Pandemonium post-mortem
Lining up at Redwood Acres (Mark McKenna/Times-Standard)
The afterglow of having former President Bill Clinton visit Humboldt County is still tinged with grumbling by those who feel betrayed by being left out in the cold.
One way to look at this organizational car crash would be like an insurance claim: percentages of fault.
About 50 percent of the fault goes to the Clinton campaign, because the site selection was their job. I'm sure the local Democrats were telling them there could be a crowd of 1,000 or more. Phones were ringing off the hook all over town from people wanting to know when and where they should show up.
And why not? It's one of the most wide-open presidential elections in a generation, and even if you're not interested in politics, it's been 40 years since a sitting or former president came here. The historic implications are enough to make any parent want to take their kid.
(I remember the thrill as a 14-year-old Boy Scout attending the National Boy Scout Jamboree in Colorado in 1960, when I saw President Eisenhower drive by in his convertible limo.)
But the thing is, a campaign organizer is absolutely terrified of booking a candidate — or the candidate's spouse — into a venue where there is a possibility of empty seats. Visually, they want the place to look packed to overflowing, and people looking like they're on the Titanic, trying to get into a lifeboat. Great visuals for the evening news.
Then there is the Secret Service, which doesn't want to have to deal with a humongous mob packed into an arena. And the campaign advance team doesn't know for sure how many will turn out; they've never set up a campaign appearance here before. If they overdo it, and leave four or five times as many people outside than inside, the local party people can take the heat, not them.
But 25 percent of the blame should go to the local Democratic organizers, because they knew a throng was going to show up, and they seemed to react like deer in the headlights.
No. 1 on their planning agenda should have been a simple and fair way to ensure that those who lined up early were rewarded by getting in. Instead, although it appears those in line were handed numbers for some purpose, it all went awry when the doors opened and it was "survival of the fittest" — the biggest and most aggressive shoved their way in.
No. 2 should have been figuring out what to do with the hundreds who inevitably wouldn't get in. The only strategy seemed to be to tell people, "Tough luck — go home and listen on the radio." How hard would it have been to put chairs in some other, heated rooms — Redwood Acres is a big place — and rig speakers to bring them the speech.
Instead, there were reports that much time was spent making sure the friends of the Democratic committee members got seats. I am told that a great percentage of people at the event claiming to be "media" were no such thing. Hey, there's nothing wrong with rewarding loyal party people. Just be up front about it, and don't fool Joe and Jill Sixpack and their kids into thinking they actually have a chance of getting in.
And the final 25 percent of the blame? It falls on those people who were whining about how they didn't have somebody hold their hand to escort them to the front row, just because they showed up. I'm being facetious, but as Bill Clinton kept repeating, "You see what I'm saying?" Welcome to the real world. You really didn't think it would be a disorganized mess? Life is like that.
It wasn't much different at Bill's earlier stop in Napa, where they crammed 500 people into the opera house, except Bill spent much more time there in glad-handing the crowd outside before he went in, and afterward at the opera house cafe.
In general, although I didn't attend his Eureka appearance (I'm an enochlophobe), my impression is that things here were handled about as well as could be expected, and at least there were last-minute efforts to let folks outside get a peek at the former president, or to rig external speakers.
When people called me on Wednesday morning to ask about where and when, I told them there would be more than 1,000 there, and even if they got in line that afternoon the odds were against them. Every one said they still wanted to take a chance — if they didn't get inside, maybe they could get a glimpse of Bill.
I respect that — you take a chance, you lose, you shrug and go home. Like in baseball, there should be no crying in politics. But wait — that seems to be "in" this year. Waaaaah!
Comments
to clear things up, the people who didnt make it into the building were able to hear the speech via speakers that were placed outside......
Posted by: theotherme | January 19, 2008 07:30 PM
Next time you write an editorial get your facts straight, Rich. I left a voice mail at your news room this morning and hope you will return my phone call.
Regarding the slips of paper that someone in line took upon themselves to hand out - this was not done with permission or authority of the event organizers. Anyone can write a number on a piece of paper and excpect to get in.
There were outside speakers set-up prior to the event and at the last minute the sound enegineers were installing speakers in another building, so that people could get out of the cold and listen to an audio feed.
The decision of the venue was made by the Clinton Campaign and the SECRET SERVICE. They had the choice of that venue or a larger venue and chose the Home-Ec building.
Originally, Clinton was suppose to visit the HCDCC HQ and a coffee shop. Could you imagine what chaos would have been like in the small HCDCC HQ?
As volunteers,we were there in the morning setting up chairs, working with the campaign, and my husband and I did not know we were guaranteed a place to sit until we went inside. We were outside working along with the sheriff's deputies to get as many people inside as possible. To our surprise, we were given front row seats.
I left my phone number on this mornings voice mail to the Times Standard - call us. Thadeus has it as well.
Posted by: Carol Conners | January 20, 2008 08:38 AM
The Times-Standard Bites
Sunday's editorial "roast and toasts" is a cute enough idea, but turns rotten when the staff bites off internet lies and poops 'em out for the public as if they were truth.
Today's poop: (A roast) to the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee, which should have anticipated hundreds would be scrambling to get in and found a way to create a fair entry policy and to get the rest out of the cold for a video or audio feed.
The Lies:
1. It's a lie to say there was no fair entry policy.
2. It's a lie to state that local volunteers were in a position to change that policy.
3. It's a lie to say there was no alternative audio location available at the site
The Facts:
1. The line was set up on a first-come, first-served basis. Scads of reporters and about a hundred democratic party loyalists and local officials were seated before the public. The reporters were the reason for the visit. The party loyalists were there because they did the work. The dignitaries? Hey, debate that one if you want, but no one said life would be "fair".
2. Locals suggested the larger building. The campaign chose the smaller one. Locals suggested forming a line outside the gate and down the fence, to discourage cutting. The line was formed at the door, instead. Official local volunteers helped out with the lines and setting up chairs. We had about the same level of input as the people who came up with the "voluntary numbering system" at the front of the
line.
3. The outside lawn next to the building was set up with speakers before the event, and the big exhibit building was open and set up with audio before the speech began. Geez, check some facts.
We've been around politics and expect sleazy anonymous attacks, but to have them picked up and repeated as fact by the local paper? Tsk.
Bill Clinton looks very good, especially after seven years of Bush. The Times-Standard has been looking pretty good these days, too. I guess that's relative as well.
Posted by: Greg | January 20, 2008 09:10 AM
Sorry, most of the blame goes to the DCC.
The venue isn't the issue. The issue is that hundres (thousands?) of people needlessly waited there for hours, even people who were originally within the first 100 to be in line, when there really was no hope of their getting inside. The issue was entirely crowd control, of which there was little to none.
People would not be grumbling if they showed up, found out the place was "sold out" and then went home to listen on the radio. People are grumbling because of how the line was handled. Period.
This whole "venue" talk is to distract and deflect blame away from the local organizers.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2008 01:46 PM
Funny how one person's opinion becomes another person's "lie." Guess it depends upon the perspective...
Posted by: Rich Somerville | January 20, 2008 05:09 PM
I'll agree with Rich on that: We need to be careful when calling things "lies". Often, it's just a matter of "subjective interpretation", as some have called it.
I don't think Rich, or anyone else, is trying to lie about this. They're just giving they're opinion. An opinion I might not often agree with.
Posted by: Fred Mangels | January 20, 2008 05:56 PM
Gee wiz Rich. Getting your facts wrong is a mistake, not a lie, but its not an opinion either. Can't you just say you are sorry for some of the errors that accompanied your opinion? It is just possible if you had all the facts straight your opinion might not have been so harsh?
Posted by: Hayduke | January 20, 2008 09:38 PM
Hayduke:
My opinion being harsh is only in the context that apparently county Democrats are unused to being criticized, so that they're going overboard in being upset that everyone doesn't agree with their spin that it was just the most wonderfully organized event ever!!
Other than that, which "facts" are you referring to, the ones from the insiders or the outsiders? They seem to have very different versions. My experience is that the "official" version is usually the most self-serving.
Posted by: Rich Somerville | January 21, 2008 08:00 AM
How about getting the facts from somebody who was there, Rich? You lose points when your repeat lies (sorry, "untruths") in an editorial. No slack here.
Greg
Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2008 08:10 AM
County democrats are not use to being criticized? You have not been around very long, Rich.
BTW, you have not returned my two phone calls from yesterday.
Posted by: Carol Conners | January 21, 2008 08:20 AM
Wikipedia puts it this way:
"A lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to deceive."
Rich may not have had the intent and only repeated the lies without understanding the truth. The statements are someone else's lies - repeated by a newspaper and used to form opinion. You don't look good Rich.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2008 08:29 AM
"...the staff bites off internet lies and poops 'em out for the public as if they were truth."
Looks like you were the target of the lies in the first place, Rich.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2008 08:40 AM
Cut me some slack about the calls, Carol. I'm not even in the office yet. You can vilify me later...
Posted by: Rich Somerville | January 21, 2008 09:46 AM
"County democrats are not used to being criticized? You have not been around very long, Rich."
I was kidding — I know politics can be rough around here, as in most places. It's funny, though, that the people with the thinnest skins are the most politically active. Might be worth a study...
Posted by: Rich Somerville | January 21, 2008 01:26 PM
No that the local paper dude has chimed in, and pointed his finger too...can you all move the hell on?
Posted by: So Cal Transplant | January 21, 2008 02:01 PM
Happy Reverend Martin Luther King Day, Rich, and I mean it. Peace!
Posted by: Carol Conners | January 21, 2008 06:04 PM
Incompetent people don't know they're incompetent. They will fight tooth and nail to defend their biggest mistakes.
The DCC should apologize to the people of Humboldt County.
Hard hard is it to assign people numbers and then make sure those people get in first? Answer: Not at all. They just didn't try.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2008 01:41 PM
One thing needs to be cleared here. It was announced there would be seating for 400. 600 were actually let in. So more people had a chance of seeing Clinton than was originally thought. And there was ample speakers outside to hear, Rich.
Posted by: Richard Marks | January 22, 2008 03:08 PM