Sweet Bippy came home from the hospital today, 3 months and 2 weeks after his birth. Getting out of the hospital was a bit of an adventure. Loaded down with our oxygen tanks, monitors, and bags a-plenty, we’d gotten about five steps out of the NICU when red lights started flashing and alarms went off. Standing in front of the elevators, the excited nurse ran out to us apologizing for forgetting about the security bracelet around his ankle. (It’s like house arrest!) Lest we be accused of abducting our own baby, we turned back around while she cut off the bracelet and gave the all clear.

Down in the lobby we are confronted by the security who checked our parental identity bracelets. We were allowed to pass, but then we were chased down again in the elevator. Security hadn’t gotten the all clear. But after assessing that we were a legitimate discharge, we were finally allowed to depart the hospital.

In the car, pulling into busy traffic, I told him, “We sprung you, boy. You’re on the lam now.”

It’s been a long day, trying to get Mr. Infant settled, swaddled, fed and med’ed. I can’t imagine what a wild day of stimulation it has been for a baby who has stared at hospital ceilings for months. But he’s here now and our lives together are underway.

While we were attending to two sons–Son One had his 1st grade orientation today–we were blessed with the support of many. Special thanks to Laurie and Jim, who tracked down hardware to replace our missing crib hardware. And Mary, who entertained our son for hours this evening. And Nonna and Papa who brought us breakfast, did the laundry, and helped with the boys. And Dawn, who gave us clothes and an important pep talk. Midge decorated our mailbox for our return, and Son One drew a lovely welcome banner and diligently made sure that nobody stepped on his brother’s cables. (He is indeed his brother’s keeper.)

Says Son One of his new brother: “He looks like a monster with a tee-shirt on.”

Also says Son One: “I’m not going to get another brother after this, am I?”

Says Barack Obama at the Democratic Convention: “That is the change we need now.”
My response to the TV, taking a sniff: “The change we need now is a diaper change.”

If Michigan revotes and Obama wins, will Clinton drop out then? Doesn’t that take the remaining wind out of the big state fallacy? Just wonderin’

It’s a little hard to get your message out with Ferraro ranting and Spitzer folding, but Obama had a good event today in which he received the endorsement from a lineup of retired flag officers from the Army, Navy, and Air Force. It was a good counter to the insinuations from the Clinton campaign in recent weeks that Obama fails to meet some vague threshold of Commander-in-Chiefness.

Since it’s drowned out by the other news of the day, I’m posting the link to the Obama news conference to help give it a tiny bit of play.

Best line of the speech:

After years of being told that Democrats have to talk, act and vote like John McCain to pass some Commander-in-Chief test, how many times do we have to learn that tough talk is not a substitute for sound judgment?

I’ll also note that in addition to the support of these retired generals and admirals, Obama has the enthusiastic support of two of my favorite fighting Dems–Bryan Lentz and Patrick Murphy.

I’ve been one of the Obama supporters who has also been quick to defend Senator Clinton. To date, I’ve been proud of them both.

But as the crossroads for the Democratic Party approach, I’m getting increasingly disgusted with the tortured logic of the Clintons and their surrogates. Barack Obama has the lead in pledged delegates, popular vote, and contests won. The entire Clinton claim to the nomination now rests on making a flawed argument to superdelegates that infers November outcomes from Clinton’s modest big-state victories among Democrats.

Ed Rendell was on Meet the Press this morning, where he intoned repeatedly that caucuses are undemocratic, which is meant to discredit much of Obama’s success.

So goes the Clinton/Rendell argument: primaries > caucuses.
Here’s the problem: primaries > caucuses > letting the machine decide.

I greatly respect the superdelegates who have refrained from announcing their endorsements while voters are waiting to weigh in. But if it really is a problem that we’re having an increasingly damaging intra-party war, the remaining superdelegates can announce what their criteria will be. Then the war rooms can do the math in each of the campaigns, and one of them can start to position themselves for a face-saving, graceful exit.

I would make this argument to the Obama campaign: you’ve built your case for a different kind of politics around the concept of grassroots power. Whatever you think about the rules that currently exclude Michigan and Florida, you have to recognize that it was career machine politicians in both parties that created the situtation. I think Obama should be championing little-d democracy by being full-throated about the importance of letting Michigan and Florida voters count. Michigan should be winnable for him, anyway, so why choose to stop being a movement candidate now?

So, my son is standing in front of the TV a few minutes ago yelling:

What is a superdelagate? I don’t understand what a superdelegate is? Will SOMEBODY PLEASE tell me what a superdelegate is?

Kid, you and just about every other little-d democrat in the world.

In honor of Potomac primary night, I recite this passage from the P.D. Eastman children’s classic, Go, Dog. Go!

A big dog party!
Big dogs, little dogs,
red dogs, blue dogs,
yellow dogs, green dogs,
black dogs, and white dogs
are all at a dog party!
What a dog party!

Go, Democrats. Go!

Super Tuesday redux: Hillary Clinton wins states that Democrats win. Obama wins in states we need to win. I don’t want the electoral college map inherited from 2000 and 2004. I want a new map.

Hillary Clinton’s case used to be inevitability. Now she’s struggling to spin her margins as nominal victories over an insurgent movement candidate from within her own party.

I want to win more than an election. I want to grow the number of people who seem themselves within the progressive agenda.