Plunderbund podcast: Part II of Subodh Chandra interview

Eric: And, like I said, it was very good to see your campaign treat blogs very similar to the press, and some campaigns do and some campaigns don't. But I kind of wanted to get into this viral ad that you had sort of mentioned before. And I will just tell you that, I picked those up and put them on Plunderbund, and right away got my bandwidth completely killed. It's the first I've ever gone over my monthly bandwidth before the middle of the month. So that's good, because obviously people were wanting to visit the site and see those things. What was behind--you had both a Simpsons thing, and for people who are listening that haven't seen it, you should be able to go to the site and search for it and find it. The videos are on there. You had a Simpsons parody and you had a puppet show. What was behind that? I mean, was the puppet show just something that you dreamed up, or was it sponataneous, or--how'd that go down?

Subodh: Well, I've actually been doing the puppet show off and on for younger audiences.

Eric: Oh, okay.

Subodh: I did it for Cleveland State University law students, I did it for law students at The Ohio State University, and I've been doing it off and on throughout the campaign. And the puppet show is just basically, it's pure fun. And we had a fundraiser in Cleveland Heights at a friend's place. And it was kid-friendly, and there were a lot of kids there including my own. And so we broke out the puppet show, and I added a couple of songs at the end.

Eric: (laughing) Right! And we won't give it away for people who haven't seen it, but you've got to go on there and see it.

Subodh: So it's just pure fun and all I'm trying to get across to people is that this is the same kind of silly drama with victims, villians, and vindicators as any other good fairy tale in life--

Eric: Sure.

Subodh: --and unforunately it actually all happened to us. It was probably the first time in world history that the words "securities" and "exchange commission" were used in a puppet show.

Eric: (laughing) That's right. It's brilliant, and it's so funny. And the Simpsons thing is probably going to get more traction around the net, because it's one of those things on blogs that people like. But again, we won't go into that. You, basically are Apu, and your opponent Marc Dann is Homer Simpson, and it goes from there. And that's the take-off, so for folks that haven't seen it, get on the site, check it out--it's funny stuff. But, what are your thoughts in general on blogs--political blogs or otherwise. Do you see them as a force, or a farce?

Subodh: No, I think they're a real force. They come with good, they come with bad. The good part is, these are alternative ways of getting information out when the media are controlled increasingly by conglomerates, and editorial decisions are made sometimes that don't make any sense. So it's a good way to put information out there, and for bloggers who are entrepreneurial and enterprising to get information and put it out there for people to consider, and I've noticed many times the mainstream media following the blogs now.

Eric: Yes.

Subodh: --which is fascinating.

Eric: Well, that's what blew up my bandwidth, was the PD. (Plain Dealer).

Subodh: Right, right. How many--are you able to guess how many people actually looked at the thing?

Eric: I'm not sure, on a post by post basis. It was probably several hundred that viewed it, just knowing the size of the file and how much bandwidth it sucked up. I mean, it just went nuts for two days in a row. So obviously a lot of people, and maybe some people who listen to this now, will come and see it. But it was, let's just say a lot! My host is asking for more money, let's just put it that way.

Subodh: Well, I'm sorry to cost you--

Eric: Oh, no worries! It's a few bucks--it's what I do. (Editor's note: But it wouldn't hurt to visit Eric's tip hat in the upper right hand corner of his blog, and leave a little thank you for "what he does".)

Subodh: But, the down side of blogs, is that there's a lot of disinformation that's put out there--

Eric: Right.

Subodh: --and then campaigns can get out there and basically, through anonymous identities, shill and troll bad information. Like the father-in-law of my opponent trying to, essentially, question my patriotism, the way I interpreted that.

Eric: Right, and that happened on Plunderbund, actually. And we've seen that, but I also think, personally, that blogs are self-policing. I mean, bloggers pretty much find B.S. and call B.S. on stuff pretty quickly. And, like you saw, the High and Broad blogger person got shut down. We are pretty good at self-policing, hopefully, anyways.

Hey, that sort of leads into my next question. The testiness that came out in the last few weeks between you and your opponent Marc Dann. Do you attribute that just to it being crunch time, and both of you trying to differentiate? And do you think you've been able to differentiate enough at this stage?

Subodh: Well, let me answer the second part first, about the differentiation. There could not be a clearer contrast between these two candidates. Executive experience on my end versus legislative experience on his end, and many of the distinctions that he's tried to draw for example in editorial board meetings, are just false distinctions. This notion that he's represented ordinary people and I've just represented big institutions, it's just a bunch of nonsense. I mean, I represented an African-American colleges student who had been beaten up by police officers.

So that's just nonsense. And then another distinction that he tried to create is that somehow he's got policy experience and I don't have any. I mean, what is it that somebody who works for the Ohio governor, the Oklahoma governor, the Texas governor, who's been counsel to the head of the American Bar Association helping develop the ABA's Commission on Domestic Violence--and the law director of a city, signing off on every single piece of legislation passed for 3 1/2 years--what is it that person has? They don't have policy experience?

Well, you know, you've got practical experience in actually implementing things instead of just talking about it. Instead of just theorizing about it. And legislators are permitted, in fact they're required, to have an opinion about everything. But they're accountable for nothing. They don't have to actually implement anything.

So the distinctions could not be clearer in terms of preparation for the job. I don't just theorize about what it would be like to run a people's law firm, I've done it. I don't just theorize about slashing outside counsel spending, and what it would take--I've done it. So, I would be able to hit the ground running from day one as Attorney General.

The other area of key distinction is in background. We released our background information to the media, and as a result, I am not in a position of having to answer questions about my background constantly as new revelations come up. And this turns out--

Eric: Are you referring maybe to, once we get to the general? Is that what you're referring to?

Subodh: Right! Even now--even now. The reality is, look, I'm as reluctant as anybody to say anything ill of a fellow Democrat.

Eric: Right.

Subodh: But once a person in any campaign or job application process, touts their experience at doing something as the reason that people should vote for them, or select them for the job, then, by definition, they are making it a legitimate subject of conversation as to how you did that. If you claim, as my primary opponent does, "I've represented ordinary people, and I've done it well!" then it is perfectly legitimate to say, "Let's see how well you represented those ordinary people. And gee, here's something interesting, an ordinary person went to jail for four months, for a nonexistent crime, and you haven't adequately explained it. And you've hidden behind lawyers, claiming in federal court, "I wasn't the lawyer", but saying to the Gay People's Chronicle, "We did a great job", implying that you were the lawyer...

It's time to come clean and tell the truth. And any accountability that I am requiring, at this moment, I gotta tell you, is nothing compared to the millions of dollars that will be brought in an onslaught of negativity, on this and other issues by the Republicans in the fall.

Eric: That's right.

Subodh: And I said to one audience, you know I feel right now that I'm raising these issues with one arm tied behind my back. The Republicans will use both fists, their knees, their feet--

Eric: --and their foreheads!

Subodh: --their elbows, and those handguns that they like to conceal--

Eric: Right.

Subodh: They're not gonna be shy about it. So, we need to have an honest conversation, because, if we're going to claim that we're prepared to do this job, it's perfectly fair game to talk about about how well prepared we are.

Eric: Yep, absolutely.

Subodh: And, on the Republicans in the fall, which is a key issue. Because here's why it's important, Eric--I'm sorry to go on about this, but I think it's very important that people understand one key thing.

This isn't about me, this isn't about Marc Dann. This isn't even about our qualifications and who's better, 'cause you know what? Longest damn job interview in my life, if it's over and I get it--great. Actually, my wife and I are kind of hoping for a one percent margin loss so that we can have our family back--

Eric: (laughing) Right.

Subodh: But the reality is, it isn't about us. In the end, it's about the people who've been harmed by attorneys general who weren't just asleep at the switch, they switched sides. They were fighting for the other side. They were fighting for the special interests, like natural gas companies. Like predatory lenders. And so, if we lose this office, because we put up a nominee who's pathetic, and can't win the office, and hurts, potentially, the rest of the ticket. If we do that, this is what it means. We will lose, for yet another four years, our ability to protect the people that we as Democrats say that we care about. That's a pretty serious loss.

Eric: Yeah, it sure is. Now, one last question, if you get the nod, and the Democratic nomination for Attorney General, do you expect Marc Dann to support you, and if he gets it, will you support him? And to what level?

Subodh: Well, as to the former question, who cares?! I mean, who cares one way or the other--it would be lovely to have his support, but I've got voters whose support I have to gather. And the reality is, I honor and respect Marc Dann's service as a legislator. I gotta tell you, he has very imaginatively used the soapbox in the minority, in ways that other people haven't necessarily had the imagination to use. And I think it's wonderful, and I think it would be terrific if he continued in those efforts, because he's brought a lot of energy and enthusiasm to--I gotta tell you, I wouldn't have the patience to do it! I don't have a legislative mentality, I have a chief executive's mentality, which is get stuff done. I don't have the patience to sit and logroll, and vote on bills where you're voting for something in it, but because it's got a poison pill, you're hoping it will lose...I mean, that doesn't make any sense to me at all, but that's the legislative mentality.

So, you know, I hope he continues, I'd love to have his support, but who cares? It's such an "inside baseball" question with all due respect.

As to the issue--many people have sort of brought up this issue of "will you support" and all this stuff, and I've said, Look, simply put, I will not be voting for Betty Montgomery this fall. You know, I believe strongly in recycling, but some substances are too toxic and too worn out to be recycled, and Betty Montgomery is one of them. So we've got to end her ability to harm Ohioans, to both be asleep at the switch and switch sides.

Eric: Sure enough.

Subodh: Now, having said that, having been involved in Democratic politics for as long as I have--I mean, I was the chair of the College Democrats when I was in college, and as I've mentioned, I've worked for governors, worked on campaigns, raised money for people. I know the politically correct answer to that question. It is "Absolutely. Yes. No problem!" And even all the way through my primary opponent's Supreme Court reprimand--which I think is an electoral disaster--but even all the way through his Supreme Court reprimand, having read the underlying nature of the conduct, and, you know, the tax liens on his home and his business, and the lobbyist's gifts that he accepted and refused to return, and didn't timely report. All of that stuff that's come out so far, and even some of the other stuff I knew about, that hasn't been reported, even with all of that, my inclination would have been to say, "Oh yes, absolutely, I'll be supporting."

But, the Keith Phillips case changed everything for me. Because, a real human being served four months in jail for a nonexistent crime. And there are a couple of significant failures here that never have been explained properly. First, why, when that client walked in the door, why did Marc Dann and his associates not advise that client that his conviction that they were relying on to make the sentence, could be reversed. And should be reversed, and must be reversed because it was for a nonexistent crime, that had been struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court. Why not?

You know what the answer to that probably is, but they just won't answer it? They didn't know! Because they didn't do the research. They didn't know! And their excuse is, "Well, it would have just gone back before the same judge." Nonsense. Another lawyer--a real lawyer--got it reversed.

Eric: Wow.

Subodh: Another lawyer got it reversed, in front of another judge, because the first judge was recused. So, the explanation that's been given so far to the newspapers is nonsense!

The second issue is, why then, did you not use a rock-solid alibi defense in which four co-workers are saying he didn't do it, the description of the person doesn't match, the description of the vehicle doesn't match--why wouldn't you use it to defend against the case, instead of telling the guy to plead to a nonexistent crime that had not only been struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court, but had been repealed? Repealed--it wasn't even on the books!

Why? The answer is probably, "We didn't do the research, we didn't look at the statues, we don't know what we're doing!"

Eric: Yeah, and those are pretty serious things, and --

Subodh: Very serious. And I teach law students legal ethics. I taught legal ethics, and I spent a week or two on competence. And you know something? I couldn't look them in the eye, and tell them that party loyalty is more important than ethics and competence in the practice of law. I just couldn't do it.

Eric: That's a good point.

Subodh: And so, if there's a political consequence to that, so be it. But let me ask you something, Eric. Tell me the politicians who've not endorsed in this race in the Democratic party? There's a lot of them.

Eric: Yep.

Subodh: There are a lot of them. And I think that those who seek to try to make an "issue" on whether I am personally uncomfortable based on ethics and competence about giving my blessing to someone who has failed to explain something that's happened. I would be more than ready to consider offering my absolute, unconditional support if I had heard an explanation for what had happened to this victim.

Eric: Right. Well there's some things--

Subodh: --who also was the victim of a hate crime, Eric. He was also the victim of a hate crime. He's a gay male, who was basically beaten up by other people, and there was no advocacy for him by the Dann firm as a victim either.

Eric: And your differentiation has been made. And we're running a little bit long. But I think that that's admirable, that, first of all, you send out the background check, you're way above board, and then, when you're pushed to a tough decision--like in your IALIF thing, you were pushed to a tough decision--you made the right one. And here again you're being pushed to a tough decision about, "Do I go party loyalty or do I go my ethics and values?" and you go ethics. And I think that speaks highly of you, and I wish you the best. And I really appreciate you being on the podcast today, and good luck into May, and hopefully going into the general.

Subodh: Thanks very much, and I really appreciate the opportunity.

Alternate link for comments