Howard Kurtz: "Behind the facade of a successful political operation, senior officials plotted against each other, complained about the candidate and developed one searing doubt ... Dean, they concluded, did not really want to be president ... "I don't care about being president ... The problem is, I'm now afraid I might win." + A Dean Reaction
Those who woke up at the ungodly hour of 8:00 a.m. on the West Coast were probably quite disappointed with the latest iteration of the traveling Democratic Debate Show. Pretty much everyone performed badly, especially the debate organizers and questioners who had no format, silly questions and continually interrupted candidates when they were answering direct questions and the let them ramble when they were not. Aristide had a better morning than these folks.
Dan Rather opened with a question about faith and religion which required the candidates to complete the phrase: "This I believe." The debate concluded with the candidates being asked if god is on America's side (Edwards: America should be on god's side. Sharpton: God is on America's side but not on George Bush's side. Kerry: I couldn't quite figure his answer out, but I agreed. Kucinich: God wants universal healthcare and an end to NAFTA and the WTO.). I felt like I was watching a debate in the Islamic Republic of Somewhere. If the wars and hatreds stirring up around the world and in our backyard aren't enough of a warning that religion should be kept out of the political decision-making process, then you'd at least think the title of "Reverend" Al Sharpton would do the trick.
Again, there was no logical reason for Dennis or Al to be in the mix. Sharpton, on his home turf, was aggressive and both he and Kucinich repeatedly interrupted the other candidates. During one exchange, Dennis interrupted to come to Senator Edwards' defense (that could mark the unofficial end to Edwards' campaign). Sharpton bullied the questioners endlessly, and it largely worked (Except in the case of Rather. No one can bully the mad).
Senator Edwards picked up the day's first Academy Award for the most convincing performance that he had thought deeply about the issue of Haiti before last Thursday. (Turns out that mill where his father worked was in Port au Prince.)
Edwards mill story is wearing thin. As is his running-against Washington schtick. He's rich and a Senator. (Both of which are fairly impressive, no?)
Pundits who promised Edwards would use kid gloves on Kerry because he hopes to get the Veep spot on the ticket were "dead wrong." And I don't think Kerry likes Edwards all that much anyway.
Neither Kerry nor Edwards could sensibly answer the questions about Gay Marriage. Kerry said at one point that although he doesn't support it personally, he has attended a gay wedding (Karl Rove is already out looking for photos). But the key question was left unanswered: Who does it hurt if two same-sex people get married?
Here's a shot at it: No one. (Pell in 2008?)
Kerry continues to ramble and get way too inside-ish and granular on many issues (why can't he improve on this?). When he was explaining the details about a stimulus, I fell asleep.
Questions about god and gay marriage abounded. There were no questions about the economy and jobs. Don't misunderestimate the Bush political machine or the media's vulnerability to its tactics.
I hate people who ask questions about likeability.
During the course of the morning, Kucinich whispered the phrase "My precious," spoke about the power of the Ring and referred to other candidates alternatively as My Master and Mister Frodo. Any thoughts?
Kerry didn't mention Vietnam once.
Rather asked the others if Kerry has "enough Elvis" to win in November. Does Rather now have too much Elvis to lead a network news effort?
Full Transcript Here
Hey, you got your religion in my science...
 We're a couple weeks in and so far, California courts have still done nothing to halt gay marriages in San Francisco. The movement has now spread to upstate New York, New Mexico with Washington D.C. and Chicago possibly preparing to get on board. The Massachusetts ball is already rolling. There are few signs of any meaningful support of a Constitutional Amendment. One can hardly argue the fact that SF Mayor Gavin Newsom struck the match that started this spreading wildfire. But it's looking more and more like President Bush may have been his unintended accomplice, emptying a large can of Texas crude.
Hitchens on Gibson: "A coward, a bully, a bigmouth, and a queer-basher. Yes, we have been here before. The word is fascism, in case you are wondering, and we don't have to sit through that movie again."
With three days until Super Tuesday, the question for an Edwards campaign trying to pull off a shocker is: Which way do we go?
NY Times: "President Bush has approved a plan to intensify the effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, senior administration and military officials say, as a combination of better intelligence, improving weather and a refocusing of resources away from Iraq has reinvigorated the hunt along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan." ("Intensify?")
John Kerry is both revered and questioned over his wartime experiences. He is also both lauded and criticized for his antiwar stance (and those different reactions can take place even within a particular group such as veterans or protesters). This just in. Vietnam was a complicated era.
. . . February 27, 2004
Smith and Lesson
James Joseph Miner, the Chairman of Smith and Wesson, was removed from his position after fellow company higher-ups learned of his past that included 15 years in the can for a series of armed robberies and an attempted prison escape. Wait, I don't see the problem here. How did he break with company rules? Was he armed with a knife? While he is out as Chairman, Minder will remain on the board of the company. (Hey that's one way to motivate employees to hit their goals.)
Kerry remains on the offensive when it comes to security issues calling administration officials "armchair hawks."
Newsweek: All Eyes on Ohio
What's in a Name? Can the Dems really get by supporting civil unions while opposing gay marriage. What's the difference? + A gay marriage faq from Slate.
The Dem candidates gathered last night in L.A. for a nationally televised debate ahead of the Super Tuesday showdown ( transcript here). We're at the point in the primary process where people have identified their favorite qualities about each candidate and even the NY Times editorial team wished in print that Kerry and Edwards could somehow be merged into one candidate. And if combining the two Johns would equal the perfect running man, then the combination of Sharpton plus Kucinich would at least mean one less person wasting our time during these debates. Kucinich, who was so stiff it looked like he had popped a year's worth of Cialis and at one point unknowingly played the straight man in a Larry King - Al Sharpton Catskills variety act, explained that with the right adjustments to the Bush tax cuts, we could easily support government funded healthcare, higher education and one assumes free HBO for all. He otherwise had little impact (unless you count sending viewers into a state anorgasmia). Sharpton, who is inching back towards his pre-Vieques girth, forced his way into almost every exchange making (if possible) less sense than usual - while still coming up with evening's major applause lines (the biggest could've easily been lifted from Heidi Fleiss' employee handbook: "The issue in 2004 is not if gays marry. The issue is not who you go to bed with. The issue is whether either of you have a job when you get up in the morning.") and making it clear that he will fight for his time at the podium at the Dem Convention (we'll pause here to give you a second to scream). In the main event, the evening largely belonged to Kerry who seemed at ease and dropped a couple effective gravitas pile drivers onto John Edwards. Edwards, if anything, hurt himself during the debate. He is, as I've discussed here, remarkable on the stump. Less so during debates (except for those times when he can verbally work his way back into that stump-speech script). The guy simply makes a better lawyer than a defendant. Much of the evening's focus was on who between Kerry and Edwards is more electable in more states. Differences were established in the areas of trade, the death penalty and lobbyist's donations. Kerry often brought things back to Vietnam while Edwards continued to focus on the Mill closing of his childhood (at this point I've never been so depressed about a company shutting its doors and I'm not even entirely sure what happens at a mill). A few random thoughts about and samplings from the evening's exchange: When pressed by Larry King as to what he was still doing in the race when he had no shot, Dennis Kucinich explained (to applause): "That's a conclusion that the people watching tonight will be able to make, not the media." Hey, I'm blame the media for a lot, but not for DK's poor showing.
A Republican cameraman perhaps? A few of the key applause lines of the evening were spoiled by a cutaways to Ed Asner cheering in the audience which were only overshadowed by cutaways to what looked like a smiling Gray Davis (in some pretty terrible seats).
Me, Myself and Why? Larry King opened the evening by explaining: "There are four Democratic candidates, myself and two questioners from the Los Angeles Times." Quick question. What was "myself" doing on that list?
Questioning from Los Angeles Times Editorial Page Editor Janet Clayton on the Iraq issue was particularly pointed and actually drew applause. Her lead question (to Kerry and Edwards) on the topic and follow-ups went something like: "How can you criticize the president on his Iraq policy when both of you handed him a blank check to do whatever he wanted?" ... "Well, then, why didn't you not vote for it? Why didn't you insist on caveats? It was a blank check. Why?" ... "So are you saying you were suckered?"
Least necessary question of the night, from King to Kerry: "You don't agree with Dennis?"
Kerry's invented adage? "I mean, there's one basic rule: When you're digging yourself a hole, stop digging." I'm pretty sure that line comes from Shakespeare although it's a few beats short of iambic pentameter.
New debate drinking game for hardcore Democrats fixated on the issue of electability: Every time Al Sharpton makes reference to his desire to speak at the Convention, take a drink ... of arsenic.
All Thumbs: The Styles of John Edwards.
Larry King will be the host for tonight's Dem debate in Los Angeles. It is being billed as the first key matchup between Edwards and Kerry since the race was whittled down to two contenders. But the debate will still feature four podiums. Looking at the numbers, have either Kucinich or Sharpton really earned a spot on the stage at this point?
Hutton Gibson: "They claimed that there were 6.2 million (Jews) in Poland before the war and after the war there were 200,000, therefore he (Hitler) must have killed 6 million of them. They simply got up and left. They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney and Los Angeles."
Broder: How Nader Could Help Bush (Even if he backed out of the race long before election day).
The Quote: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles ... The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office." The Speaker: George H.W. Bush
The fight over how patriotism, national security and the Vietnam War will be portrayed in this campaign may be as much Max Cleland's story as John Kerry's.
Kerry and Edwards: Are the differences more style than substance? Pick and issue and find out. The NY Times endorsement of Kerry offers the following: "Almost everyone who has been watching the Democratic campaign would love to merge Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards into one composite super-candidate, with Mr. Kerry's depth and Mr. Edwards's personal touch with the voters." In order to wrestle in the attention of those who haven't been watching the campaign, they may want to mix in a little Beyonce.
John Kerry has been a frequent critic of "Benedict Arnold companies" that move operations overseas to avoid paying taxes. But in the current state of big money politics, it's always a bit slippery when a candidate goes after big business. + Friedman on Outsourcing: In places like Bangalore, India, "beneath the surface, what's going around is also coming around." (and a retort)
A prediction. Mel Gibson's passion play brings together the two most consistently popular and influential themes in human history: Religion and an irresistible urge to blame and hate Jews (not necessarily in that order). Before this is over, his movie will do much better worldwide box office numbers than The Lord of the Rings (which features two slightly less influential themes: Big feet and rare jewelry). Coming soon from Mel: A docudrama in which the roots of modern day terrorism are traced directly to the kitchen at Carnegie Deli.
It's a funny thing about this new wedge issue that's dominating the headlines. It is called a cultural wedge issue. But it is really more of a political and legal wedge issue. After all, what the leading candidates disagree on is the idea of altering the Constitution, the role of state's rights and the political strategies being employed. We're not hearing any of them coming out in favor of gay marriage or strongly opposing civil unions.
Two things (aside from three more Kerry wins) have gone badly for John Edwards this week. First, President Bush used his kickoff "political" speech of the season to attack a certain Senator from Massachusetts - clearly identifying Kerry as his opposition in the race for those who hadn't noticed. Second, the talk of a Constitutional Amendment has largely wiped the Democratic race from the headlines and the news networks. In the short term, this shift of focus greatly benefits the guy with the lead.
NY Times on George Tenet: "George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, said Tuesday that the world was at least as "fraught with dangers for American interests" as it was a year ago, despite the toppling of Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq and successes in dismantling the leadership of Al Qaeda..." (link via BrettandYou)
The Cult of Culture: Links to some of the reaction to W's endorsement of a Constitutional definition of marriage can be found here and here. If this seems a bit familiar, you might be remembering back to failed attempts to amend the Constitution by Reagan (backing organized religion in schools ... seriously) and the elder Bush (flag burning ... no really).
Greenspan on Social Security: "This dramatic demographic change is certain to place enormous demands on our nation's resources - demands we will almost surely be unable to meet unless action is taken. For a variety of reasons, that action is better taken as soon as possible."
The Supreme Court ruled that states can withhold public scholarship money from students who are studying theology. Constitutional Amendment coming soon (The "don't mess with my base during an election year" amendment).
"But there was a trick: Everyone in the room except for one person had been instructed beforehand to give the same incorrect answer. The real subject of the experiment was the lone unwitting participant, and the real test was of an individual's ability to disagree with his or her peers." When it comes to politics and social experiments, are we all playing the part of the lone unwitting participant?
Gary Bauer on Nightline: "If marriage is not between a man and a woman, there's nothing sacred about the number two. If we're going to allow men to marry men, there's absolutely no argument that could be made against allowing a man to marry two women or allowing five people to marry."
Woody Allen: "I believe that sex is a beautiful thing between two people. Between five, it's fantastic."
Gary Bauer on Nightline: "I just think it's amazing to suggest that the President's motivation here has something to do with the campaign."
Woody Allen: "Piccolo? Come un pane francese piccolo."
. . . February 24, 2004
All That Jazz in Utah
Lost in the shuffle of the headlines over the last few days of campaign kickoffs and constitutional amending was this fact: Utah has elections. They along with Hawaii and Idaho were part of the Super Tuesday pre-game show today. Kerry gave no ground. According to the exit polls, most voters based their voting decisions on two key issues: Gay Marriage and Steroids. At least that's where some people want the electorate's attention to be focused. Think they don't have a shot of getting there? Check the headlines.
As the so-called "super concierge to the national Republican Party," William Harris must do the seemingly impossible: Plan a convention party that will make Republicans feel welcome in New York. I'd have a better shot making Mel Gibson feel welcome at my temple.
Ahmad Chalabi on Pre-War Intel: "We are heroes in error. As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants."
President Bush has officially endorsed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage. He has already warned Congressional Democrats not to attempt a filibuster (although he later admitted privately that he thought someone had threatened to fill a Buster). Electablog has obtained a working copy of the amendment, along with some additional notes, currently being passed around conservative circles. I can't reveal exactly how I got my hands on these drafts other than to say that I know someone who knows someone who used to clip the hedges outside Roy Cohn's pool house. Here's what we've been able to extract from the pile of paper so far:
In these United States, the legal definition of marriage shall be reserved for those legally binding unions between one man and one woman. No state shall set forth its own laws regarding the legal definition of marriage (except in such cases as both participants are female, extremely attractive, under the age of 30, willing to experiment with the addition of third and fourth parties - at least one of whom must be male - and understand that in such cases the Attorney General may see fit to waive all Fourth Amendment rights).
Unholy same-sex gatherings among two or more men shall be expressly prohibited except in cases where a militia is being formed or in the case of a closed session of Congress. All associated laws shall also be waived in the case of duck hunting.
When Congress is required to determine the legal gender of one or both of the participants seeking a marriage license (The his/her name is "Pat" Clause), gender determination will be legally binding solely with the approval of at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives, half of the members of the Senate, and three-fifths of Barney Frank.
Of the two oppositely gendered participants, at least one must own either a pick-up truck, a tractor (backhoes excepted) or an El Camino - or fail to see the irony in the character Archie Bunker - and shall find no sign of innuendo, repressed memories or unresolved issues when confronted by the following Tom DeLay quote: "Americans have been tolerant of homosexuality for years, but now it's being stuffed down their throats and they don't like it."
The Ashcroft Clause: Neither one nor both of the participants may admit to accidentally watching the wrong person during an adult movie screening, and/or having a strange tingling sensation whenever Ricky Martin sings "She Bangs" or when Rick Santorum and Gary Bauer sing Karaoke on Duet-Thursdays at D.C.'s Peyote Cafe.
In no cases shall the repealing of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be used as an excuse for same sex marriages, or for that matter experimentation during college.
This legislation will by extension include the tenets of the 1997 Defense of Sexual Inhibitions Act which was vetoed by President Clinton on seven separate occasions (four times in the Oval Office, twice in the Lincoln Bedroom and once behind some shrubs in the Rose Garden).
Possible criminal charges and sentences being considered: Obscene public displays of affection such as inappropriate physical contact (or the carrying of a placard supportive of Trent Lott) between opposite gendered participants can be a misdemeanor. The same behavior between two same-gendered people (assuming they aren't as hot as the cast of the L-Word) will be a felony and carry a sentence of five to fifteen years. Mistaking stockings for tights and showing up wearing them with no shorts to your fitness center and then getting on the Stairmaster: Fifty to Life.
Related to the above: If a male participates in zhuzhing of any kind; he does time.
This amendment shall have authority over any and all state laws. Ignorance of the law can under no circumstances be used as an excuse. Neither can confusion regarding Barbara Bush.
As with any legislation, there will be changes before the docs are finalized and of course, there will be the requisite pork barreling - heretofore referred to as the other white (and exclusively white) meat barreling. For example, Halliburton has already locked up the contract to supply all the leather and ball-gags for the Republican Convention in NY.
How to offset the Nader factor? Convince Republicans to draft Roy Moore.
President Bush backed an Amendment to define marriage. "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization." (When I first read this quote I though my HBO was about to get cancelled.) + Andrew Sullivan (and many others) on the Amendment
. . . February 23, 2004
'Tis the Season
The President has been telling the press that, "The political season will come in its own time." Well, its time came during a speech to Republican governors. The key areas on which the Bush team will focus their efforts include taxes, security ("It's a choice between an America that leads the world with strength and confidence, or an America that is uncertain in the face of danger.") and on portraying John Kerry as a waffler: "They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." The message (backed by a massive campaign war chest) will take to the airwaves next week (Sex and the City replaced by abstinence in Crawford?).
Trillin: "Am I the only one here who's going to speak up for Dan Quayle? This is a role, I must admit, that I never expected to assume."
California has the most delegates of any state (370). And yet states such as Iowa and New Hampshire are the ones that get an entire voting day (weeks, months?) to themselves. Should states like Ca and NY be worthy of a Tuesday of their own?
Behind the Numbers: Al Sharpton's campaign is now more than 480 nights in a suite at the Ritz in debt (room service included).
John Edwards likes to implore his adoring stump speech crowds to talk about race anywhere and everywhere (then as it turns out, he doesn't say much else about the topic). But the race issue most people and pundits talk about is the political race. I trace some of this back to when Jeff Greenfield, a former campaign spinmaster, was hired by ABC News. He changed the story from what the candidates said to what they were trying to accomplish politically and above all what strategies were being employed. Back then, this angle proved to be a useful addition to ongoing political dialogues and debates. But now there is almost nothing left. Even with an issues as divisive as Gay marriage or the entrance of a third party candidate, the story is all about how it will affect the race; how the parties will have to strategize their way through the media obstacle course. Nader's ideas are left undiscussed while the focus is exclusively on his decision to run and who it will hurt or help in the race. So where does this leave us? In a place where mincing the candidate's words and tactics surrounding their own Iraq positions eclipses, say, a discussion about the doctrine of pre-emption and the details of what's really going on in Iraq today. And in a place where voters have an increasingly difficult time digesting any political rhetoric without the help of a spoon-feeding pundit to tell them who just won the latest exchange (in my own defense, I almost always use a fork). And it spreads beyond politics. My wife and I can no longer resolve even the most minor dispute without the analysis of Howard Fineman and the polling work of Frank Luntz. Ultimately this trend leads us to a place where a guy yells the names of a few states in Iowa and it's viewed as the most important moment of a campaign. Joe Klein touches on this trend in his latest column: "The 2004 Democratic primary campaign has produced one of the more depressing political phenomena in memory: the rise of the citizen pundit. With Howard Dean gone from the race, the last traces of passion - and, I fear, conviction - have been leached from the electorate. Instead of voters, we have handicappers." [Coming soon on CNN: Analysts from both sides of the aisle teach you how to put the passion and conviction back into your politics...] I'm not sure if I totally agree with Klein's take. I may have to wait and see what some other pundits have to say about his column.
The NYT Editorial page offers what looks like the most digestible Nader reaction. Ralph, you probably won't hurt us that much this time around, but you sure are hurting your own legacy. I'm not so sure that's how we (or he) will really feel in the long run. But it beats the orginal line that this was all about ego. I mean please, ego in politics? Say it ain't so.
. . . February 22, 2004
Arnold, Unscripted
Forget Nader for second. The real news on this morning's Meet the Press was the appearance by Gov Arnold who repeatedly made Russert smile with jabs about his deltoids (seriously). Arnold also let us in on the inner workings of his gubernatorial mind with this explanation of how a budget gets cut and then uncut, Terminator style:
"Like for instance with the budget, I remember when we made the midyear adjustments, I made certain decisions of programs, for instance, for the mentally disabled and I made certain cuts. And then after that, when I talked about it, I didn't realize that I made those cuts, so I had to go back and just say, Look, I made a mistake. I made those cuts. I did not intend to make those cuts. I want to put it back ... We all talked about it. It was like literally two or three days later when we--I mean, I read it, number one, in the paper, and then we talked about it in our family. And, you know, I have been a big promoter and always involved with Special Olympics, with helping people with mental disabilities. And I said to myself, What am I doing? I'm now making cuts in programs for mentally disabled? That's not good. I mean, so then I went back and made the adjustment."
Arnold also took a few seconds to plug his upcoming movie (seriously) which, you guessed it, is "fantastic."
Poll numbers have given a boost to Dem spirits. Campaign bank account numbers have not. They may also make a certain somebody's dough look all the more tempting.
The NYT (probably in an oversimplication) defines the Dem race as: Mr. Likable vs. Mr. Electable. After Sunday morning's news, we may have to add Mr. Pain in the Ass to the mix...
The Web, political ads and the new rules ( or is that the absence of rules?).
Democrats had their Sunday morning ruined as Ralph announced he has decided to run for the White House as an independent (a status that may get him on the ballot in only those states where he can hurt the Dems most). Liberals have long implored Nader not to run. Nader has responded that liberals have given up on their true causes and accepted a situation in which both parties are failing, " one with a D-, the Republicans; one with a D+, the Democrats." It's unclear how a Nader run will change those grades much (other than to reward those with the D-). Maybe each side needs a spoiler to even things out. Anyone know what Ross Perot is up to these days? Ultimately the impact of Ralph's run will be up to left-leaning voters who one hopes are not foolish enough to believe that the differences between parties are so subtle. And Nader's impact will likely be far less than in 2000 for two key reasons. One, he is already being lambasted by his core followers. Two, his potential backers have a very different view of George W than they did in the last election. In the meantime, Ralph will get his protest message out over the airwaves. There ought to be some other way to do that other than running for the White House. The other angle that no one seems to have mentioned: Sharpton just got bumped out of last place.
In the world John Edwards has created with his campaign, the only time the glass is half empty is when someone just drank three-quarters of whatever was in it. Uphill climb? Slow start? Long odds? Edwards seems to revel in these obstacles (and in politics, much of the battle is in the seeming) as he explains how he dealt with them in the past: "I beat 'em. Then I beat 'em again. And I beat 'em again. And I beat 'em again." His campaign has been described as being in its engine-that-could phase. At times this particular little engine can come off more like a country-road encyclopedia salesman than a mere politician. But like a certain  Southern, political charmer who preceded him; he just happens to be selling the one set of encyclopedias that seem worth at least an afternoon's front porch discussion. I am a lifelong pessimist-skeptic covered by a wet blanket's worth of cynicism. But I cannot turn past C-Span if John Edwards is delivering his now legendary (and largely static) stump speech - in fact the only C-span occurrence I still find more compelling is when Hitchens is a guest and agrees to take calls. I find myself telling grocery clerks that there are two Americas, I talk about race everywhere (including when I'm alone in the shower), and I mention to strangers in the ATM line that no child should be going to bed without a blanket tonight, not in our America (I often repeat that last phrase until I get an amen; one startled woman actually tossed me the cash she had just taken out). I find myself wishing there were three, four or even five Americas just so the speech could on a little longer. I highly doubt that John Edwards will actually turn out to be the little politician who could, but I also don't want to be the one who says he couldn't; and that's not just out of a fairly grounded fear that he'd beat me, beat me, beat me and beat me again. In the meantime, I remain glued to C-span, lighter in hand, chanting "two Americas," and waiting for someone in my house to try to change the channel. It's not gonna happen. Not in my America.
One of the key early strategies of the Bush campaign will be to attempt to shift the focus from John Kerry's service in Vietnam (Rambo) to what they perceive (quite questionably) as his poor and unsupportive behavior once he got back home and spoke out against the war (Fonda). Could this strategy really work? Well, journalists are writing about it, so maybe it already has. Seems like a stretch given W's own Vietnam era past. What's next? Criticizing John McCain for spending too much of his time with the enemy? But that's politics. Before this over, John Kerry may feel like he's had his biography rewritten by Mel Gibson.
. . . February 20, 2004
All About the Execution
Campaign Desk talks to WP's Dana Milbank: "What is new and unique is not the press strategy but the effective implementation of it. Even in its fourth year, this White House has been remarkably good about keeping its internal deliberations under wraps, then announcing it with unified voice." (Maybe it's a Jewish thing, but I honestly don't think I've ever been able to do that, even when I'm the only person involved...)
What could be more fitting? Nader's people have reportedly released the news that their man will indeed run for the presidency as an independent. Who'd they tell? Fox news. Talking Points Memo on Nader: "If he runs, it would now be strictly on a platform of vacuous moral posturing and self-aggrandizement." Hmm. I'm not sure how electablog got so directly lumped in with Nader, but I guess I'll assume the connection was unconscious...
W has gone around the Senate once again and installed a judge during a Congressional recess. This time around it's the Attorney General from Alabama, William H. Pryor. Pryor is well known for his opposition to legalized abortion and his support for an increased connection between religion and government (example: Pryor supported Justice Roy Moore in his effort to keep a ten commandments monument front and center at an Alabama courthouse). He also defended the right of high school athletes to pray "spontaneously" - something I have to admit I did as soon as I read about this appointment.
Tomasky on Sharpton: "Whatever you do, get ready. The worst is almost surely yet to come." I mean you don't really think this train is going through New York without Rev Al trying to have an impact?
Meet the Stress: Ralph Nader will announce whether or not he plans to run for the White House during an appearance on Meet the Press this Sunday. I'm sure Russert will be pretty upset if Ralph takes up precious Sunday morning air time to announce that he will not run.
John Edwards has been praised for his stump-speaking prowess and his ability to win voters when he can get them in a room or to an event. But pressing the flesh will be much more difficult as the primary schedule accelerates and Edwards looks to make up ground in large states like California and New York. And recent polls indicate that there is a whole lot of ground to make up.
Out here in California, voters did their level best to make state government a little more entertaining. We got rid of the star of the show and brought in an established action hero. But so far, it's not really that much more fun. First, Arnold has been traveling around the state pushing a bond measure that has had trouble gaining popularity. Come on. We hire a Hollywood superstar and he gives us bond issues? Yawn. And now Arnold insists he will stand up to San Francisco and uphold the state's laws regarding same-sex marriages. So an ass-grabber who wears elevator shoes, works out ten hours a day and drives a Hummer is going to point the finger at someone else's sexual issues? What's next, a state of the state speech focused on the risks of violent images in the movies and the inherent dangers associated with steroid abuse? Entertain us, Arnold. Or we've got one word for you: Stallone.
Fuzzy Job Math: When losing jobs equals gaining jobs, you know it's an election year (These mistakes sure ain't because W is more of a verbal thinker...).
The dismantling of Howard Dean. Was the "media" out to get the good doctor?
San Francisco officials are not backing down on their decision to allow gay marriages and the license line outside City Hall continues to be long. The debate will certainly go well beyond San Francisco ( several other municipalities have already chimed in), and it's looking more like Bush and Hill conservatives (and maybe some moderates) will initiate the constitutional amendment fight. Activist groups are getting organized for a protracted debate and some are calling for Dick Cheney's daughter to get in on the dialogue. Be great to have Gephardt's daughter join her so we could remove some of the partisanship from these politics.
So it's a two-man race (and no, I don't mean Sharpton-Kucinich). On one hand, the new competition is being positioned as the solid and electable warrior against the young, exciting, smooth-talking, up-and-coming, natural. Recent polls indicate that in fact both candidates may fill the requirement of electability (suggesting the "vs Bush" numbers may have more to do with him than his potential opponent). Can Edwards really make a move to challenge Kerry? So far he has only surprised as far as second place. The media wants more of the race (and why not, without it they'd be left to those pesky issues). Edwards has surged this far, why not a bit more? But in a sense, the potential for a last minute upset is more about Kerry than it is about Edwards. Kerry managed wonderfully his transition from disappointment to front-runner. He successfully highlighted the key parts of his biography. But since then, some of the excitement has been drained from the Kerry campaign. He stopped improving. He's got the electability thing, but he needs to motivate voters beyond that in a hurry. Edwards is clearly filling a void; a desire not just for a race but for a candidate to love. Kerry must fill that void himself if he is to have a shot in the general election (assuming he can survive the nominating process without doing so). Kerry is still clearly the man to beat. But while he has successfully convinced us that he has been in a war, he hasn't convinced enough people to go to war for him. Kerry the war hero must turn his boat around once more. If the troops are to follow, the winning battle cry will be neither "electability" nor "anyone but Bush."
Inside Deandom: Were the inner-workings of the Dean campaign even more chaotic at times than the candidate's presentation?
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley may be next in line to clear same sex marriages in his city. "They love each other just as much as anyone else ... Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community." Meanwhile, according the Bay Buchanan, W might be ready to push for a constitutional ban: "We were told by Karl Rove that the president would support the constitutional amendment -- not just that he would endorse it but also that he would fight for it."
Of all the books and articles and interviews that will one day recount the ups and downs of the current administration, there is perhaps one question I'd like answered more than any other: What does Colin Powell really think?
Slate: "The trouble with the Howard Dean who today ended his candidacy for president wasn't that he was too liberal, or too crazy, or too much of a Washington outsider to win the Democratic nomination. The trouble was that he didn't exist." Should Dean have focused his run on his record of fiscal conservativism?
Of course we're all somewhat focused on the economy (stupid), but for months, campaign watchers and participants have assumed that the main electoral battle grounds would be in close proximity to national defense, Iraq and the war on terror. Why else would we be fixated on the Vietnam era when the economy has been waistdeep in a sinkhole? But John Edwards is trying (successfully in many cases) to reframe the debate and refocus it directly on jobs and trade. It's an issue that seems to be connecting and one that always comes back to that now famous mill in Edward's past: "When it comes to bad trade agreements, I know what they do to people. I have seen it with my own eyes what happens when the mill shuts down."
Get your WMD talking points right here...
Congratulations must be in order. As of yesterday, the national debt surpassed $7 trillion for the first time ever. (And there is a $.015 trillion cushion, so we don't have to worry about some accidental fiscal responsibility pushing us back below the record...)
I'm pissed. And I have Howard Dean to thank for that. Well, maybe not for the anger itself, but certainly for giving voice to that anger. I never found myself swept up in the Dean movement, nor did I think he had a very good chance at getting the nomination - even when he was getting Bruce Springsteen-in-'75 coverage from the major weeklies. But whatever enthusiasm is being felt by Dems today, whatever real hope there is for victory in the Fall, is due in large part to Howard Dean. He may not be the guy to carry the torch, but he was certainly one of the few hitting two rocks together to light it in the first place. And of those two rocks, only one was being thrown in the direction of the White House. The other one was being aimed directly at his own party. A party that, in the shadow of the personality-driven tour de force of the Clinton era, had lost its soul; and more importantly, had lost its gonads. Howard Dean gave voice to the rage many Dems felt towards the wishy-washy weakness of their own reps in D.C. Dean was never the perfect campaigner. And at times he fluctuated between fighting the power and leaning on it (Gore? Why Howard?). I still wish he had told Diane Sawyer and the rest of the media to shove it when it came to questions about Judy and the scream. Was he an angry guy? He had every right to be. I wished he had embraced it. The scream of course will be the perpetually defining moment of the media coverage of Howard Dean. The yelp heard 'round the world was all-too-pleasing to both news junkies and late night talkshow hosts. We live in a knee-jerk society and on that night in Iowa, Howard Dean found himself smack dab in the receiving crotch. Maybe if he had kept yelling, things would've been different. Howard Dean was at the front of the battering ram. He loosened the hinges on a locked door that prior to his arrival had only been hit with handkerchiefs and softball platitudes. At the very least he departs the race with a well-earned political purple heart and the secure knowledge that he served his party well... + Dean speech (in Real format)+ The last days of the campaign
(White) House Odds: White House called on overly optimistic job growth predictions by ... the White House.
W explained to reporters that when it comes to the gay marriages in SF, "I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen." You know how sometimes a cat sits on your lap and starts to squirm around and then someone comes over and starts to pet the cat? I'm assuming W means that kind of being troubled.
Talking Points Memo: "In any case, if Perle wants to call for others to walk the plank, it's a call he should be making from the waves, not the deck."
And then there were two... Edwards surged, but Kerry did win yet another primary (that makes 15 of 17 for those scoring at home). Do we have a new race now that we're down to two significant players? Or is this just delaying the inevitable? And will Howard Dean throw his support behind Edwards or Kerry or neither?
"The fight that we began can and must continue. Although my candidacy for president may end today, the most important goal remains defeating George W. Bush in November, and I hope that you will join me in doing everything we can to support the Democrats this fall. From the earliest days of our campaign, I have said that the power to change Washington rests not in my hands, but in yours. Always remember, you have the power to take our country back." Howard Dean's Campaign Blog, 2/18/04
. . . February 17, 2004
Results (almost) In
In Wisconsin, the story is in the waiting. At the time of night we're used to recounting a Kerry runaway, this race is too close to call. And take a look at the exit polls. A significant percentage of the people who decided who to back in the last week or so went with Edwards. And maybe even more important, Kerry backers tended to focus on electability while Edwards backers tended to focus on his position on the issues. (I questioned whether electability was enough to overcome a scandal here, but the same question could be asked in relation to an unexpected surge by a charismatic candidate.) This is already big. But if Edwards wins it, we could soon be paraphrasing his favorite stump speech hook. There are two Americas: One in which this race was over. And this other one. Update: It turns out Kerry took the state by a solid 6 points, but we'll see if Edwards doesn't spin this as a victory.
Dean: "This isn't done yet. I'm in this to win. We have more delegates to the convention than anybody else except John Kerry, and we think we can overhaul him in the Super Tuesday primaries."
While the differences will make the race interesting, it's difficult to deny that there are some significant similarities between W and Kerry. For one thing, they happen to be cousins. OK, sixteenth cousins, three times removed, but still cousins. With the cousin-hood being that distant, if they hurry they can still legally get married in San Francisco...
We knew the war would be at the center of the upcoming general election. We just didn't know it would be the Vietnam War.
Reporting for Duty: It's official. Bush showed up at the National Guard. Well, at least today he did.
After hundreds of couples stood in line in the rain to take advantage of SF Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to allow legal gay marriage, the issue is back in the courts. Accoding to one of the participants, "It doesn't matter what the courts do -- I was married for a day in San Francisco." The Mayor called the legalization of gay marriage " inevitable". I live in San Francisco and can report with some certainty that our city did not sink into the sea over the weekend, nor did a single person turn into a pillar of salt. There were, however, hundreds of joyous unions. I suppose everyone has a right to their opinions on this, but you've really got to wonder about people and organizations who took the weekend off from their Janet Jackson nipple-related letter writing campaigns to dedicate themselves to stopping people who love each other from getting married.
And I scream at the top of my lungs
What's going on...-- Linda Perry, Four Non Blondes Why should Howard Dean have to drop out of the race? It makes perfect sense that some of those working for his campaign would be either looking for a finish line or looking to bail out so they can get the resume out to the Kerry team. But what of Howard Dean himself? Who is he really hurting by staying in the race? Is there a sense that Democrats need the race to be over and for Kerry to be anointed the winner? Well that's already happened. Weeks ago this race was already as settled as next year's AL pennant race (I mean are we really headed for a two-man race?). Dean has a large following, he played a pivotal role in shaping the dialogue and if he wants to keep campaigning, why not? Because people from Iowa and Nevada didn't respond to his style? Why should he go quietly into the night, so Al Sharpton can get all the applause lines? Maybe it's a media thing. The press is so much more comfortable covering the elements of the race as opposed to the elements of the debate. That helps explain why the the most relentless and aggressively posed questions in campaigns are always, When are you getting in? ... When are you getting out? ... and Did you inhale? In what turned out to be a defining moment of his campaign, Howard Dean screamed that he was going to damn near every state in the union. He has every right to deliver on that pledge. Besides, maybe Judy's not quite ready to have him back home in Vermont.
How John Kerry turned this race around. (link via PoliticalWire)
T.V. remains the most effective way to go broad. But when candidates want to build on or touch their base, the web and email may be the vehicles of choice.
The five remaining Democratic candidates had what could be their last group debate at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on Sunday night. Almost all of the applause and/or laughter lines were reserved for Al Sharpton with the remaining enthusiasm going to Dennis Kucinich (Who won? Who knows?). Overall, the night offered nothing new and little to sink your teeth into (in other words, typical debate). Below is a translation - what they said and what they really meant - of a few of the key lines of the night. Translation in parenthesis. Kerry on Bush's Nat. Guard Alabama getaway: That's not something that I'm qualified to comment on (I don't do wimp). I have not looked at the records (in the last twenty seconds), I haven't seen the records (unless you mean this copy right here on my podium), I'm not reading the records (except when one of tonight's questions is being directed to someone else). It's not for me to make that judgment (although after being in on several Skull and Bones initiations, I could bring up a few other issues related to the president's manhood). I think that all of us today (emphasis on "today") are very proud of those who serve in the National Guard. (I am a decorated Vet and war hero and W got out of the war and then even went AWOL from getting out of the war. Forget the tough talk; Kucinich could kick this guy's ass!) Dean: Wisconsin has a long history of voting for people like me and I hope they'll do it on Tuesday. (But knowing that, thanks to you, I'm currently polling about 40% behind an insider who stole my message, what I'm really saying is: Brett Favre sucks.) Kerry: And when I'm president, we will put back on the table the effort to get the money out of American politics and restore the voices of average Americans to the agenda of our country. (I own about six massive houses. If I owned two hundred, I still don't think a single one would be in Wisconsin.) Kucinich: We should be worried about bringing them home, not worrying about what the president did or didn't do 30 years ago. We have to be concerned about what he's doing now. He sent those men and women there on a lie, and we have to bring them home. (That made sense. What the hell am I still doing here?) Dean: Now, with all due respect, I'm the only person up here who's ever balanced a budget, who's ever had the kind of agreements that will create jobs. (Friggin' Wisconsin) Kucinich: I mean, let's face it. It's either we buy America or it's bye bye America. (I've really got to quit bunking with Sharpton) Kerry: On the Patriot Act. The problem with the Patriot Act are two words: John Ashcroft. (Translation: John Ashcroft, John Ashcroft, John Ashcroft) Dean: I have done what all the folks up here are talking about doing. (And if that's not good enough, I've even screamed about doing what they've talked about doing...) Sharpton: And Governor Dean says he's the only one up here who's balanced the budget, I'm the only one in here that all my life had to deal with deficit spending. I was born in a deficit. (And as you know, almost nothing creative rhymes with deficit.) Dean: I think the most difficult job of any president of the United States is the decision to send people to war, because you know that you are almost certain to lose somebody, to deprive families of somebody they love. (How can I send a kid to war? I can't even get my wife to come to Wisconsin.) Sharpton: Well, first of all, I think that if he did know he was lying and was lying, that's even worse. Clearly, he lied. Now if he is an unconscious liar, and doesn't realize when he's lying, then we're really in trouble. Because, absolutely, it was a lie. They said they knew the weapons were there. He had members of the administration say they knew where the weapons were. So we're not just talking about something passing here. We're talking about 500 lives. We're talking about billions of dollars. So I hope he knew he was lying, because if he didn't, and just went in some kind of crazy, psychological breakdown, then we are really in trouble. Clearly, you know, I'm a minister. Why do people lie? Because they're liars. He lied in Florida he's lied several times. I believe he lied in Iraq. (Bottom line? He probably told the truth.) Kerry: So I will lead in a different way, and I will not just sit there and talk about the war. (Me, 50 Cent. Him, Urkel.) Edwards: I think Howard Dean and John Kerry have good hearts. They want to do the right thing. They believe in many of the same things that I believe in. But I think it matters to have lived it, and I have lived it. (God, I wish I knew I had this kind of rhythm when I was still single.) Sharpton: So just because people have the same background does not mean they understand things the same way. I'd rather have John Kerry, Howard Dean wrapped together than Clarence Thomas any day of the week. (In fact, if they try to keep me from speaking at the convention, I may very well have them wrapped together somewhere.) Complete debate transcript available here.
"If Howard Dean does not win the Wisconsin primary, I will reach out to John Kerry unless he reaches out to me first. I will make it  clear that I will do anything and everything I can to help him become the next president, and I will do anything and everything I can to build bridges with the Dean organization." So Says Dean Campaign Chair Steven Grossman (Dean is currently polling down by about 40% in Wisc.) Having a private practice as a doctor is good. As a candidate, not so good.
"I believe the Dean campaign will be looked on as a seminal moment in American politics. The Dean campaign marks the beginning of the end of the broadcast age in politics, and a change toward more interactive and decentralized campaigning. And the change is going to be even more rapid from here. Thoughts on the net and the Dean campaign from a guy with unrivaled insight on the matter.
Heard on the Curb: "I couldn't be happier that President Bush has stood up for having served in the National Guard, because I can finally put an end to all those who questioned my motives for enlisting in the Army Reserve at the height of the Vietnam War. I can't tell you how many people thought I had signed up just to avoid going to Vietnam. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, I was itching to go over there. I was just out of college and, let's face it, you can't buy that kind of adventure. More important, I wanted to do my part in saving that tiny country from the scourge of Communism. We had to draw the line somewhere, and if not me, then who?" Larry David, The Vietnam Years
Not surprisingly, W's file release has done little to answer key questions about his National Guard whereabouts. On the Dem side, there is a major debate about how best to capitalize on the negativity ( not whether; but who, how and when.)
A few weeks ago, John Kerry had virtually nothing going on in Wisconsin. Even as he gained momentum elsewhere, his Dem opponents looked to plant a flag in the cheese state. But now it looks like the Wisconsin match-up will go much the way the last few states have gone with Kerry winning easily. On the flipside of the momentum curve is Howard Dean who has shown his frustration lately and will have a decision to make after the polls close Tuesday (although some are saying that his campaign staff has already decided). John Edwards is somewhere in the middle of the momentum curve. He continues to gain support, but so far only enough to make a strong case for the ticket's number two spot.
. . . February 14, 2004
Pair of Aces
What do both Washington D.C. and Nevada have in common? They both love to back a winner. Kerry scores another two easy caucus wins ahead of what could be the last shootout on Tuesday. Dean took second in Nevada while Reverend Al scored a deuce in the District.
Newsweek's most recent cover asks the question: "Who Really Killed Jesus?" The question is driven by the upcoming release of Mel Gibson's movie (and could there be a better combo to prepare one to answer that question than starring in several Lethal Weapon movies and being a member of your Daddy's cult? All we need now is the Tom Cruise movie that answers the question, "Who Was the Better Analyst: Freud or Jung?"). Meanwhile, the website version of Newsweek may be answering a more pressing (at least more to the point given the nature of publication) question: "Ever wonder what happened to Jesse Ventura?"
Follow the Money: Vietnam has been one early battleground in a potential Bush-Kerry match-up. The other one: Fundraising. Bush, of course, has the big, early edge. And we can expect him to start spending soon in an effort to put Kerry on the defensive.
Looks like Bush, Cheney, Clinton and Gore will all testify to the panel probing 9-11.
All we need now is W's report card from elementary school (rumor has it that his penmanship was at issue) and we'll have the complete picture. It is interesting that going to Harvard Business School could be used as an escape from military service in the 70s. In more recent years it was used with much urgency as a way to get away from the dot com bust in the Bay Area. (On a personal note: I was teaching high school in Brooklyn in the early 90s and I used Harvard Ed School as an excuse to escape my sixth period class...)
Press Secretary Scott McClellan was probably as shocked as anyone to see who showed up to the White House press conferences this week: The Press. The game of politics often seems to bring out the best in hard-hitting, story-seeking scribes. We just need to do a better job of making sure election season always coincides with major historical moments that need critical examination and analysis...
According to polls, President Bush has seen a significant decline in his credibility numbers. On one hand, the drop needs to be kept in perspective. Yes, fewer people believe that W is honest and trustworthy (but that group still represents a majority) and fifty-four percent of those polled believe he lied or exaggerated about pre-war intelligence. Given the circumstances of the moment, those numbers don't seem that bad. They are however a long way from what now looks like it may have been W's credibility bubble. And people are questioning his honesty surrounding matters that helped him to gain the trust in the first place. The president is currently working hard to weaken another attack on his credibility by ordering (again, it seems, no?) the release of his military records. According the White House, Bush made the order to counter those who want to create the "wrong impression" about his service. (Turns out he was actually a war hero...) Are these drops in trust a back-breaker? Maybe not. But even if the numbers aren't horrible, they shouldn't be underestimated. As Joshua of Talking Points Memo points out, W's "strong suit has always been honesty and trusthworthiness -- that and the closely related quality of 'leadership'. If he loses that, politically speaking, he's finished."
"Request permission to come aboard, sir. The Army's here." Clark makes official endorsement of Kerry ahead of key Wisconsin primary.
Yes much of the blogging world (and even some in the "mainstream" media) has been abuzz with the rumors of a possible Kerry affair with an intern for the A.P. And yes it comes from the same source as the intern scandal to end all intern scandals (and I'm not just talking about the fact that they didn't go all the way). But does it matter? I mean does it really matter to you whether or not a guy running for office turned an internship into ratings-grabbing episode of The Real World? Maybe it matters if you want to look at one's judgement when one knows they will be in a presidential race (which many of these guys knew about the same time their parents transitioned them to solid food).
But ultimately, to me, it doesn't matter. Other people's sex lives are their own business - unless of course a candidate for higher office has an affair with someone whose goals could be perceived as being detrimental to the country as a whole (say if, for example, Kerry was schtooping Mullah Omar). Other than that, I don't care what goes on behind bedroom doors. More people at home having sex just means fewer people out looking for parking.
But we're getting ahead of ourselves. We don't even know if there is scandal at all (in fact, it's looking more and more like the story was garbage). But here's why it's worth thinking about. Democrats need to ask themselves the question: If Kerry did get tagged with a scandal, could he survive? Not should he, but could he? Clinton had virtually no problem. But he was a rockstar. He was not a pragmatic choice and simply the guy his team believed could win. At the peak of his first campaign, hell, we all would've gone for it. But Kerry emerged as a pack leader late in this game. He did not have the grassroots surge of say a Howard Dean. He rose to the surface because of the word that has come to define this political season for Dems: Electability. But if that is a candidate's most prominent selling point, can he survive the mini-tsunami that would roll into town along with the hint of a Monica sequel, no matter how absurd the whole thing might seem? Do Dems love John Kerry enough to stand by him when he starts taking major shots? Would it all seem worth the effort? If the answer is anything other than a resounding yes, then one has to wonder what that portends - even without the emergence of a ridiculous, sidetracking scandal. Because the one thing we can all be sure of is that the going will get tough.
. . . February 12, 2004
Slippery Slope
The fine folks at Slate offer up these ten ways to rationalize the publication of infidelity rumors (such as those being lobbed in the direction of John Kerry). Left off the list were the two most obvious possibilities. One, we can't think about anything else when there is the smallest possibility of a public discussion turning to matters possibly involving boobies. Two, we're naked from the waist down and greased up with Olive Oil, the incense is burning, were down to our last few bowls of linguini pesto, there isn't a new episode of The O.C. for another six days, and so, what the heck else are we going to write about? (I'm hoping that second one isn't just me...)
Broder: Time to Watch Edwards. Kerry is the solid and pragmatic choice. Edwards has the makings of a full-on rockstar. Could the two lead a sell-out tour?
Wes Clark is set to endorse John Kerry during a campaign stop in Wisconsin. That's a lot of military might on one stage. Now maybe all they need is a touch of Tough Guy...
Let the games begin: The Kerry Sex Scandal? (The latest update on the Bush-Kerry preview debate: "You didn't really serve your time in the National Guard" ... "Yeah, well you once scored!") The story comes from an all too familiar source.
...because hating the other guy may not be enough. Some exit polls suggest what we sort of know; that people are voting for Kerry because they think he's most electable. But when push comes to shove, can pragmatism sans much love to get JK to the White House? (Especially, say, if a scandal emerged?)
Colin Powell lost his cool while defending the administration's decision on Iraq. The Bush National Guard story even made its way into this congressional hearing. Does it really belong there?
Where in the world was George W during the seventies? The National Guard story has taken a new twist. We're now actually getting a peak at W's dental records from his tenure in Alabama (On one hand, the records show he was definitely there on Jan 6, 1973. On the other hand, the records also suggest that George (41) and Barbara were clearly anything but consistent when it came to demanding that W floss regularly). The story seems to gain momentum by the hour. Calpundit is doing an excellent job keeping tabs.
. . . February 11, 2004
Meadowlark Kerry
The Kerry campaign is looking a lot like the Harlem Globetrotters these days. He continues to win handily (with the competition remaining strong enough to keep things entertaining), he remains in the headlines, and he's still free to formulate his candidacy prior to a direct confrontation with Rove and Co. The longer he can stretch out this exhibition season the better. The next stop is most definitely the NBA. So for now, Kerry will spread out the offense and be plenty satisfied with winning slow.
How good is the Bush campaign team? Real good. Good enough to pose a very significant threat to John Kerry's perceived biography. Good enough to raise money at an incredible pace. And most amazingly, good enough to turn (even if only for a few spliced seconds) the Bush appearance on Meet the Press into something positive. Where were these folks when my bar-mitvah photos were being shot? (Producers of Queer Eye and Extreme Makeover better watch their backs...)
White House spokesman Scott McClellan complained about the recent media obsession with the Bush National Guard record and boldly explained: "I think what you are seeing is gutter politics. Some are simply trolling for trash for political gain." Is there something a bit redundant (or as Alanis Morissette might put it, "ironic") about the campaign season phrase "gutter politics?" Couldn't McClellan have just as easily complained of smutty porn, unfunny sitcoms, mellow hippies, circumcised Rabbis, heavyset bowlers, opinionated editorials, nauseated college students, scary urologists, disappointing Red Sox teams, weird Jacksons, fundamentalists who make lousy dinner guests, or evasive White House spokesmen.
On Guard: Examining the Bush military career (or lack thereof) has officially become a sport.
Media Matters: The scream is dead. Long live the sceam.
How do you know the primary season is over and the general election is well underway? When you're reading interview quotes attributed to John Kerry. And the interview happened to be more than three decades ago. (There is even a rumor being spread that John Kerry's first words as a baby were: taxes, lobbyists and Ted Kennedy.) Does it matter what a candidate said to a college newspaper during his youth? Maybe, but that could eclipse any hint of political aspirations I have left. I once spent a half-hour talking to a guy at the Daily Cal about the awesomeness of beer bonging. (Just added: You also know you're in the big race when they pull out the picture of you within three rows of Jane Fonda.)
. . . February 10, 2004
How the Wes Was Lost
Clark Drops Out: A funny thing happened on Wesley Clark's way to elective office. Actually it was two funny things. The first was that he lost his voice, some of the strength of his personality and his previously remarkable ability to communicate (OK, and also his strategy once it turned out Kerry, and not Dean, was the man to beat). Clark bungled many of his early press interviews, failing even to have a good answer to the most obvious question about his position on Iraq (and this is a guy who spent a career running wars and operating under extreme pressure). He was flustered in debates. His delivery at speaking engagements was at times monotone. In an effort to stir enthusiasm, he would often raise his invented voice to a near yell. But when you raise your voice in your introductory remarks ("Sorry I'm late, we couldn't find a parking spot for the bus!!"), there's nowhere left to go for the really important points. The pre-race Wes Clark, even when within a clear line of command, was his own man. Somewhere along the campaign trail he got handled and managed into irrelevance. But then there was that second funny thing. Once the writing was on the exit polls, Clark the person was free to emerge from behind Clark the candidate. With the weight of political possibility lifted, he got better. His performances on the campaign trail, on the stump and in television appearances improved. His eloquence returned on issues such as defense, liberalism and the separation of church and state. He essentially began to become the candidate supporters envisioned when the Draft Clark movement erupted. Just wait and see what a benefit he'll be to Kerry if the two come to terms. It would be easy to say Clark simply needed the time to develop his campaign shtick. But it's more than that. There is something about being in the race and having a realistic shot at success that brings out, well, the politician in a person (remember how we always heard that Gore was hilarious in person?). That's probably the way it's always been. Clark became a great candidate just about the time it was obvious to everyone (most importantly himself) that his run for the White House was over.
Kerry again looks strong with convincing wins in Tennessee and Virginia (Edwards getting used to the runner-up spot). The bad news for Kerry is that no one is paying much attention to these results. The politically good news (I suppose) is that the attention is all on Bush's military record - I haven't seen this much military interest directed at Texas since the Alamo (it's looking more and more like W left both Houston and 'Bama wide open to a Viet Cong attack during the 70s). At the polls, anger and jobs (a common enough pairing) were at the forefront for voters.
O'Reilly admits he was wrong in his unquestioning support of the Iraq policy, All that remains is for him to answer for every other position. But can we really trust anyone in a world where we're just finding out now that Atkins was fat? (Bad day for The Factor, good day for my tagline.)
So was the President truly on the front lines in Alabama? Stay tuned to find out.
In the 2000 campaign, Dick Cheney was perceived as the perfect adult supervisor to get his ticket over the hump (and they nearly made it). But has the tangled web that is Halliburton and a series of other issues turned the rock in quicksand?
Republicans are celebrating what they say is a major shift in voting patterns among Jews. Bush's constant use of religious imagery and pursuit of faith-based spending aside (not to mention new questions about whether he really found the afikomen at a Passover seder during the Vietnam era), one recent poll suggested as many as 31% of Jews plan to vote for Bush in the upcoming election (a similar view of Arafat, perhaps?). Interestingly this shift has taken place during a period when several of the Democratic challengers are ( in one way or another) Jewish.
Primaries, caucuses and C-span coverage not withstanding, the general election is already in full swing. It began last Saturday night when, with the Democratic returns still being counted in Michigan and Washington, CNN and MSNBC were showing a Larry King re-run interview with Janet Jackson and an episode of Headliners and Legends (I think Fox was showing a special in which a panel of high-  powered, telegenic and experienced conservatives were matched up in a war of words against a lone, learning-disabled liberal who spoke no English and had a predisclosed and violent camera-light allergy). The combination of an Iraq sans WMD and the Kerry campaign sans significant competition has put the President somewhat on the defensive. But these are early days. Newsweek's Fineman and Isikoff provide a nice overview of where the first real punches might be landed. In the meantime, here is a Reader's Digest version of a possible first debate between Kerry and Bush: Bush: War on terror Kerry: Vietnam Bush: Evil doers Kerry: Band of Brothers Bush: Grave and growing Kerry: Imminent? Bush: Let me step back a moment Kerry: (sensing weakness) Mekong Delta Bush: (regaining composure) Massachusetts Liberal Kerry: I don't like to talk about it, but I'm a war hero. Bush: Bring it On Kerry: No, I have three words for you. Bring ... It ... On Bush: Let's Roll Kerry: I'm coming, you're going and... Bush: I haven't heard you talk like that since our Skull and Bones initiation week. Kerry: ... don't let the door hit you on the way out. Bush: (pounding a fist) The Almighty, Faith-based, Mel Gibson, God Bless Kerry: Ketchup fortune, good hair, tall, I can still drink Bush: Fake Vietnam stories Kerry: That was Bob Kerrey Bush: Dukakis Kerry: Ashcroft Bush: Lobbyists Kerry: Halliburton Bush: Fonda Kerry: AWOL Bush: The South! Kerry: Smart people Bush: You're rich! Kerry: You love the rich Bush: Gay marriage, Sodomy, the L word, Carson Kressley Kerry: Ralph Reed? Bush: Shadows, caves, murderers Kerry: Program related activities? Bush: (with the classic accusatory smirk) ... Senator! Kerry: (taken aback) ... (long pause) ... Flightsuit! Bush: Military spending dove Kerry: Flightsuit Bush: Votes to cut funding for intelligence agencies Kerry: Flightsuit Bush: Bring it On Kerry: Bring it On
Howard Dean is campaigning hard in the cheese state - and let's give the guy some credit for still clocking in some reasonable results given the slide in his media coverage and campaign bank balance (imagine Vanilla Ice still selling records). Wisconsin has been billed as his last stand if he can't win there. But now it looks like that may have changed. Dean told local reporters, "I've just become convinced that we're not going to drop out."
Everything you ever wanted to know about the Bush-Russert interview but were afraid to ask? I still say the missing interview question was: "Mr. President, isn't it pronounced nu-cle-ar?" The electablog take is below.
Monday Morning Eulogizing: CNN is the latest news network to suggest that maybe, just maybe, they overplayed the Dean Scream.
Hitchens handicaps the race: "There are worse things than simple mindedness..."
Slate: Plato, Aristotle and Bush...
No offense to the State of Maine or the President's war on terror remix on Meet the Press, but the biggest campaign news on Sunday had to be when Chris "Paltrow" Martin of Coldplay endorsed John Kerry (some in the conservative press have already written off Coldplay as a French band) as he accepted a Grammy for record of the year. This was a clear electoral slap in the face to Gwyneth Paltrow's best bud Madonna who had previously endorsed Wes Clark. Of course all of these political plugs will be wildly overshadowed when Beyonce finally picks her candidate. On a related note: Hasn't Outkast now established enough crossover appeal for Andre 3000 to at least be considered for the VP slot on the Democratic ticket?
Gore on Bush: "He betrayed this country. He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
My Maine Man: Kerry takes another state in convincing fashion.
Tim Russert built on what has become an increasingly pointed line of questions being asked in connection with the WMD issue and the decision to go to war. But on some level, does the media now find themselves in the same boat as the administration's most strident after-the-fact opponents? Didn't we need these tough, probing questions to be asked before we went to war? Does campaign season and the sniff of scandal or failure raise the vigor of the press to a greater degree than do issues of immediate (or maybe imminent?) and historic importance? If we find ourselves again on the road to war, maybe we need to peel a few of the best and brightest off the Mark Peterson and Michael Jackson stories.
A few thoughts about the President on MTP this morning ( referenced below). Overall, I would say it's the first one of these public, political displays (speeches, debates) in which W  surprised on the downside (he also surprised some by not showing up in the flightsuit). He seemed nervous and his thoughts grew more disorganized (along with a visible and steady anxiety surge) as the interview progressed. Bush began with a nearly smooth forehead. Shortly into the Iraq discussion, a single line stretched above his brow. By the time Russert asked the follow up question, "Why do people hold you with such contempt?" the front of the Bush noggin looked like an accordion (and they were not playing his song). Russert was incredibly tough, he stuck with difficult topics, and refused to allow himself to be charmingly drawn into the Bush virtual fraternity (no towel snapping, no nicknames - Timbo, Timmy, T-Russ, T-Bone, Rusty, Pudge...). Among Russert's most pressing questions was the following: "Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530 American lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove Saddam Hussein, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction?" He was equally probing on questions about the economy. There was even a disturbingly brief aside regarding Skull and Bones. If you missed it and want to get a feel for the overall tone of this grave and gathering interview, the most telling exchange between the two came at the end of the Iraq segment: Russert: We are going to take a quick break.
President Bush: Thank you...
Super Tuesday or Bust: Both Edwards and Clark say they're in this for the long haul. (Kucinich vows to fight on until the end (or until he meets someone special).
Bush defended Iraq decisions, Tenet and his own "military" record (but failed to predict a winner for Best Rap Performance by a Duo or Group in tonight's Grammys) during a one hour sitdown with Tim Russert. For those who over slept on Sunday morning (laudable) and don't have TiVo (history will ultimately view you in the same light as cavemen who ignored fire), here is Bush on Meet the Press: The full transcript.
Friedman: The message from the White House has been: "You all just go about your business of being Americans, pursuing happiness, spending your tax cuts, enjoying the Super Bowl halftime show, buying a new Hummer, and leave this war to our volunteer Army. No sacrifices required, no new taxes to pay for this long-term endeavor, and no need to reduce our gasoline consumption, even though doing so would help take money away from the forces of Islamist intolerance that are killing our soldiers. No, we are so rich and so strong and so right, we can win this war without anyone other than the armed forces paying any price or bearing any burden."
Ford, Carter, Clinton: The only three sitting presidents to appear on Meet the Press.
Circa Saturday Night: I'm blogging election results and CNN is showing a re-run of an old interview between Larry King and Janet Jackson. Maybe it's time for me to give myself a Manero blowdry and get out of the house for awhile...
John Kerry cruises to victory in both Michigan (in a lakeslide) and Washington to extend his lead and build on his momentum. Dean looks to have locked up second place in both states while Edwards landed third and fourth place finishes. Sharpton shocked many in Washington by scoring in the double digits (not percentage, votes). Dean is set to make a last stand (sans some major union support) in Wisconsin (forget the scream - or even the loss of the anger - would he be this bad off if not for the nod from Gore?). New polls paint a pretty picture going forward for the frontrunner. (Time to talk veep selection?)
Now I'm starting think I should have a blog solely devoted to Janet Jackson.
The Commish: Will they have enough access to make an intelligent analysis?
The Wrath of Khan: The were weapons related program activities and then there was Pakistan.
Rummy: "It was his choice. If the Iraqi regime had taken the same steps Libya is now taking, there would have been no war."
When Dennis Miller was funny, his core competency was taking raw, unconsidered, esoteric facts and using them in a context where they had no logical place. Now he's a political commentator. And he employs the exact same strategy.
Day six and Scarborough is still dedicating a major portion of his show to moralizing about the Janet Jackson falling out. I never thought I'd be able to pleasure myself to MSNBC. And I'm not the only one. Somewhere around day four this went from being a cheap, hypocritical ratings stunt to a Scarborough Country fixation so dramatic that an experienced analyst would likely request that Joe position himself face down on the couch during treatment. I haven't seen stiffness this consistent since Al Gore's campaign was in full-swing.
From Wonkette: A Very Special Presentation: Friday with Noonan - (Tremendous). It's always been difficult for me and my fellow Watch-Hardball-In-Our-Drawers Club members to understand the sparkle in Chris Matthews' eyes when Peggy Noonan rambles (a sparkle otherwise reserved for references to Britney Spears' midriff - which easily number high enough to create a decent drinking game). But now I have to admit I'm getting it. There's actually something wonderfully endearing about a person who is this crazy.
Kinsley on Democratic Pragmatism: "I'm actually for Dennis Kucinich," a Democrat might say, "because I like his position on nationalizing all the churches. But I'm supporting Joe Lieberman. His views on nearly everything are repellent to me, and I think that's a good sign.
Even diehard critics have to give the President some credit for inspiring this unlikely headline: Bush Announces Intelligence Panel. The seven-member, bipartisan group will investigate U.S. intelligence capabilities, particularly those related to WMD. Thankfully, none of these original picks for the panel made it onto the final slate: Katherine Harris, Jayson Blair, Richard Perle, Jessica Simpson (expert on intelligence failures), Pete Rose (last minute disqualification - turns out he bet the under on WMD), Linda Tripp (the former Iraqi Information Minister once confided in her), Bill Bennett (same issue as Rose).
 A few months ago, a serious Democratic challenge for the White House seemed like a distant longshot (of course so did the idea of Justin Timberlake earning my attention and respect). But the increased heat and focus related to the Democratic primaries (and the constant airtime to shower W with negative vibes) has helped to transform the upcoming matchup into a neck and neck race (subtle Nascar Dad allusion entirely unintentional). And it's not just the Democrats who see it that way. President Bush has been out on what has undeniably become the campaign trail. Who would've predicted W's hour-long sitdown with Russert even a few weeks ago? The First Lady is in full campaign mode, defending her apolitical husband from those nasty Dems who are "spending most of their time saying really terrible things about my husband. No, I really don't like that." So how much election-related pressure is being felt in the White House? We don't want to overstate things, but it is a telling sign that W and Laura are even considering the idea of breaking out the twins and letting them loose on the campaign trail (Real World, D.C.?).
Still Undecided: Try out this Presidential Match tool. But use caution and don't come running back if it comes up Kucinich...
Georgia switches gears and accepts Darwin's nutty theory. Hey, evolution can take awhile. Next up in Georgian schools: Fire and the wheel.
Gephardt endorses Kerry (just in time for last week's Missouri primary...).
McCommission: W will officially name John McCain to a nine member panel to look into Iraq intelligence failures.
Super Sunday Part 2? Bush to appear on Meet the Press this Sunday. The campaign is on, baby.
Will something about the Cheney-Halliburton story eventually explode? And what about the CIA identity leak we haven't heard about for awhile? ('tis the season after all...)
I also send out a weekly column called NextDraft where I can ruminate at length on critical issues that don't quite fit here. In other words: Janet Jackson. If you're not yet a subscriber, take a look at this week's issue.
Friedman: You could wake up in November and find ... the "Islamic Republic of Iraq" and the "Islamic Republic of Palestine." Imagine defending those on the campaign trail? Have I got your attention? As they say in the phone commercial, "Can you hear me now?"
Pakistani's "hero" nuclear scientist has been pardoned by Musharraf for making millions while tranferring nuclear secrets and equipment to Iran, Libya and North Korea (and Martha could still do time...).
Howard Dean in an email to potential funders: "The entire race has come down to this. We must win Wisconsin ... Anything less will put us out of the race." Edward's back is not against the same wall, but Wisconsin could critical for him as well.
George Tenet cleared up a few other "misconceptions" following his speech at Georgetown referenced below:
If you know the best route and a couple of shortcuts, Baghdad is actually only about 30 minutes from Newark.
Ruben Studdard's American Idol victory; Fixed.
(apparently some of Putin's old KGB cronies had it in for Clay Aiken)
One of the most-wanted people featured in the 52-card deck invented Pong.
Ashcroft and the naked Justice Department statue recently got back together.
Unnamed officials have privately admitted that several notable administration figures thought the halftime show was pretty damn hot.
The rumor about targeting Kim Jong Il through the use of exploding elevator shoes; maybe more than a rumor.
Mel Gibson, not Jewish
Tenet: "They never said there was an imminent threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. No one told us what to say or how to say it." + Tenet indicated the search is nowhere near done and that, "When the facts of Iraq are all in, we will neither be completely right nor completely wrong." (the speech) + O.K., but someone said imminent.
John Edwards Breaks Through: Top Ten Things Never Before Said by a Presidential Candidate. To paraphrase the now legendary stump speech; there are two Americas. One where people have snappy comedic timing. The other, not so much.
Give Howard Dean this much: If Janet Jackson had been raised in his state of Vermont, I'm pretty sure that Medicare would cover mental health-related costs for the entire Jackson clan.
Furious George: George Tenet to give a speech about the WMD intelligence issue and "correct some of the misperceptions and downright inaccuracies concerning what the intelligence community reported and did not report regarding Iraq."
Massachusetts highest court says gays have full marriage rights; civil unions not enough: "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain." For the Bush base, this is the equivalent of saying Massachusetts may have some weapons of mass destruction related program activities. Look for this to emerge as a major issue of debate in the general
 I miss Howard Dean. The old Howard Dean. The one from before the media slapped his wrist (followed by his face, his body and his privates) for being too, well, too Howard Dean. Like the dominatrix in any such scene, the media is actually enjoying the role of Howard basher - and why not? When dealing with a pinata, better to be the guy swinging the stick than the guy holding the candy. If we look to the Iowa Yell as a metaphor for all that went wrong, we might be tempted to blame Dean's current predicament on the wide perception of his anger problem. But anger was never Howard Dean's problem. Anger was his friend. His personality can be off-putting, he couldn't close on the votes when it counted, and the issue of electability reared its ugly head. But anger got Howard Dean this far. Lip-biting, counting to ten, and deep-breathing it away - far from resurrecting his chances - has only secured his downfall. Dean's anger wasn't simply focused on W and Republicans. It was aimed at his fellow Democrats for being too silent, too weak and too lost in the post Clinton personality-driven era. And he was dead on. He tapped into the very real frustration Democrats felt towards their own party leaders. Too much anger? Too much yelling? If anything, the Iowa moment made the media look bad for the greatest overreaction to a cultural event in modern history (modern history here referring to the period between the cancellation of JLo's wedding and the baring of Janet Jackson's knocker). Take a look at the exit polls. This election is all about anger. Of course, Dean will not climb back into the race and the media will love his downfall. And that combination will make Howard Dean, above all, really pissed off. Frankly, that's just how I like him...
Win one, lose six and come out swaggering like the clear victor. John Edwards knows how to do politics.
Kerry already has the core line of his campaign: "George Bush, who speaks of strength, has made America weaker: weaker economically, weaker in education, weaker in health care." Now for the harder part. Can he deliver it.
. . . February 3, 2004
General Anesthesia
Wes Clark held on to win Oklahoma - a baseline requirement for keeping his candidacy alive - by the smallest of margins. Imagine that: A run for a position as massive as the presidency coming down to a handful of votes in a single state. Hey, wait a second...
...To back whichever candidate was most electable. Exit polls from some states show Kerry's dominance across the board. Voters from different races and backgrounds seemed to place a premium on electability. In other words, Dems are pissed. There also seems to be a focus on the economy (where Edwards is strongest) as the top issue in some places. Will this be the war campaign vs the economy campaign.
Kerry Wins Delaware, Missouri, Arizona, North Dakota, New Mexico. Edwards dominates S.C. and gains momentum. Clark hangs on by a thread over Edwards to win Oklahoma. And no one is talking about the 28 votes Sharpton brought home in North Dakota...+ No Mo' Joe: Lieberman ends campaign. Says: "I feel like winner. The judgement of the voters in now clear." Another quality and respected guy drops out. It was clearly time to make the pain stop. Lieberman managing not to verbally (or even physically) clobber Al Gore after the Dean endorsement was an epic (if somewhat misguided) display of restraint. Maybe now that Joe's out of the race, he'll turn out Gore's lights for Shabbat.
All major news outlets are projecting Howard Dean the winner in the metaphor category. 
CNN Projects Edwards as S.C. Winner (by double-digits). (and the race goes on...). Will Sharpton get enough momentum to have a shot at the convention podium? Not looking too good where's he's supposed to be strongest. Good for Dems. Bad for ratings.
It's strange, it's sleazy, it's often false, it's slimy, it's cutthroat, it's nasty, it's dirty. But damn if every now then it isn't downright beautiful.
Wes Jr. on the Media, Politics and Dad: "It's been a really disillusionary experience. We sacrificed a hell of a lot for this country for 34 years. We lived in a damn trailer park when I was a freshman in high school ... [The coverage of the campaign has been] "all horse race and no issues." Certainly (as mentioned here), Jr. has a valid point about the way these campaigns are covered. Trouble is, Wes the elder never seemed that strong on the issues and he sure hasn't needed to worry about being mistaken for Seabiscuit...
Et Tu Delaware? Lieberman set to drop out if Delaware does him wrong. And thus the first state becomes the last. Now that's campaigning...
The New Powell Doctrine: Invasion justified because of Iraqi intent? (related: MTV blames Janet - that's like a pimp blaming one of his employees for freelancing...)
The earliest exit polls are just now coming in from Tuesday's races. Kerry looks good. Edwards looks strong. But this is early on evidenced by an informal electablog poll conducted here in my home state of California. These preferences among registered Democrats suggest a few unexpected twists still to come: 
Regardless of who you are rooting for in the upcoming election, your politics or your personal style; this ought to scare you: President Roy Moore (link via Wonkette)
Coming soon: Kerry's voting record as it pertains to war vs Bush's record of personal behavior as it relates to the same topic. (correction. Make that Coming now.)
Lucky Seven or Craps? One night, seven states, 269 delegates. The NY Times has some nice shots of the candidates wrapping up their seven state runs. (Notice the one of Howard Dean. This guy really has been chewed up and edited out.)
Last week, after getting trounced in New Hampshire (following a week when he nearly got bageled in Iowa), a seemingly exalted Joe Lieberman basked in what he called a third place tie and proclaimed, "New Hampshire voters have put me in the ring and that's where I'm going to stay." If things go equally badly tonight, what can he say? "A handful of Americans prefer me to Dennis Kucinich."
Faith Based Spending: Money Shortfall + Election Year = Putting your money where your base is.
It is Alive: Somewhere along the campaign trail, around the time he came up with a series of crowd pleasing lines, a somewhat stiff John Kerry did the one thing Al Gore never could: He became human.
John Edwards likes to talk of twos. Two Americas. Two health care systems. Two school systems. In keeping with that theme, there are two political races on Tuesday. One where John Kerry tries to sweep as many as five states. And the other one where John Edwards wins where he's got to win. His backyard. His homefield. The place of his birth. South Carolina. If he slips, the mill could be closed for good.
 Two thoughts from yesterday's full hour interview between Tim Russert and Howard Dean on Meet the Press ( transcript here). First, the interview like so many these days, focused primarily on the strategies behind the race as opposed to the issues behind the campaign. Aside from a middle segment that focused on Iraq and the economy, the entire interview seemed to be about Dean's campaign tactics. Second, I have argued from the beginning that Dean would not win because he just seems unlikable. Think Tim Russert likes him? Look at some of the questions from Sunday's broadcast:
It looks as though you're in very tough shape for these coming primaries and caucuses on Tuesday.
You say you're a good manager, a fiscal conservative. How did you blow $40 million?
Do you regret spending all the money so quickly?
But, Governor, if your mission is to beat George Bush...and you haven't won any primaries and John Kerry emerges as the presumptive nominee, would you continue on a scorched-earth policy?
(On Roy Neel) : How could you do that to all your supporters who signed on to take our country back, put a Washington lobbyist in charge of your campaign?
Russert, who often reads article excerpts as part of his questioning, pulled this gem from a friggin' letter to the editor at the Des Moines Register: "Now, I know how Howard Dean gets his exercise while he's on the campaign trail. He drops to his knees to beg 'Washington insiders' to endorse him, and then he jumps up to insult them. I'm guessing he does about 20 repetitions of that a day."
Russert also unearthed an anger-related quote from Dean's high school yearbook and of course replayed the Iowa scream. Time ran out on the interview before Russert could add:
Governor, your wife has been absent from most of your campaign stops and she insists that both John Kerry and John Edwards are better in bed (especially in tandem and when playing alternating roles from the upcoming movie Troy). Thoughts?
In Vermont, you backed family values, yet during the SuperBowl you removed an article of clothing revealing Janet Jackson's breast. Were you driven by hypocrisy, perversion or a can of Jesus Juice?
Things were good but they suck now, huh?
ClassRoots Effort: Would Kerry still be in the race without his own loan to the campaign? A few months ago his campaign was in near ruins. Today he is polling favorably against Dems and Bush.
Convention or Bust: Sharpton: "How can I kill a party that is already dead?" (Is this question Socratic, Platonic, or just a bit like Simon Cowell?) Or maybe it has more to do with the folks running Al's campaign?
In Georgia, there is still a heated debate (either that or an incredibly realistic remake of Inherit the Wind) over whether or not to include the word "evolution" in the public school curriculum (I once had a similar argument with a teacher over the word Math). Jimmy Carter has needed to chime in and the state's governor indicated that the "E word" should be included in schools as what it is: An academic theory. (Amazingly, he also suggested that the superintendent opposed to evolution may have been "Thinking out loud." Unlikely). Meanwhile, in an appearance on CNN on Sunday, Pat Robertson (whose very appearance on that network erases any liberal charges, and maybe a few sanity ones) indicated that God told him that Bush would win the 2004 presidential election (Of course, God also hinted to Robertson that Adam Vinatieri would shank his last minute field goal attempt wide right). These stories are yet further evidence that there are three Americas. The blue states. The red states. And idiots.
Representing Himself: On some level, Howard Dean sought (pre-scream) to keep his personality and his personal life out of his campaign. John Edwards is just the opposite. His campaign is himself. The successful lawyer is now representing his most intimate client. Himself.
WMD-Day: President Bush has decided to establish an independent panel to investigate what gives when it comes to the WMD Intel. Infighting and politics are to be expected. What the world already knows will be tough to overcome. Something clearly went terribly wrong. What? We likely won't have an answer during this calendar year. The other equally critical question: Under what circumstances should we go to war?
. . . February 1, 2004
SuperPoll XXXVIII
 In a strange SuperBowl twist, the game was exciting and the commercials were wholly forgettable. The highlight of the entire broadcast was clearly the split second of Janet Jackson's frontal exposure (hey, they promised us a special, unannounced guest). Among commercials, the most memorable line may have been a side-effect warning during the voice over for one of the Cialis ads that urged: "Erections that last over four hours, although rare, should receive immediate medical attention." (I can't remember where I've heard that before; either Kucinich's health plan or his Match.com personal ad). Kerry comes out the winner as his Pats beat Edwards Cats. At this point, Kerry better hope he makes it to the White House. I hear Adam Vinatieri is considering a Senate run.
Two Sharpton Surprises: One, although I predicted he'd have a major impact, he has performed much better than expected at nearly all the debates. Two, his hair looks a little lifeless.
| 
