Even an old guy like McCain would know better.

“Hold on a second, Sweetie,” said the Democratic front-runner to the female reporter. And Barack Obama says John McCain has lost his bearings! What’s next, for crying all night, “How’s it going, toots?” “Be right with ya, doll?”

The Reasonable Reporter is not particularly sensitive about misplaced terms of endearment from men. Most men mean well. And let’s face it, some of the things they say are just plain funny.

One former boss actually said, in the context of a formal review, “You know, you’re a very sharp gal.” That’s some damn funny material, and why squelch it? God knows, there’s little enough humor in the workplace.

But in politics, the guys who blast beyond the level of, let’s say, Commissioner of Traffic and Parking — they need to mind their manners when it comes to interactions with women. That’s because lots of women are touchy as hell about the way you treat them.

(And this is ironic, considering how an association to any sex-related misstep by just the right man can pay off in spades for a sharp gal. Consider Eliot Spitzer’s call girl, whose singing ambitions were discovered, and who racked up thousands of downloads from people curious to sample her music after the former New York governor’s prostitution scandal broke.)

Now Detroit TV reporter Peggy Agar has national profile as a result of having been double-dissed by a presidential candidate, who simultaneously ducked her question and addressed her as “sweetie.” Agar was presented with an interesting dilemma. Let it pass, and become the heroine of local newsroom folklore, or report it, which would inevitably put her at the center of the story.

Agar recorded her now-famous news package, in which she focused on campaign issues. She included audio of her own shouted question to Obama and the sweetie response, and tagged out of her report saying, “This sweetie never did get an answer to that question.”

This was not necessarily the wrong choice, given our American fixation with fake respect in politics, and given that Mr. Obama is beating the socks off of a classic 1970s feminist. The blunder needed to be reported, and by the way, it was reported by other outlets, something any first-year journalism student could have predicted.

But Agar took a cheap shot, which was the easy way out. When she decided to make herself part of the story, she put herself on the hook for pursuing the interesting question: Shouldn’t a law professor- Democratic politician- minority presidential candidate who came of age in the 1980s know better?

She might have been justified in breaking with protocol to chase down Obama and his entourage like a bunch of dogs, and throw a righteous fit — off camera — in order to end up with a great step-back piece about gender and power and elitism, topics which have become central to this race.

Of course, the Reasonable Reporter has no idea what Agar was up against in that particular situation. Sometimes it’s impossible to push, sometimes there are physical constraints, sometimes you really do need a moment to think. She may have lost the opportunity by pausing to ask herself, um, did he just call me sweetie?

As for Obama, he later called her and more-or-less owned up losing his bearings. He made a very skillful apology, and that’s why he’s the front-runner.

The caucus ain’t no pizza party, friends.

Two things, people. 1) The caucus is no place for casual voters. 2) If you don’t drag a few casual voters with you, your candidate will be crushed.

The Reasonable Reporter saw this contradiction demonstrated in Reno’s precinct 1003.

The precinct’s huge bands of Hillary and Obama supporters included more than a few casuals, and that’s why the two candidates performed so well. But many of the casuals wore the demeanor of someone on a blind date that isn’t going well. When the proceedings bogged down because of a procedural dispute, the casuals began to squirm and glance at their watches. Some even shouted things like “let’s get on with it.” A few slipped out the door while the captains were consulting the rules.

The casuals were easy to spot. The sleepy-looking college men with jet-black dye jobs, standing in the registration line. They told the Reasonable Reporter they were changing from Independent to Democrat. Why were they doing that? Blank looks all around. It was apparently not a question any of them had pondered at length. After a couple of beats one replied “Because Obama is the man.”

Then there was the restless-looking guy who bolted for the door the moment the counts were complete. The Hillary and Obama groups hadn’t yet chosen their delegates.

“I’ve got two kids at home” he shrugged as he breezed by Hillary’s dismayed precinct captain.

There were no casuals among the John Edwards supporters, and it was wrenching to watch their distress as they were forced to abandon their candidate and choose between the larger groups.

Remember the endless rounds of mockus sessions where Democrats were trained to caucus by choosing pizzas? It always made perfect sense. Pepperoni was always viable, because lots of people like pepperoni. So was cheese. Anchovy supporters always had to choose another group. Only you never saw disappointment on the faces of the anchovy supporters. They were always laughing because, after all, who likes anchovies? And, more to the point, there was nothing at stake.

The real caucus ain’t no pizza party. It’s a cruelly effective tool for reducing the number of candidates.

The Edwards supporters in precinct 1003 had already absorbed the even less viable Kucinich supporters. The combined faction was still two bodies shy of viability. The now-enlarged Edwards group challenged the implementation of the rules. Some thought they should have a shot at peeling off people from the Hillary and Obama camps. But those people had already surrendered their candidate cards, and had been instructed to stay put.

Some of the Edwards group felt they’d been robbed of the “caucus,” since no discussion had taken place. And this, not crowded parking lots or ballot shortages, is the lesson the party needs to take to heart.

“I’m from Iowa,” one of the Edwards group announced. “And this is not a caucus, it’s a nose count.” She tried to persuade the captains that nobody should have been rendered off limits to lobbying until more discussion had taken place. Caucusing. Horse trading. They hadn’t had a chance to do it.

(Come and vote for pepperoni! It’s the tastiest pizza and your kids will love it! Come and vote for cheese! It’s got lots of calcium. Come and vote for vegetarian! It’s the healthiest!)

The former Iowa resident got up and walked out. “She’s right! That’s what it’s supposed to be about, “ another man shouted. “There’s been no caucusing.”

The Reasonable Reporter witnessed no caucusing, if caucusing means discussing the merits of the candidates. A rules clarification at party HQ confirmed the process had been technically correct. Horse trading means trading up. Viable groups absorb non-viable groups, not the other way around.

On the issue of caucusing, however, the answer is less definitive. They should have been caucusing from the moment they walked through the door, a spokesperson told the Reasonable Reporter. If that’s the case, first-time Nevada caucusers at precinct 1003 didn’t realize it. Instead, they waited for instructions. Some are still angry.

“I hope we never have another caucus,” one told the Reasonable Reporter on Monday. She had decided to participate after watching an Iowa caucus meeting on C-Span, and seeing lots of discussion and persuasion.

On the Republican side, where the process is simpler, the dissatisfaction is somewhat in the same vein. The din in the rooms made it impossible to hear the speeches given by prospective delegates. No audible discussion. Some gave up and went home.

Slouching Toward Caucus Day

Hillary and Obama and mortgage misfortune 

It was one of the most fascinating, but least commented-upon moments of the week. Perhaps only the Reasonable Reporter and Joe Harrington from KOLO noticed, although it hardly seems possible, given the number of eyeballs and cameras trained on Hillary Clinton when she sat down with Nevadans for a roundtable at Bertha Miranda’s on Saturday. Here’s what happened.

One of the locals at Clinton’s table spoke at length about her mortgage misadventures. After a series of transactions with lenders who got her into a house at the peak of the market, and then couldn’t deliver refinancing, the woman has been using credit cards to pay her mortgage. The monthly payment has nearly doubled, the value of the house has dropped, and she’s facing foreclosure.

When the story concluded, it was Clinton’s cue to respond. As she began to speak, Clinton brushed her finger lightly across her cheek. It was a casual, and yet a lingering physical gesture.

It’s quite possible a tiny flake of mascara had fallen onto the cheek of the former first lady. Or did a twitching facial muscle need soothing? Maybe it was an itch and not a twitch. Or, for crying out loud – which Clinton wasn’t – maybe the woman in the next chair had uttered the word “foreclosure” with an overly forceful “f,” propelling a saliva droplet onto the former first lady, and Clinton needed to politely dispatch the miniscule bit of fluid from her face.

The Reasonable Reporter would consider any of the above a perfectly good explanation, were it appropriate to ask for explanation. Joe Harrington noticed, and wondered the obvious. He used the shot to tease his story on channel 8 that night. Was Hillary Clinton crying again?

Clinton’s roundtable was focused on the financial hardships of the middle class. Two days later, Barack Obama performed essentially the same event, sitting with similarly challenged Nevadans in a meeting room at the Reno Events Center.

These back-to-back events did more to differentiate the two candidates than almost anything else the campaigns have presented to date. But not on policy, particularly.

The Clinton conversations took place in a Mexican restaurant. There were a dozen or more participants at the table. The format was formal. Each guest introduced him or herself, and used a hand-held microphone to tell a story. Clinton, also using a hand-held mic, responded to each story with a critique of current policy, and the changes she would offer. It was neat and tidy, organized and smart, as was she. The place was jam-packed, but it was not a large place. Two hundred or so may be a generous estimate.

Obama’s roundtable was a media-only event. He had four people at the table, badly amplified, and there was no camera platform, which meant the TV cameras hogged the front line, and almost everyone else peered beneath the armpits of camera operators, stooped to look between the legs of tripods, or hugged a side wall to glimpse the proceedings.

(The thought that goes into preparing for media is always interesting. The press RSVP was the most wretched of all communication tools, the online form. It offered the following choices to identify the needs of the news organization: photography, video, print, internet, other. Yes, “other.” Radio, the Rodney Dangerfield of news media does have technical needs. We need to jack in for audio, and high-quality audio is apreciated, thank you. And just because the listeners can’t see the action doesn’t mean the reporter doesn’t need to see it.)

Obama’s interaction with his hand-picked Nevadans was intimate, (under the circumstances) with the candidate resting his chin in his hand as he looked earnestly into the eyes of each speaker. He interjected comments as they spoke, rather than waiting for them to finish. Even made a rueful quip or two, which seemed not to bother his guests, and it was something a friend might do, listening to an unremittingly grim tale of luckless occurrences.

He offered less in the way of substance than did Clinton, and this is notable. Obama is Obama when he’s before a crowd. At a table, he’s just another guy, and a bit of a slow talker at that.

Obama and Clinton both blame the business model that has Wall Street packaging mortgage-backed securities. But his criticism of Washington was more widely spread than Clinton’s. She blamed the Bush administration. He blamed the Washington establishment and lobbyists.

Obama then held a rally on the main floor of the Events Center, where the crowd pushed 2,000. This in contrast to the Sunday appearance at TMCC by Bill Clinton, where the crowd pushed 500. Both are rock stars, and both were wildly received. For the record, a wild reception by 2,000 sounds like ten freight trains.

Obama made his standard hope-and-change stump speech. The former president made his standard speech for Hillary, which included – The Reasonable Reporter made it a point to count them this time – 20 references to himself and his own presidency in a 39 minute speech. That’s a bit more than one every two minutes, for the math-challenged..

Mining. Silver State. Get it?

Originally Published on NevadaNewsmakers.com, 11/15/2007 1:30:57 PM

How thin-skinned the Iowans used to seem, making a big deal out of any failure on the part of any presidential candidate to grasp any tiny detail of Iowa culture. This was before the democracy fairy swept into Nevada with her magic caucus wand and tapped the Silver State, turning it into the westernmost (and the least mentioned) of the early decision states.

Since that transformational tap, the Reasonable Reporter has developed some insight into the Iowa mind, and understands as precisely as one can, having never set foot in Iowa, why the details — even the tiny details — matter to Iowans.

And so, if the little things matter (Ne-vaaa-da not Ne-vah-da), then the truly large things should matter more. Like H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007. It seems not to matter, though. Or perhaps Nevada doesn’t matter all that much. You decide.

For politicians seeking the white house, there is no fact too arcane to commit to memory when it comes to Iowa and ethanol. But the recently-passed House mining reform bill, now in the waiting room between the House and the Senate, is not even on the radar screen for most of the viable candidates.This seems odd, because the candidates have claimed, firmly and repeatedly, that Nevada is important. That “western issues” are important. The Reasonable Reporter has the claims on tape, and if all the claims by all the candidates were strung together, they would reach from Carson City to Iowa City.

If Nevada is important to the candidates, and if hardrock mining is important to Nevada… well, then…

The question arises after Barack Obama did address the mining reform act earlier this month in a conference call with Nevada reporters where he rolled out his “rural leadership plan.” Obama said that the industry should pay for the right to mine public lands, and that the bill should exact such payment without putting mines out of business, and without putting Nevadans out of work. He said that the royalty in the current bill seems onerous, and that the industry can afford to pay. He said the bill should accomplish its stated environmental objectives. He said as President, he would push miners and environmentalists to sit down together and come to terms. And that he will work with Harry Reid to correct the bill’s deficiencies, which was probably the most brilliant thing he said.

Although coverage of the mining reform bill has spotlighted the proposed 8 percent royalty on new mining operations, which the industry says would be the highest in the world, the royalty isn’t the only threat to the health of mining, according to its national spokesman. The industry has the heebie-jeebies over an environmental provision granting virtually unprecedented authority to the Secretary of the Interior to yank permits and close down operations on environmental grounds. The industry says the cost of new exploration and development is far too great to risk having it halted at the whim of a single political appointee. The industry fears, with more than a little justification, that investment might dry up, given such a risk.

As Obama spoke, several things were clear. He knew what’s in the bill. He rode the fence. He vowed to “strengthen mining” with a regulatory scheme the industry says will weaken it. But, God love him, Obama was getting into the details.

Other reporters have since suggested that Obama should jolly well understand the importance of Nevada mining because of his campaign’s connection to Billy Vassiliadis, which is a connection to R&R, which is the lobbying firm for Newmont Mining.

Fine. Well he should. But is that what’s necessary for a candidate to notice an issue critical to the number two industry in one of four early states?

Apparently so. Ask the other campaigns, even the ones that tout their rural presence, about the mining reform bill. When the stunned silence subsides, you will hear that the candidate is, uh, still studying it, still scrutinizing it, and has no position yet.