Altogether, the playlist currently links to 45 videos featuring John Edwards, debate outtakes, Obama Girl, the McCain-Palin “mob” and more. For the sake of my own sanity, I probably put more emphasis on the occasional funny stuff than you’ll see in compilations by, say, Michael Beschloss or Doris Kearns Goodwin. Have a look; mousing over the bottom part of the screen will help identify a given clip.

I had canvassed twice in Leesburg, and it was my intent to rejoin the Leesburg office for final GOTV (”get out the vote”) work on Monday night and Tuesday.  While I assume that would have been welcome, I also needed a place to stay, and that proved difficult to arrange.  I had needed to leave quickly on Saturday; as I tried to recontact people at the Leesburg office on Sunday and Monday about where to go,  I came to suspect I was becoming more of a  problem for the people there than a potential asset for them.

I had rented a car for the occasion (I would need to drive straight from Virginia to Ohio for a funeral).  By Monday afternoon I’d resolved to book a Leesburg motel room as well and just show up at the Obama HQ there when I got a call from one Lynne Weil, who said she’d been given my name.  Having established that she wasn’t in Leesburg, Virginia but in the vicinity of Chantilly, that that didn’t matter to me, and that she had a place for me to stay, we agreed I’d arrive around 8.  But between a late start, traffic, and eventually needing to buy a Loudoun County map to find my way, I finally arrived at the address I was given around 9 pm.

Precinct/turf situation board, South Riding hub,
Chantilly, VA, night of 11/3/08
Originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew
Slideshow here.

Talamore Drive
Somewhat to my surprise, it really was just another single family home among many in a prosperous looking neighborhood — big, fairly new houses, usually several cars per driveway.  But the house turned out to have been all but handed over to the Obama campaign by its owner — the garage was a canvassing staging area, the kitchen had bowls of salad and multigallon coffee containers, the dining room was occupied by four or five people entering data on their laptops.  I had arrived between shifts, and stood to the side eating an unexpected dinner on a paper plate and listening in to low conversations in the living room about how urban or rural a given “turf” was, were there enough flashlights, when the door hanger work would start.

I got to talking with another volunteer clearly also waiting for work to do — and it turned out he was part of the Senate Foreign Relations committee staff.  We talked about Iran briefly; he seemed to approve of pressure on Iran on the basis of their past nuclear weapons work, and noted that a problem with the “MIT solution” is the fear of a breakout — the Iranians might work with an international uranium enrichment facility for a while, then appropriate the facility and/or the expertise gained and go back to nuclear weapons work on their own.  I suggested that no matter what, there will be the possibility of disappointment.  But I didn’t want to press things much further than that — we’d both come to do get out the vote work, not have a debate on Iran.

Around 11:30pm, that’s what we did.  I couldn’t even say where we went — he had the map and address list, I had the flashlight and the bundle of door hangers (”Obama / Warner”); we got into a process of me shining our flashlight on the mailboxes, confirming we were at or near the right spot, and jumping out to hang up the door hanger.  After jingle-jangling my way to a couple of doors, I emptied my spare change and car keys into the back seat.  I was forever braced for Rover the dog to start barking — and not sure what I would do –  but thankfully that didn’t happen.  The whole thing took maybe an hour and a half.

We were billeted at another home nearby, lived in by a United Airlines pilot, her husband (also a pilot), and her mom.  The UA pilot waited up for us, and talked with us for a while; the shower and bed were very welcome, as was breakfast the next morning.  (I thought I’d see her again the next day, but didn’t — thanks again for everything!).

Oribi Place
The next morning I was sent over to a secondary HQ — another home — for instructions and materials.  This time, we would be knocking — the idea, of course, was to identify supporters who’d voted and whittle down the list to those who hadn’t.  The little area (or “turf”) I drew was apartment/condo style residences near the school where voting took place — and I couldn’t tell you much more than that.  The routine was the same all day — get out of the car, reassure yourself you had the right address, walk up to the door, take a deep breath, ring the bell, knock… and wait.  And usually find no one home, and leave the door hanger dangling.

When someone was home, the feedback was generally positive; while I got one case where a brother working on a car in the driveway got a bit surly and asked “what if she is” when I asked if so-and-so was home, I also got more than a few glad “sure have - Obama!” responses  — even though I wasn’t asking who they’d voted for.  One woman even expressly thanked the campaign for showing up so often.

Phonebank hub, Election Day
Originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew

Carrington Drive
On my return from the first walking list of the day around maybe 11, I learned we were being reassigned to phonebank GOTV work at yet another location — the time was judged not to be right for more door to door work.  So off I went to yet another Obama-house — this one abuzz with cell-phone conversations — where to vote… be in line by 7pm and you can vote… the number to call for a ride if needed… bring ID… ask for a paper ballot… thanksbye.

As with the door to door work, the Chantilly phonebanking lists had a number of  (presumably) first/second/early generation immigrant names — noticeably Indian-Americans, but sometimes also persons with Vietnamese, Chinese, African, Hispanic and other names you could make a guess about ethnic origins from. I got through a packet of about 5 pages worth of names — I’m guessing maybe 60 people or so, and 50 households. I also spent a fair amount of time checking on the “remaining funds” levels of cell phones (”Virgin Atlantic”) obtained by the Obama campaign for the purpose, and then learning how to top them up again online — earning me brief “rock star” status in the eyes of the phonebank coordinator before she turned back to briefing incoming volunteers.

As elsewhere, I found a combination of great volunteers and superb new leaders — people who were themselves volunteers, who’d been identified and promoted to positions of responsibility.  As elsewhere, this was probably facilitated by the meticulous record-keeping and reporting that was part of the game plan.  Take a close look at that whiteboard in the first photo sometime.  You’ll see a process broken down to its necessary parts, with a step for data entry planned before more work takes place.  It worked well.  And the people who were running things were not necessarily long time veterans.  Sophia, the field director at Talamore Place, was not much over 20 if she was that.

From Oribi Place to Destiny Drive
Having promised to return to Oribi Place staging location for more door to door work, I returned there in the early afternoon. This time I drew a more extensive walking list (about 40 doors, if memory serves) to get through on my own. I slugged down a water bottle and a snack while my phone recharged, and then headed for my car.

I didn’t take along one of the good umbrellas stockpiled for the occasion — a mistake. Even though it never rained hard, a steady misting drizzle made the afternoon round a bit of a chore. It was about 4:30 by the time I got back, fairly tired, fairly wet, and fairly sure I was going to bag it for the day — I still had a long drive to Ohio ahead of me, and I didn’t want to fall asleep at the wheel and get myself smeared all over the road somewhere on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Destiny Drive, Conklin, VA
Originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew

But there were still two and a half hours to go before the polls closed.  After sitting down, drying off with some paper towels, and resting a bit, the Oribi Place “staging location” director Wendy didn’t so much talk me into another round as I talked myself into it.  I asked for a nearby neighborhood.

So I got my final walking list of the 2008 presidential campaign.  The street names in the area were often anywhere from precious to whimsical — Tanzanite Terrace, Clock Tower Square, Sarazen Drive.

But this time, they combined the lyrical with the prophetic.  My Google directions were:

Head southeast on Oribi Pl towards Destiny Dr
Turn right at Destiny Dr
Turn left at Possibility Way
Turn right at Cherish Court

And that is what I did.

=====
NOTE: for a collection of my posts on my experiences as a Maryland volunteer in the Obama 2008 Virginia campaign, click on the “obamava” tag link.  I’m but one of hundreds of us who went to Virginia time and again, or called, or helped organize volunteers to do so. All of them, particularly organizers like Aviva in Maryland, and Wendy, Lynne, David, and Sophia in Virginia, deserve a ton of credit for the work they did. We won a very, very big one; long may the story be told.  For some good explanations of the Obama campaign “ground game”, and what made it such a good organization, see Zack Exley’s Huffington Post article “What’s Really Behind Obama’s Ground Game“  and many of Sean Quinn’s “on the road” articles at fivethirtyeight.com, e.g., “On the Road: Northern Virginia.”

“A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles.”

– Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, 1798

I’ll be in blog silence for the next couple of days — not that that’s very different from any random couple of days.  First I’m off to Loudoun County, VA to help with GOTV tonight and tomorrow; then I need to drive to Ohio on family matters.

Here’s hoping we’ll be celebrating an Obama victory when I get back.

A disturbing part of that resolution (in my opinion) is:

[Congress] demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program;…

(emphases added) …which — given this administration’s “ready, fire, aim” methods — still seems to me like “waving a red cape in front of a bull in a china shop.” The gist of Van Hollen’s response to my own e-mail expressing opposition to H.Con.362 is this:

Some have interpreted language in the resolution as authorizing a blockade of Iran. The resolution makes no mention of military pressure-much less a blockade. H. Con. Res. 362 calls for the President to seek the international community’s support for an export ban on refined petroleum, not a blockade. Iran does not export refined petroleum products, it imports them. Therefore an export ban on refined petroleum would be enforced by customs inspectors and export administrators on the territories of the exporting countries, not in the Persian Gulf. This method is already in use by the international community, including the United States to enforce the four existing UN Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran.

Finally, I draw your attention to the final whereas clause of the resolution which states in explicit language, “Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.” Since a naval blockade is by definition the use of force, the language of the final whereas clause of this resolution renders the prospect of a naval blockade simply out of the question.

First, it is of no consequence whatsoever that Iran imports refined petroleum products — in fact, preventing imports is the traditional purpose of a blockade.  Second, the resolution itself speaks of “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.”

Now I’m not alone in suspecting that the language of the resolution is a reckless demand for a naval blockade — whatever its sponsors may have intended, the measures envisioned can not be carried out without inspections and, if necessary, interdictions at sea.  From a July 10, 2008 letter by Lawrence Korb, Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (ret.), and Lt. General Robert Gard, Jr. (ret.) urging Congress to abandon the resolution:

• The language demanding the President initiate an international effort “prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran,” is of particular concern because despite the protests of its sponsors, we believe that implementation of inspections of this nature could not be accomplished without a blockade or the use of force.

• Immense military resources would be required to implement such inspections of cargo moving through the seas, on the ground and in the air. The international community has shown no willingness to join in such an activity. Without a Security Council Resolution, implementation of these measures could be construed as an act of war.

(Via FCNL.)

The resolution’s supporters’ chief argument is that the bill explicitly does not authorize the use of force. But this is an especially odd argument for Rep. Van Hollen to be making — because in 2007 he helped vote down the  DeFazio Amendment merely asserting that “[n]o provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran.”

In a bizarre defense of that vote, Van Hollen argued that he was  “wary of passing legislation that says the President may not violate the Constitution with respect to one country (such as Iran), because singling out one country only could lead to the false impression that the Congress would countenance unauthorized and unconstitutional military actions against another country (such as Syria).” Van Hollen may believe what he likes about his votes; taken at face value, the two votes add up to (1) an explicit demand that ships heading to Iran be stringently inspected, and (2) the assertion by negation that there are provisions of law authorizing military force against Iran.

In other words, Van Hollen is wrong even by his own standards in claiming H.Con.Res 362 by itself contains the language that would prevent a blockade.  If I know my imperial Presidency, there are a great number of other existing statutes and executive orders supplying halfway plausible authority to do whatever the president wants to do and is given even a pale green light to do so.  And between the defeat of the DeFazio Amendment and the signal given by this resolution, they would be getting a giant, blinking, neon green sign to do so.  We might then be treated to legal hairsplitting whether “stringent inspections” at gunpoint constituted a blockade similar to the “debate” on whether mistreatment short of organ failure constituted torture.

Now despite all this — and despite my support for his opponent this election, Gordon Clark (Green) — it has been my impression that Mr. Van Hollen is a smart, capable guy.  He runs the DCCC; he appears on Sunday talk shows; he takes some good positions on issues like labor and torture — even if one might wish for more and for more risk-taking leadership on these and other issues (notably global warming).  So I wondered where he was getting his information.

I may have found the answer: a July 8th statement by H. Con. Res. 362 sponsor Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY-5).  The text of this speech rang a bell, and when I compared the speech with the e-mail, there was a great deal of overlap.  In fact, everything highlighted in blue above is taken word for word from that July 8th statement.  While Ackerman may not have had the benefit of the advice in the July 10th letter cited above, Rep. Van Hollen should have — this is not something to be putting together a hasty cut-and-paste job about.

The remarkable thing is that early last month, H. Con. Res. 362 was shelved by his House colleagues because of precisely the concerns outlined above.  Over the summer, several prominent liberal Congressmen including Barney Frank and Robert Wexler acknowledged their mistake and withdrew their co-sponsorship of the bill.  Frank wrote a peace activist to say:

“I agree that this should not be our policy, and I regret the fact that I did not read this resolution more carefully … I’m going to consult with the authors to see if a change can be made that would omit this language, and if they are unwilling to do that, I will make very clear my disagreement with this in the most appropriate form. I apologize again for not having read this more carefully.”

This seems like a forthright and simple way out for Rep. Van Hollen, too.  There’s no need for him to tie himself to war-mongering language that thankfully seems to be going down in flames.  Should he be re-elected, I hope he’ll do the right thing that Rep. Barney Frank did — withdraw his co-sponsorship, and either insist on modifications making this resolution less dangerous, or simply refuse to go along with this kind of propaganda effort at all any more.

For the real point of resolutions like this is to express Beltway conventional wisdom to all who care to listen, and to continue to instill fear of Iran for a nuclear weapons program our own intelligence community has judged with high confidence was halted in 2003.  Representative Van Hollen shouldn’t be a part of that.  The Republic of Iran, like it or not, has the perfect right to avail itself of nuclear power, and to enrich uranium to that end.  It would be far more constructive to support a proposal for an internationally run enrichment facility, and eschew the kind of saber rattling represented by H. Con. Res. 362.

Meanwhile, though, and at minimum, I’d like the benefit of my representative’s own thoughts on these kinds of issues, and not those of someone else’s — particularly when I’m being told my concerns are “simply out of the question.”