCELLENT dessert at the Los Angeles restaurant Rockenwagners called a "chocolate tart" that my brother, a food skeptic, described as being worth killing for). I had wanted to corner Jerrold Nadler, who my wife and I had talked to after a National Jewish Democratic Council breakfast some time past. He had been at the table next to me, but I missed him. So I left...

As I walked out, there was Nadler talking on the phone in front of me, with a staff member hovering nearby. So I waited. When he was off the phone, I approached and explained I had met him before and he had regaled my wife and I (and 1 year old son) with a story of a politician dandling a baby while speaking to a crowd. He looked at me skeptically and said he didn't remember anything like that. He looked at my name tag and I identified myself as mole333 from Daily Gotham.

Well, Jerrold Nadler reads us! I am flattered that he is familiar with my stuff and I felt I was now the focus of his attention rather than me trying to corner him. 800 lb. Gorilla came to mind around now...as did a disbelief that this heavy hitting Congressman was familiar with what I have written about Brooklyn politics!

Nadler and I discussed the Congressional opposition to Bush's Iraq quagmire. Nadler emphasized, and I completely agree, that Congress has to PRIMARILY express opposition to Bush and his McCain-inspired escalation. What headline do we want: Congress says "enough is enough," Bush threatens veto...or Congress caves to Bush. Even if what Congress is proposing isn't perfect, the very fact that it opposes the escalation and tries to set a timetable for withdrawal, and PROBABLY will still force a veto, is a huge step from the fawning, eager to kiss-ass Congress (my words, NOT Nadler's) that we had before 2006. The bottom line is that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress, though not reaching a pinnacle of progressive perfection, has still forced debate and ultimately a statement of strong opposition to Bush's Iraq quagmire and McCain's escalation, and probably will still force a veto if their proposals get through the Senate. This draws clear lines between the parties, and in the media" FOR the troops and AGAINST Bush and McCain, versus fawning support of Bush's failed policy and failure to support our troops and our Veterans. I have covered this extensively: Republicans want more war and no support for our troops and veterans. Democrats are fed up with a war with no purpose and no exit strategy and want to support our troops and veterans. The main issue among Democrats is HOW to best oppose the Iraq quagmire while still solidly supporting the troops. We are a diverse party and we have a diversity of opinion on the best way of doing this. But there is no question that Democrats oppose the quagmire while still wanting to support the troops.

As Nadler and I agreed at the need to provide a clear headline of opposition to Bush while still clearly supporting our troops, I had to bid farewell so I could get home and participate in our son's bedtime ritual.

Thanks for the chance to play with the big boys, thanks for a nice dinner, and thanks to Jerrold Nadler for realizing what needs doing...and for reading Daily Gotham.

mole333's picture

| | | | | |

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Whats So's picture

Sounds like a great time.

I'm glad to know that there are people in power who are familiar with what's being done on this blog.

Keep up the great work.

Anonymous Coward's picture

It not all about you Mole

You should be fighting the democratic pary not trying to be part of the corruption of Brooklyn. There are no leaders out there, the papers have not covered what goes on in Brooklyn politics expect when the Federal Court does away with Judicial Conventions or when Norman or a judge goes on trial.

It was good that you report the backroom deals of IND and the former reform movement in Brooklyn. You should build you team and try to get something accomplished in politics beyond giving your opinion.

It is clueless for you to think you are having any effect by showing everyone how important you are and kissing the ass of anyone who responds to you.

We need people like you in politics, but do it a way that will make a difference and cause change?

Xris (Flatbush Gardener)'s picture

Liza Minelli is a minority?

"... few other minorities were there at all. Of those who I saw, [they] mostly looked tentative and out of place, except Liza ..."

Or is this another Liza? Perhaps I misunderstood ...

mole333's picture

Know your divas!

I was referring to the blogdiva who runs this blog, our esteemed host.

Anonymous Coward's picture

Zap.

Ass-kissing. How original.

mole333's picture

Yo. Dude

You want your comments to come up? Get off your ass and register with this site. If you are too lazy to do so, then don't complain when we are too busy to get around to approving your comments rapidly.

And what an amazing bunch of vitriol you spout. Wonder why no one pays much attention. Come back later when you can speak rationally and I will happily discuss the issues you bring up.

Anonymous Coward's picture

Seems unfair to compare Mole

Seems unfair to compare Mole with IF Stone. Stone was deaf, and moles are blind. Plus, Stone was a Soviet dupe who claimed to flack for no one, while Mole openly admits which teams he roots for. Hirsch might not like the team, but at least Mole never flacked for Howie Golden.

The real problem with the article is that Mole thinks he's Mimi Shreaton. Are you writing for the society page or the eats sections? If you aren't, you'd better mention this stuff with the wit of Gore Vidal, or no one will care.

Director Richard Brooks once described how a pornographer helped him learn to direct by lending him one of his stag reels. What was the lesson the porn film imparted? Where to put the camera. Where? "Get to the fucking point", said the pronographer.

mmhirsch's picture

...you dope...

I.F. Stone was not a Soviet mole. He was accused of being a subject of interest for the Soviets because he had the occasional lunch with the Russian attache. They lied to him and he bullshitted them. End of story. He also wrote under his own name, boychick, something you should try. As to my flacking for Howie Golden, it was my day job. With two kids I needed a day job. And yours was carrying water for Marty Connor. Surely you could have done better, or maybe not. Golden was also a term-limited old man when I was his speechwriter, more concerned with his legacy and with bailing out nonprofits than with cutting power deals. Connor was--and is--a leg breaker, and you were his boy wonder. As Joseph Welch asked Joe McCarthy, "Have you no shame?"

But your Mimi Sheraton crack is good. And the porn gag even better. Bon mots.

Bouldin's picture

Hahaha!

I am not going to get in the middle of this, but may I just compliment you on an exquisitely executed smackdown? That was art, pure art, whatever else it was.

mole333's picture

Eats section

We got no divisions here...and in case you haven't noticed, I do write about food from time to time.

And, from the comments, certainly people are paying attention! For what it's worth.

mmhirsch's picture

Testy, testy

Okay, Mole 333, you are a 140 pound chimp. I really must watch more Animal Planet with my kids. You're also being way too defensive. I didn't say you never criticize. I didn't even say you don't criticize enough, or even that you choose the wrong targets. Or that your whole role should be subsumed into playing the non-stop critic. I said that your entry was a wet kiss, and I don't know that its recipients are so deserving of the love. (Bouldin thinks there was more teeth than tongue in that kiss. I felt the spray all the way to Manhattan.) You certainly didn't indicate why your invitation was anything more than the annual peasants' visit to the castle. There's nothing in your comments to indicate why your being invited to a swank affair represents success for anyone else, or anything else. David Pollak is a decent man: I knew him when he was involved in bringing a new generation along to support the work of the exemplary Community Service Society. But it's more than Pollak, or Jerry Nadler, or Jim Brennan. When the major players in the national Democratic Party recognize bloggers, it's as much about cooptation, neutering and cherry picking as it is about commendation. In other words, if the power brokers as a class like you more than they fear you, you're doing something wrong.

Last point. Your dinner partner is deluded. Nixon was not worse than Bush. Nixon's domestic legislative programs was actually tolerable. What was intolerable was his war on civil liberties, his genocide in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and his and Kissinger's responsibility in the Allende murder. Bush has led a war against unions and the poor, while bankrupting the government. His trade policies are destroying what's left of manufacturing in the US. His NCLB is set to do more harm than good to the schools and his alliance with the Christian right threatens to establish a theocracy. That's damage that will take a generation of progressive Democrats to undo. Maybe your dinner companion likes Bush's domestic policies. Most neo-liberals do.

A note to Bouldin. Why the red-baiting? I'm not a Green. Just like you, I voted for Spitzer, something you and I will have to live with. I'm a Democratic County committee member, I work for local Dems in every campaign cycle and I don't believe Third Party politics is possible in America now, if ever--unless it's done the way the WFP operates, which is as a defacto Democratic Party caucus. The debate we've had--to the degree it ever was civil--was about what actions to take inside the party and with the party and how to move it in a progressive direction. Quite frankly, when you slam Mole for being too critical of your power sitdown at Cipriani's, it scares me. Dick Morris was once a progressive, too. So was Ed Koch. Do you think they were less progressive than you in their day? By all means, use whatever venues you can to influence the pols. And by all means listen to them; they know things we don't. Just don't insist they're your friends. Or if your friends, certainly not anyone elses.

mole333's picture

Well...

This perhaps was not made clear enough. The NY State Democratic Party invited us. And they invited us specifically to give us a seat at the table (no pun intended) with no strings attached. There was no attempt to tell us what to write or what to discuss or even that we SHOULD write about it. I chose to because it was a great picture into the inside of the party, some really good people said some really good things, and it was a great indication of the impact we are achieving.

As I say to a comment below, I am liking the fact that I am being criticized for being both too soft and too harsh. The criticism has made me look back at what I wrote and, well, it really was a pretty accurate impressionistic sketch of my experience. And the fact that some thought I was too harsh means I did get the criticisms across. The fact that most seem to think I was to easy on my fellow Dems probably suggests I did a good job of emphasizing my enthusiasm about the current crop of Democrats, who made some promises before last Novemeber and have been acting pretty fast to fulfill those promises and who are paying more attention to the grassroots/netroots voices than I ever expected. Yeah, I am happy to celebrate those things.

As to Nixon, I have always maintained that it is BUSH who is the biggest threat to American democracy since the Civil War. But I like to listen to and consider other viewpoints and this was from someone with a fairly unique view.

And never get your scientific facts wrong when talking with a scientist...or a Chimp ; -)

sidnora's picture

I'm sure not

getting into anything about this between you and Bouldin, mole, but I have to say that you did sound a bit, well, starry-eyed. And kind of blown away by the swankiness factor. I'm glad you had a nice evening, but whenever I go to any political event where there are goodies, I always try to take a moment or two and think about where the money for the goodies came from.

Since mostly I go to fundraisers, where I invite myself, I tend to get a little annoyed if the goodies are too good, because I know they were paid for with money I donated to be used for the advancement of the cause or candidate. I'm not saying no goodies allowed, I just try to be mindful.

As to opinions re Bush v. Nixon, I must (mostly) agree with mmhirsch - your dinner companion's very wrong. Nixon's domestic policies were quite tolerable, but that's not necessarily because he was a better person than Bush, or more liberal; it's because it was a different time and a different Congress.

We had a far better informed, more engaged and aware electorate then, and a Democratic Congress. The right-wing assaults of the last 30 years have eroded both; even with our newly Democratic Congress in control, just look at what hoops they had to jump through to pass the milquetoast Iraq bill today. Nixon couldn't have gotten away with 10% of what Bush has pulled in the last six years (starting with stealing the 00 election), and he knew it. Believe me, I remember.

mole333's picture

Well, I like this...

When I wrote about the inside spats of IND, both sides got miffed at me at first. I liked that because it was an indication I was being reasonably fair about the whole thing.

Same here. I am simultaneously being criticized for being too easy and too harsh on the whole thing. Well, fine. There was a great deal good to say about the whole affair (and I did note warts in the swankiness, I might add) and a few things I found worthy of criticism. So I did both.

As far as I am aware the swankiness had little effect on me. But finding that people in power are reading our stuff and interested in our opinion, THAT I feel good about. I can rant all I want, but if people aren't listening, it does no good.

I noted that Liza and Michael were among the most comfortable people there. Given our criticisms of the party as well as our participation, I think that says something.

You won't find me easily swayed by swank. But I am impressed by nice people who say good things and who listen to people who traditionally would be outsiders. So I have no problems praising a good event.

As to Nixon, I have always maintained that Bush was the worst threat to American democracy since the Civil War, Nixon's attacks included. But I found it interesting to hear a different opinion from someone who saw the inside of the Nixon attack.

Anonymous Coward's picture

Hirsch

Hirsch: Don't be so testy. You implied Mole was a sell-out, and it was then implied you lived in a glass house. Certainly, your motives for life's compromises were the best ones possible; most such compromises are. But one shouldn't take money from the less than pure, for reasons good or ill, and then begrudge someone else for taking a meal from sources somewhat less dubious.

I don't always agree with Mole, and I do think susceptability to flattery is probably more the problem than the free eats (being treated as an insider by insiders is far more seductive than a chocolate mousse), but Mole's life in politics seems to have been entirely selfless. You and your adversary, if you've identified him correctly, probably cannot say the same.

Speaking of meals, why was IF Stone morally exemplary for refusing to take meals from those associated with the American government, if he then felt free to take meals from the Soviets? Seems to me either could be jusitified as work related, and each presents the same exact problems.

BTW, I don't think calling someone a Soviet dupe is the same as calling them a Soviet agent. The meals Stone took are probably irrelevant. What's not irrelevant is that Stone was painfully naive about Stalin, even after 1939. Don't call me a Red-baiter for pointing this out. Your hero, Norman Thomas, would almost certainly agree with me on this.

But, you are dead on the money on the matter of Nixon v. Bush II. Domestically, Nixon's policies would now place him in the far left end of the Democratic Party. The evil in Nixon's methods was arguably no worse than LBJ's (I await Caro on this), and while his domestic accomplishments were far more limited than Lyndon's, can anyone really argue that Nixon's international policies really resulted in more evil? If so, it is probably only by increments. Surely, LBJ's motives were better, but it is accomplishments rather than intentions that really matter. I prefer Johnson to Nixon, but I certainly prefer Nixon to Bush II.

mole333's picture

Selfless...

Well I like to think it's selfless...but maybe I'm just waiting for a good offer before I sellout...or ANY offer at all Smiling

And no...one nice dinner at a swanky (if a bit decayed at the edges) venue on Wall Street in no way affects what I write. Though I think I might indeed prefer a chocolate souffle to flattery. I really am quite partial to good food.

And some might call my political involvement ego-driven rather than selfless...or a stupid waste of time...but thanks for the comment!

Anonymous Coward's picture

Zap.

Zap. Thanks for playing. Run along now.

brought to you by


Current weather

NY - New York City, Central Park

day-clear
  • Clear sky
  • Temperature: 35.6 °F
  • Wind: Variable from Southeast to West, 9.2 mph, gusts up to 17.3 mph
  • Pressure: 29.43 inHg
  • Rel. Humidity: 64%
  • Visibility: 10 miles

Premium Advertisers


Fill up our coffee cup fund!






Visit Our Sponsors


Subscribe to our daily digest

In keeping with the "city that never sleeps" tradition, keep up to date with our daily syndication digest.



Powered by FeedBlitz


culturekitchen Media

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Fresh dissent served daily
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers Network
BlogSheroes

A new kind of voyeurism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] dailygotham [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Only in New York

Sorting out the "truth" may seem a treacherous endeavor in such a politically polarized time. But we believe our journalists can play a greater role as an honest broker for voters bewildered by the barrage of campaign talk.

So in a move rare for a news organization, we're dedicating a team of reporters and researchers to meticulously examine the rhetoric of candidates and their partisans, and then make a call: Is the claim true or not?

You might think such work would be standard journalistic fare. But many news organizations can spend less money and get less grief if their political reporting sticks to stenography and puffery.

It's easier to record the words and claims of competing candidates than to vet their accuracy. It's easier to write about the strategy of using negative advertising than to do the painstaking research to sort out whether the claim is actually true or false.

— Neil Brown, Executive Editor of the St. Petersburg Times, announcing Politifact, a new project to determine whether candidate statements are actually true.

Who's online

There are currently 3 users and 1096 guests online.

Blogroll

Editors and Contributors

Mole's Progressive Democrat
Alien and Sedition
Dan Jacoby

The Indies

Adirondack Musings
The Albany Project
Angry Brown Butch
Atlantic Yards Report
Blue Spot
Buffalo Pundit
Buffalo Geek
Bike Blog
Brooklyn Rail
The Community Alliance
Danger Democrat
DDDB
DragonFlyEye
EverythingNY
Gowanus Lounge
Hell's Kitchen Online
Joshing Politics
Mamita Mala
Mamapalooza blog
More Gardens
Nassau GOP Watch
New York Games
No Land Grab
NY 13
On NY Turf
Peter King Watch
Politics on the Hudson
Open Orleans
Prometheus6
Room Eight
Steve Gilliard RIP
The Oil Drum
Troy Polloi
Rochester Turning
Simply Left Behind
Time's Up
The Working Families Party Man
Power from Truth by Chris Owens

The little big media

Capitol Confidential
Gotham Gazette
Daily Politics
Wonkster
New York Blade
NYC Bloggers
NYC Indymedia
The Politicker
EmpireZone
Power Plays
Spin Cycle

The big little media

Curbed
Gawker
Gothamist
The Politico
City Limits

Everybody Party! blogs

New Democratic Majority
Stonewall Democrats
Working Families Party's WFPBlog

The Brains

The Brennan Center
Reform NY
The Century Foundation
Center for American Progress
Drum Major Institute's DMIblog
edwize
TortDeform

The Movement

New Democratic Majority
Democracy for NYC
DL21C
Act Now
Capitol D Group
New York Democratic Lawyers Council

The Loyal Opposition

Alarming News
News Copy
Ragged Thots
Suitably Flip
Urban Elephants
Serf City

Fun Stuff

City Rag
Jossip
Overheard in New York
Cobalt 6

This list is a work in progress. Are there blogs you believe should be included (maybe your own)? Please leaves us a message through our contact page. Or drop us a line at :

editors(at)
dailygotham(dot)com


Progressive Districts

Progressive States

Alabama
Arizona
California Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Pacific Northwest
Sunbelt