The truth about what Bush did with his medals

George Dubya Bush is a practical man. A man who values utility. Why did he join the Texas Air National Guard? Two reasons: 1) to save his sorry ass; 2) to "better" himself (which from all reports would have required very little at the time.)

In his own simple words, before he envisioned leading the Free World (or even Texas):

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Now, his surrogates are smearing Kerry. Was one of his Purple Hearts a little "questionable"? Did he throw away his actual Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, or just his ribbons? And has he "allowed" people to be confused about the difference? Was he brave, cowardly, medal hungry or just an atrocity seeking mad man when he left his boat, ran down a VC and killed him?

Lost in these distractions is another story of which I am hot on the trail. What happened to Bush's medals? Or ribbons? I've heard rumors (mostly because I listen to myself sometimes) that although Bush wasn't granted medals, or ribbons, or whatever, except an honorable discharge which Republicans seem to think warrants more respect than three Purple Hearts, that Bush routinely stole other soldiers medals and sold them to support his cocaine habit....Developing...

The primaries are over, John

Gotta love those ad companies that cut corners during a presidential campaign. Kerry has had a few ads this season that are cut and paste jobs, but now it is time to at least think, if not be totally original. Two of Kerry's "new" ads, "Choice" and "Join the fight", contain the tag line, "I promise to take the fight to George Bush every single day." Well, that's what the Dems wanted to hear when choosing a candidate, but now Americans want a President who is focused on making their lives better, not "taking the fight to George Bush..." Hey Bob Shrum, this is not the time for amateur hour. The message from the candidates lips kinda matters.

What a difference a year makes

April 9, 2003

According to White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, President Bush watching the statue fall on television, and said, "They got it down."

"The president is filled with joy for the fact that the Iraqi people soon will be free," Fleischer added.

Likening the scenes of Iraqis destroying symbols of Saddam's power to the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called it a "very good day" for the Iraqi people.

Then there were utter morons like this guy about a week later:

Hardly a month into it, the war to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein is winding down. The past 10 days have seen....

The taking of the Baghdad airport, as well as Basra and Baghdad itself. The collapse of resistance in Kirkuk, Mosul, Tikrit and Qaim. The repatriation of the Magnificent Seven POWs (plus one). The capture of key Saddamite operatives, the flight of others and the death of still others, such as Chemical Ali and possibly even the big enchiladas - Saddam and his two cretinous sons.

Cooperation with the Turks. Cheers, celebration, jubilation in the streets - Iraqis hugging Marines, saying, "I love Mr. Bush," and shouting, "America, yes!" Torture chambers found, missiles found, caches of likely biochemical weapons found. Warnings to Syria. Statues of Saddam defaced and toppled across the land.

Yet the people who said....

Let the UN do it. Give the inspectors more time. It's all about oil. The Europeans are irked - the Chinese, too. People will die; better start stocking up on body bags. War will cost too much. Preemption is wrong; war to liberate Iraq wouldn't be just; the protesters and the Dixie Chicks are right. It would be an American jihad - war against Islam, war against the Arabs. Iraq isn't our problem; Saddam isn't so bad.

...Are many of the same people who said....

What does stupid Bush know? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Wolfowitz are proven warmongers - not to mention the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Saddam might use biochems - verily, what if he does? The retired flag officers on TV are skeptical. The coalition forces are too few, too green, can't possibly win quickly. We'll get mired in Iraq à la Vietnam.
...

...Are many of the same people who, following the statue's destruction, liked these commentaries and headlines....

Celebration is unseemly and premature. Columnist Thomas Friedman: "No water, no food, no happy faces," so "hold your applause." Imams and intellectuals are voicing concerns. Cox News Service: "Sentiment in Baghdad is about 60-40 joy; many Iraqis are sullen and despise the U.S." ...

"Reaction in Europe Muted and Mixed." "Arabs Gloomy." "Some Iraqis Grateful to U.S. But Wary of Any Changes." "Muslims Unmoved by Fall of Saddam; Leaders Condemn U.S. as Colonizer."

...Are many of the same people who are saying now....

The United States has won the war but can't possibly win the peace. There is chaos, mayhem, looting, vigilantism and anarchy. Bush is a boob; he has put a retired general in charge of the interim transition government. In an Arab/Islamic country, democracy can't work.

When will Bush start moving on democracy? What about reconstruction? What about humanitarian assistance? The United States better leave soon, soonest - yesterday. The United States better not leave before the restoration of civil order. If the United States lingers too long, U.S. troops will be viewed in the Arab street as nothing more than latter-day Ugly Americans.

Bush and Blair are arguing over post-liberation Iraq. Who will run the place? Islam hates us; Arabs hate us; we are loathed. What about Arab/Islamic despair over the defeat of Saddam? We need to restore the Arabs' - Islam's - lost honor. Give the UN - and our crucial allies France, Germany, Russia and China - a wider role to get the crucial things done.
...
Questions: Who is ignorant (Jane Fonda said in Vancouver the other day that Americans are)? Who have their arms around the situation and really know what they're talking about? Who are doing what they said they would do and, thankfully, checking things off the list instead of constantly carping - who is out there in the fray securing liberty for Iraqis and protecting the people and interests of the United States?

Who is out there in the fray today? A bunch of underpaid, underresourced, overextended soldiers. Bush has gone fishing with his Dad and will probably squeeze a fundraiser or two in this week.


Cheney before the war:

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Iraqis withold flowers on the anniversary of Saddam's collapse

On the anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Baghdad and parts of central Iraq were chaotic.

At a square in the capital where Saddam's statue was toppled a year ago, soldiers took down a new icon: pictures of the radical Shiite cleric whose followers have risen up against coalition forces in the south.

Another U.S. soldier was killed in an attack on a base elsewhere in the capital, and large groups of insurgents fought U.S. soldiers in two cities to the north, Baqouba and Muqdadiyah.

One Marine was killed in Fallujah and another wounded in exchanges of fire after U.S. forces called a stop to offensive operations in the city, a spokesman said.

The death - along with those of three Marines a day earlier announced yesterday - brought the toll of U.S. soldiers killed across Iraq this week to 46. More than 460 Iraqis have been killed in the fighting - including more than 280 in Fallujah, a hospital official said....

Elsewhere, fighting with al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army militia diminished. Coalition forces largely left gunmen in control in three cities of south-central Iraq, and further south, coalition forces have largely succeeded in taming the uprising, though Italian soldiers still experienced light fighting in the city of Nasiriyah.

In Fallujah, Marines stopped their assault on Sunni insurgents to allow U.S.-picked Iraqi leaders - angry at the United States over the bloodshed from five days of heavy fighting - to hold talks with city leaders on how to reduce the violence.
...

The governing council issued a statement early today demanding an end to military action and "collective punishment" - a reference to the Fallujah siege.

Abdul-Karim Mahoud al-Mohammedawi, a Shiite on the governing council, said he was suspending his council seat until "the bleeding stops in all Iraq." He also met yesterday with al-Sadr, whom U.S. commanders have vowed to capture.

Meanwhile, in an indication of the emergence of a new enemy in Iraq, two pictures of al-Sadr hung from a sculpture in Baghdad's central Firdos Square, where one year ago Marines toppled a statue of Saddam.

A U.S. soldier climbed a ladder to tear down the posters, and the military warned that al-Sadr's followers were planning bomb attacks in the area. Hours later, a mortar landed nearby

A more pleasant memory from 30 years and one day ago:

Hammerin' Hank hits number 715

Let's make him pass it first

Bush Endorses Testing Of 12th-Grade Students

EL DORADO, Ark., April 6 -- President Bush endorsed a proposal Tuesday that would require states to test 12th-grade students and called for the replacement of an 87-year-old vocational education program.

George W. Bush: Uniter Extraordinaire

Shrub ran for President as a "uniter, not a divider." Okay, he's totally polarized this country, but he has done an excellent job of uniting much of the world against us and now he has pulled off what most experts previously thought to be impossible-- Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq have found common ground, at least for now. Too bad our troops have to suffer the consequences.

Muslim Rivals Unite In Baghdad Uprising

BAGHDAD, April 6 -- On the streets of Baghdad neighborhoods long defined by differences of faith and politics, signs are emerging that resistance to the U.S. occupation may be growing from a sporadic, underground effort to a broader insurrection by militiamen who claim to be fighting in the name of their common faith, Islam.


On Monday, residents of Adhamiya, a largely Sunni section of northern Baghdad, marched with followers of Moqtada Sadr, the militant Shiite cleric whose call for armed resistance was answered by local Sunnis the same afternoon, residents said.

As protesters chanted anti-occupation slogans in Abu Hanifa Square, militants were seen hustling toward the site carrying AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, residents said. The guerrillas opened fire on the U.S. armor deployed near the demonstration, attacking from positions in a neighborhood where militants appear to be not just tolerated but encouraged.

"I saw three mujaheddin on this street, and another three moving up this side," said Abu Hassan, pointing toward narrow lanes running toward the square on either side of the bakery where he works. On the other side of the counter, a customer spoke excitedly of guerrilla fighters arriving in several Toyota Coaster minibuses, then melting into the neighborhood.

"Everywhere among the houses they hid," said the young customer, who left without giving his name. "Then they started shooting at the American army."

Over the next few days...

I'll be out of town and unable to blog. Count on the inept and desperate Repugs to keep Clarke relevant, in the news, and fighting back. Sit back and enjoy.

It is time for Moveon to play hardball

Don't get me wrong-- I appreciate the efforts of Moveon.org, but I simply don't think most of their ads have a tremendous visceral impact on most swing voters. The latest they want to run uses Richard Clarke's quotes. Not bad, I guess, but I don't think they will grab most folks. They need to step it up a notch. Maybe something like this:

Narrator: 3,000 Americans dead. Could it have been prevented? What could we have done differently? That's the question the 9/11 Commission is trying to answer. Its not about blame. Its about answers-- truthful answers. President Clinton has agreed to testify before the entire commission-- no time limits. President Bush refuses to testify under oath. Dick Cheney refuses to testify under oath. Condi Rice questions other people's credibility, but even she refuses to testfiy under oath. What are they hiding? Why won't they swear to tell the truth-- the whole truth? Call the White House. Tell them it is time to fully cooperate with the Commission so Americans can finally know the truth.

Condi takes her eye off of the ball again

The person whose foremost responsibility is to keep us safe is in full-time political shill mode for the Shrub. Can there be any time left for her supposed "day job" that we are paying her for? Now she's complaining that when she took him to lunch to thank him, he didn't grab her by the collar and bitch-slap her. Shut up and testify, Condi.

Rice Accuses Clarke of Conflicting Stories

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A fuming U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice accused former counter-terrorism aide Richard Clarke on Wednesday of shifting positions from backing President Bush's war on terrorism to now questioning it.

Clarke has accused Bush of a fixation on Iraq, but Rice said Clarke did not raise those concerns with her. She said after his resignation 13 months ago, she invited him to lunch three weeks before the start of the U.S.-led war against Iraq to thank him for his years of service.

Clarke had "not a word about concerns that Iraq was going to somehow take us off the path of the war on terrorism. It would've been easy to do, kick the others out, close the door, say 'I just want you to know I think you're making a mistake.' He didn't do it," she told reporters in her West Wing office.

Rice, in normal circumstances an even-keeled top White House aide, was unusually incensed during a half-hour briefing for reporters in her West Wing office, as she castigated her former employee. She also went on television to make her case.

Her comments reflected ongoing White House frustration with Clarke, who has threatened the underpinning of Bush's re-election strategy as an activist in the war on terrorism.

Shameless bastards

Tax Gap Attack

President Bush's campaign rolled out a curious new line of attack on Sen. John F. Kerry this week, highlighting a $1 trillion "tax gap" -- that is, the cost of his proposals and the money available to pay for them -- in the Massachusetts senator's economic platform.

"John Kerry's tax gap of $1 trillion would result in higher taxes on every American and is the wrong prescription for our economy," Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said this week. "Kerry's new government spending will put a burden on every American family."

In a nutshell, the Bush campaign says that Kerry so far has proposed about $1.7 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years while proposing to increase taxes by about $650 million by rescinding the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Why is the attack curious? Because the Bush campaign accuses Kerry of doing nearly the same thing Bush did in 2000. In his campaign for president, the Texas governor went from campaign stop to campaign stop proposing hundreds of billions of dollars for new environmental, social and educational programs without ever outlining one major cut in any federal program.

Bush did all of this while proposing a $1.35 trillion tax-cut plan.

The reporters following the Bush campaign (I was one of them) pushed the candidate to explain how he planned to balance the books with huge tax cuts, massive infusions of new spending for education and social programs and no significant cuts in existing programs. The candidate's answer was always the same: The expanding economy and a predicted $4.6 trillion budget surplus would more than pay for tax cuts and spending increases. Even when it became clear in mid-2000 -- the heat of the campaign season -- that the economy was slowing down, the Bush campaign stuck by its story.

It was a smart political strategy, one that played off of a contemporary phenomenon -- the irrational exuberance of the era -- and a traditional one -- the certainty that voters will reward politicians who promise them it's possible to have everything.

Bush endeared himself to conservatives in 2000 by promising historic tax cuts. And, unlike his Newt Gingrich-era predecessors, he didn't alienate liberals and moderates with constant talk about slashing popular government programs.

As the rosy economic predictions that underscored the Bush campaign's economic platform evaporated in 2001, the president proposed even greater tax cuts while overseeing what the libertarian Cato Institute calculates to be the largest annual increases in discretionary spending since the Great Society programs of the Johnson administration in the late 1960s.

The result: a tax gap of more than $5 trillion in spending over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

"While George W. Bush has claimed to support deficit reduction, his policies and plans have led us from a $5.6 trillion surplus to an expected $5.2 trillion deficit -- a $10 trillion difference," the Kerry campaign responded on Monday. "Since George Bush has said he cares about the deficit, we can only assume that there is a $10 trillion tax gap that he will charge the American people."

In other words, the Bush tax gap is bigger than our tax gap.

I've concluded that these guys are so dishonest to their core that they can't even see their own hypocrisy. The sheer volume of dishonest crap that they throw at you-- depending on the ignorance of the average American voter to not be able to see through it on his or her own-- makes it almost impossible to effectively rebut it all in 30 second ads.

Well I certainly hope so

Bush said he would've acted quicker if he knew attack was imminent

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Tuesday he would have acted more quickly against al-Qaeda if he had information before Sept. 11, 2001, that a terror attack against New York City was imminent.

"We have been chasing down al-Qaeda, ever since those attacks," Bush said.

In his first direct response to criticism raised in a new book by his former counterterrorism adviser, Bush denied that he ignored Osama bin Laden and the threat of the al-Qaeda terror network before the attacks while focusing on Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

"The facts are these, George Tenet briefed me on a regular basis about the terrorist threat to the United States of America, and had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on Sept. 11, we would have acted," Bush said.

In the same interview, Bush said that had he known the Mets would win the World Series in 1969, he would have bet his entire cocaine allowance on the "bastards."

How Kerry should respond to Bush's latest attack ad in WV

Something along these lines:

Narrator:

George W. Bush is misleading us again. The Bush administration told us that Iraq would finance its own reconstruction from seized assets and oil production.

(show articles and headlines and pictures of a scowling Cheney and Smirking Bush)

That wasn't true. In a misleading attack ad, George Bush now claims the 87 billion dollars he asked for last fall was for our troops. What does he not tell you?

$20 billion was actually intended for reconstruction and for training Iraqi security forces. But there was also $82 million to protect Iraq’s 36 miles of coast line; new prisons at a cost of $50,000 per bed; a witness protection program at a cost of $1 million per family; $2 million for museums and memorials, and a whopping $9 million for a state-of-the-art postal service.

And who has made out like bandits-- literally? Companies with close ties to President Bush, like Halliburtion, a company that still pays Dick Cheney, have gotten contracts without bids. And according to Pentagon audits, have grossly overcharged the American taxpayer.

John Kerry thinks its time this administration is held accountable. Our troops need a real plan that provides true international support. And we deserve a President that tells us the truth.

What's tens of millions between such close friends?

Ah, the benefits of friends and former CEO's still on the payroll in high places.

(CBS/AP) Pentagon auditors found a Halliburton Co. subsidiary gave faulty cost estimates on a $2.7 billion contract to serve American troops in Iraq and Kuwait, and company officials acknowledged making mistakes, Defense Department documents show.

The estimate problems included a failure to tell contract managers that Halliburton had terminated two subcontracts for feeding troops, which affected costs on $1 billion worth of that work, the Defense Contract Audit Agency found. Halliburton also did not tell contract managers it had already awarded subcontracts worth $141.5 million for work it said would cost $208.8 million, the auditors found.

Hey, The Donald...

You're fired.

Trump may be television's most effective boss, but there's some question if his ranking on Wall Street is more akin to a series deserving of the ax after its first season. Trump, the TV star, has achieved eye-popping ratings. But Trump, the CEO, appears to have rating problems where they matter most — with the stock market and corporate debt-rating services. Trump Hotels & Casino's stock sells for little more than the cost of a ride on the New York City subway. Standard & Poor's and Moody's both recently cut their rating on Trump Hotels & Casino's debt. S&P called it "vulnerable," and Moody's called it "high risk.

When crime is noble

Well, we know Republicans aren't Robin Hood fans with him engaging in class warfare by robbing the rich to give to the poor. In fact, in Republican folk lore he would be the bad guy. Once upon a time, Fox News show host, and former convicted felon, Oliver North proudly stood before Congress and explained how his crimes were heroic. Now we see the little bastards who pilfered Dem memos making similar claims. When is crime noble? Apparently when it advances a Republican president's agenda.

Pickle last week released a report detailing how two Republican staffers, who have both since left their jobs, exploited computer security weaknesses to access more than 4,600 documents. Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned the staffers' actions as improper, but they say prosecutors must decide whether actual crimes were committed....

Lawyers representing one of the former aides who took the documents, Manuel Miranda, released two lengthy documents criticizing Pickle's report. They said Miranda was a whistle-blower, not a thief, taking advantage of a computer security glitch to fulfill his duty to further the president's agenda on the judiciary.

Do Republicans see Dubya as a drag on their ticket?

Senate? Senate anyone? Apparently big name Repugs in Colorado don't think winning a Senate seat is a sure thing in 2004. Beauprez says it is "not the right time." How many chances does one get? Just two years ago, a loser named Wayne Allard won re-election in Colorado. Should be even easier in an historically red state with a Republican incumbent President leading the ticket, shouldn't it? Think back to November 2002 when all the silly pundits were tripping over themselves saying how Dubya had transformed the political landscape, blah, blah, blah. Yeah, that's what I'm counting on, too.

Second Top Colorado Republican Says No to Senate

DENVER (Reuters) - Rep. Bob Beauprez said on Thursday he would not run for the U.S. Senate seat from Colorado being vacated by fellow Republican Ben Nighthorse Campbell, leaving his party still without a strong candidate to defend a crucial seat.

Republicans hold just a one-seat majority in the 100-member Senate, and Colorado party officials began scrambling for a successor to Campbell after Republican state Gov. Bill Owens -- their first choice -- dropped out of contention on Tuesday.

Owens even mentioned Beauprez twice when he said he would not run for family reasons.

In a conference call with reporters, Beauprez said this was not the time to run for the Senate and he hoped instead to be re-elected to his House seat for a second term.

"At some point in the future I may feel compelled to run for the U.S. Senate, but this is not the right time for me," Beauprez said from Washington.

Republicans need to find a big-name candidate soon. On Wednesday, Attorney General Ken Salazar, Colorado's highest- ranking Democrat, announced he would run.

Veep Choices

There is much speculation these days about who Kerry’s VP choice will be. There is even speculation about who Dubya will have on his ticket. This post isn’t about prognostication. Instead, it is about the relative merits of possible Kerry choices.

Gephardt- Conventional wisdom suggests that Geppy will shore up labor support and play well in the entire Midwest. The reality is that Gep didn’t command labor support as a Presidential candidate and placed a pathetic fourth in Iowa after practically living there. Okay, but Gep secures the battleground state of Missouri, right? Who knows? He has never won a statewide race and may not be popular outside of his district. The truth is Gephardt is a good man who would be a miserable failure as a VP candidate. He is deadly dull, and provide no meaningful help anywhere, outside of the possibility of Missouri. Plus, it would piss off all the Deaniacs. Even without that consideration, however, from an electoral standpoint he brings little to the table. Most pundits though he would emerge as the anti-Dean, which shows how incredibly out of touch some of these folks are.

Edwards- The conventional wisdom criticism of Edwards is that he can’t even guarantee NC. That may be true, but I think misses his real attraction. Voters find the guy likeable. He creates positive buzz and energy and God knows, someone in the Kerry campaign has to be able to consistently enthuse people. Edwards may be the strongest choice. I think he would be well received in the rust belt and would help place some key Southern states in play. No, I don’t see him bringing Alabama and Mississippi into the Dem fold, but he could be a difference maker in LA, AR, FL, NC, TN, and WV. Ultimately, synergy is more important that geography and I think these two fit better that Kerry may realize. Kerry may not like the guy, but Kennedy does and might argue for him.

Graham- Good guy, lousy candidate. May not really help in FL and certainly won’t help anywhere else. Sure, he has great credentials, but people have to care about what you’re saying before they check your vita. And the excessive notetaking is just damn weird.

Richardson- Another blogosphere favorite that is way, way off. The guy is dull and uninteresting. Even worse, he probably has more baggage than any other top name being kicked around. The sloppy security around Los Alamos will only serve to enhance the Repug attacks on Kerry’s security credentials. Do you doubt it? Remember how much anti-war bloggers were loving Robert Byrd last year? Here is what he said to Richards in 2000:

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I have to say, I am not calling for your resignation at this moment, but you have shown a supreme, a supreme contempt of the committees of this Congress. When you decided that you would go-- if the newspaper stories are correct-- when you decided that you would go before the Intelligence Committee when you were ready... you weren't ready yet…that was a supreme act of callous arrogance, and I resent it. I think it's a rather sad story that you had a bright and brilliant career that you had never, that you would never again receive the support of the Senate of the United States for any office to which you might be appointed. It's beyond... you have squandered your treasure, and I am sorry.

I was stunned when I watched Byrd eviscerate a cabinet member on the floor of the Senate like he did. And he’s a Democrat. Fuggetaboutit.

Conventional wisdom says Richards will energize Latinos in the Southwest. Don’t count on it. Tony Sanchez didn’t sufficiently mobilize Latinos in Texas and Cruz Bustamante didn’t mobilize Latinos in California. It’s a pipe dream. Let it go.

Cleland- I respect his sacrifice. I respect his service. I deeply resent how he was treated in 2002. That said, if he hadn’t been treated so shabbily, would this one-term Senator be on many lists? No superstar during his short Senate career, not a particularly strong campaigner or speaker. Not a good candidate for Vice President. Maybe Veteran’s Affairs.

Clark- Conventional wisdom is that Clark may have lessened his VP stature with his run for the Presidency. Well, the mystique is certainly gone, but he grew as a candidate, is quite capable of ripping Bushco a new one, and has a support base that while relatively small, is quite broad. Clark can be great on the stump or in an interview, and would be much better in a one-on-one debate than he was in the 9-10 member events referred to as debates in the fall. He can also be rather flat on the stump which, honestly, makes him no worse a campaigner than most politicians. He’s better than Graham, Gephardt, Richardson or Cleland, IMHO, He also shores up Kerry’s security credentials which seem to be the target of choice for Bushco. He may help in the South and Southwest, and certainly wouldn’t hurt. His biggest drawback is a tendency to say the wrong thing from time to time and then have to explain himself too much. As he adapts more to politics this should improve. He probably best serves Kerry as the Secretary of State or National Security Advisor, however.

McCain- Yeah, I know. Rumored as early as last summer, McCain didn’t really slam the door last Sunday. He said he couldn’t see not being a Republican. A Dem/Rep ticket could really allow Kerry to sell himself to independents as a true uniter. The problem is it would not play terribly well with the base who would fear an Anti-Choice candidate, albeit an unenthusiastic one, being next in line and McCain’s support for the Iraq war would also be problematic. Also, even though I can see McCain pulling the lever for Kerry before Bush, whom I still believe he despises, I’m still not sure McCain has given up on running for President in 2008 and would not want to damage himself with Republicans or assure a Dem victory. Don’t see it happening, but maybe…

Should Bush be reminding us of 9/11?

Republicans are fond of saying how Bush has "kept us safe" since 9/11 and that we should be thankful Gore was not President. Many Americans seem to have fallen for this, perhaps because they have a vested interest in believing it whether it is true or not. These same Republicans like to indicate that 9/11 happened due to some failing of the Clinton administration. It is time we put this in the proper perspective for folks.

Less than 5 weeks into his Presidential term, Bill Clinton presided over the most significant foreign terrorist attack in the USA up to that time. On February 26, 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic fundamentalists. What followed? Arrests, convictions and 7 years and 11 months of relative safety on our shores. Millenial threats were thwarted and America went about its business. Yes, there were Al Qaeda attacks elsewhere in the world, but not here. Does Clinton get credit for this? Does that fact that our feeling safe from foreign terrorists came to a screeching halt less than 8 months into Bush II's administration raise questions of a collossal failure on his behalf? Why aren't these views at least equally common? Because the Repugs have framed the discussion, up until now. It is time to reframe it.

Republican philosophy stripped bare

The Republican party can no longer credibly cling to the fiscal conservative label-- Dubya's rapid dismissal of "what should we do with the surplus?" argument has proven that Reagan and Bush I's astronomical deficits were not merely anomalies or the result of a Democratic Congress. Any thinking Libertarian no longer can feel at home in Bushco's party, and any other genuine anti-Big Government type must have considered slitting his wrists by now. What's left to the conventional Republican mythology? Apparently not that "law and order" thing.

GOP Aides Blamed for Leaking Documents
Report: Thousands of Files Were Accessed


The report released yesterday by Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William H. Pickle noted that two former Senate GOP staff members -- including the Republicans' top aide on judicial nomination strategy -- were primarily responsible for accessing and leaking computer memos on Democratic plans for blocking some of President Bush's judicial nominations.

Pickle made no recommendations about whether to pursue criminal prosecutions in the case, but he cited several federal laws that might be considered, including statutes involving false statements and receipt of stolen property.

Pickle and his investigators said forensics analyses indicated that 4,670 files had been downloaded between November 2001 and spring 2003 by one of the aides -- "the majority of which appeared to be from folders belonging to Democratic staff" on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said at least 100 of his computer files were also accessed by the GOP aides.

The report identified the two former staffers as Jason Lundell, a nominations clerk who originally accessed the files, and Manuel Miranda, a more senior staff member and later the top aide to Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) on judicial nominations. Miranda, the report said, advised Lundell and was said by other aides to have been implicated in leaking the documents to friendly journalists or other parties outside the Senate. Miranda had previously denied leaking the materials....

Some Republicans on the committee -- and many conservative groups on the outside -- said the Senate should have probed the contents of the memos, which they contended demonstrated the collusion between Democrats and liberal advocacy groups, rather than how the memos ended up in Republican hands.

Okay, what are we left with? Pro-death penalty, anti-gay, pro-unnecessary war, disrespectful of veterans, ruining the environment, saddling the next generation with debt to pay off wealthy contributors and frat brothers, and a policy making process that is shrouded in secrecy. If the Terry McAuliffe can't beat that collection of positions, I'd like a shot.

George Bush in 60 minutes

As of yet, there is no indication that the White House has changed it's position on this one:

Bush to Limit Testimony Before 9/11 Panel

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday.

The commission, which has 10 members and is bipartisan, said in a statement that it had also been informed by the White House that Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, had rejected its request that she testify in public about the intelligence reports that reached her desk before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Fine. This will make one helluva commercial:

Narrator: "George W. Bush says he's committed to fighting the war on terror. He says he's the kind of leader who will do what it takes to protect us. As long as it isn't incovenient. President Bush actually refused to testify before the independent commission investigating the the tragedy of 9/11. He simply refused. Bill Clinton did. Al Gore did. Bush wouldn't. Cheney wouldn't. Condolezza Rice wouldn't. Bush said he would try to meet with only two of the members of the commission for an hour. Just an hour. He excercises more each day than that. He takes month-long vacations. He attends more fundraisers than any President in history. But when it comes to looking into what it will take to prevent another 9/11 tragedy, President Bush simply could not make time. What do you think of that?"

Where are we now?

It is all over but the shouting...and there has even been a little shouting in some quarters (not mine). Barring something really wierd, Kerry is the nominee. Edwards is reportedly dropping out tomorrow. How to stay in the news? I would like to see Edwards and Clark join Kerry on the campaign trail for the upcoming primaries (and send Gore overseas) and have big-ass rallies the media has to pay attention to. Clark can slam on Bush for foreign policy idiocy, Edwards for domestic policy callousness and Kerry can stay a bit more "positive." Lots of veterans. Add a little star power to increase media interest. Have Dean crank up his netroots followers and focus on winnable congressional seats, and I mean think liberally about what seats are winnable. Bushco could utterly collapse in the coming months and the Dems need to be ready to shock the punditry world. I'm not even ready to concede the redistricted Texas seats. Not saying it will happen, but I see possibilities.

Have the Big Dog under the radar raising money with base and, perhaps, with business folks who prospered under Clinton and were receptive to his economic message, but may have wandered into the Repug fold in 2000. We need to chip away at Dubya's vulnerabilities.

Gay marriage will lessen the deficit

How you ask? First, we sucker all gay couples into legally tying the knot, and then hit them with the "marriage penalty" when April 15th rolls around. This may not sway the hardened social conservatives, but likely will win over some fiscal conservatives. It all comes down to packaging the issue in a way that has resonance with the opposition. Do you have any bumper sticker ideas for selling the idea of gay marriage? Here's a few, "Tax Gays More: make 'em get married";"It's time gays and lesbians pay their fair share"; or "Close the gay and lesbian loophole-- Sock 'em with the marriage penalty!" Ideas?

ECONOMIC GROWTH RATE DROPS 50%!

Developing...

This is my imitation of what the Drudge headline would look like if a Dem were President. We'll see what this really means in about 6 months.

WASHINGTON (AP) - America's economy, bolstered by brisk business spending, grew at a healthy 4.1 percent annual rate in the final quarter of 2003. That was even faster than first thought and offered new evidence that the nation's economic recovery was firmly rooted going into the new year.

The latest reading on the gross domestic product - the broadest measure of the economy's health - was slightly better than the 4 percent pace estimated a month ago for the October-to-December quarter, the Commerce Department reported Friday. GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

"The capital spending rebound is in high gear," said economist Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics.

Even though the fourth quarter's growth rate marked a slowdown from the red-hot 8.2 percent pace of the third quarter - the best in nearly two decades - it nonetheless represented a solid performance.

Remember the RNC using pictures of Bush on 9/11 to fundraise?

Well if you do, you can probably figure that if they don't want to politicize this report, they probably think it is not gonna help 'em.

Speaker wants to avoid politicizing report, aide says

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Congress appears unlikely to grant a two-month extension requested by the commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to finish its report.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert told President Bush on Wednesday he would not bring up any legislation to authorize the 60-day extension proposed by the commission and endorsed by the White House, according to Hastert spokesman John Feehery.

Feehery said the speaker, a Republican from Illinois, had two reasons.

"One, if there are recommendations that need action, we need them sooner than later," Feehery said. "Two, he does not want this to be delayed any further and become a political football in the middle of the campaign."

I think the actual priority may be the other way around.

It get's better...I mean worse.

Rice declines to testify

Earlier Wednesday, the commission said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had declined its request to testify at a public hearing next month.

"We are disappointed by this decision," commission members said in a statement. "We believe the nation would be well served by the contribution she can make to public understanding of the intelligence and policy issues being examined by the commission."

Rice met privately with the panel February 7.

The statement also asked Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to reconsider their decision to be questioned only by the commission's chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, a Republican, and its vice chairman, former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, a Democrat. The statement said Bush and Cheney "prefer not to meet with all members of the commission."

Well I "prefer" not to pay their damn salaries with my hard earned tax dollars, but I guess I'm just out of luck. Why do they get to decide? Safe house Dems need to make a major stink out of this one.

Return of the living Bork

No, not Bjork. I'm talking about the fat guy with the wierd beard who hates privacy and mankind in general. We were so right to Bork (verb) Bork (proper noun). Not only would he have been the ugliest bastard to ever sit on the Court, he and Scalia would constantly be trying to out-extreme the other.

The Borkster got his nasty mits on the ammendment favored by the former state's rights governor.

A handful of conservatives argue that the sentence defining marriage as heterosexual should preclude any provision of marital benefits to same-sex couples, no matter what the name. A few gay legal advocates contend that future courts might interpret the amendment to block enforcement of any laws conferring benefits on same-sex couples.

"Constitutions are interpreted over time," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a group opposed to the amendment. "You don't write a gamble like that into the Constitution."

Robert H. Bork, the conservative former judge and former Supreme Court nominee and a leading drafter of the amendment, called that argument "preposterous." He said that the text clearly restricted only courts, not legislatures. What is more, Mr. Bork said, the public debate over the amendment would determine how any court interpreted it. If voters approving the amendment believed it meant one thing, courts would be hard pressed to say it meant another.

Defining liberalism

A few quotes on liberalism. Which do you like? What would you add?

A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future. Bernstein


The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
J.K. Galbraith

Liberalism is, I think, resurgent. One reason is that more and more people are so painfully aware of the alternative. J.K. Galbraith

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence; Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. William E. Gladstone

A conservative is a man who is too cowardly to fight and too fat to run.
Elbert Hubbard

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.
John Stuart Mill

Liberalism is the supreme form of generosity; it is the right which the majority concedes to minorities and hence it is the noblest cry that has ever resounded on this planet.
Jose Ortega y Gasset

A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead.
Leo C. Rosten

A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. Unknown

A religious conservative is a fanatic about a dead radical. Unknown

A conservative is a man who does not think that anything should be done for the first time. Frank Vanderlip

Hot Dog!

I am updating my vita! Now if I ever run for office I can claim to have held a manufacturing job. That should win me points with all the former holders of manufacturing jobs.

"When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?" the report asks.

"Sometimes, seemingly subtle differences can determine whether an industry is classified as manufacturing. For example, mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing. However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service."

Okay, I didn't last long. But it was my choice. I believed that we were obligated to make that burger look as closely like the one in the picture on the menu as possible. Truth in advertising and all. I moved on and waited tables-- where I still manufactured salads, by the way.

Head-to-head? Toe-to-toe?

One would think head-to-head would result in people being face-to-face.

Okay, Georgie. We know you're desperate for ratings, but read these words three times and keep a straight face: "head to head in separate interviews."

Feb. 21 — Democratic presidential front-runners Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John Edwards, D-N.C., will go head to head in separate interviews on the biggest issues in the presidential campaign this Sunday on ABCNEWS' This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Stephie won't win the Straightalker Award this year. He's probably just hoping to have a job after the convention, anyway.

Dean, Dean, Dean

Last Summer John Kerry was heard muttering, "Dean, Dean, Dean," in apparent exasperation over the media's focus on the Vermont Governor. Last Fall the same media told us Dean was inevitable. After it was pretty clear Dean was done after New Hampshire, he was still treated with about as much media attention as the front-runner, and more attention than the two candidates who may have had a chance to unseat Kerry from that position.

In the blogosphere we saw the Daily Kos turn into the Daily Dean. Now it is the Daily Dean Whinefest. Not Kos himself, who seems to have maturely moved on, but the endless stream of diary entries detailing the blend of paranoia and grief suffered by the most hard-core Deaniacs, who must be the whiniest followers of a candidate ever. Sure, the "I have a scream speech" got too much play. But perhaps not by much. It was the stupidest thing I've ever seen a candidate do. His primary audience was the nation, many of whom were getting their first real look at him, not just the young supporters in the room. Edwards was brilliant in his post-caucus speech. Dean was stunningly bad. Also, Dean largely received a free ride the previous twelve months. Remember, last summer Kerry was getting bashed for ordering Swiss Cheese on his Philly Cheese Sandwich and for letting folks think he was Irish.

Obviously, I'm disappointed that my candidate, Clark, did not fare better. At times I felt the press was less than "fair and balanced" in its coverage and it was as simplistic, sophomoric and wrong as it almost always is. But I also recognize that the Clark campaign made key blunders which led to its demise. Obviously, Clark talking with a group of reporters the night he entered the race was a colossal blunder that put him on the defensive much of the race. The commercials did a good job of introducing the candidate, but failed to close the deal in the closing days of key primaries. Much of the professional staff seemed more focused on self interest than loyal to Clark. I hope no candidate I ever support allows himself or herself anywhere close to Matt Bennett and, certainly, Chris Lehane. And, perhaps the most stunning blunder ever, how is a candidate not prepared for the abortion question? That episode alone should prevent Clark's key advisors from participating in Dem politics forever. Still, I tend to think Clark may have a political future. For a novice, I think he became a fairly strong candidate. At the very least, he certainly should have a key role in a Democratic administration.

Dean, on the other hand, was a lousy candidate. In fact, my second post ever on this blog indicated as much last June:

Sorry Howard Dean lovers. It’s not that I don’t understand the attraction. I kinda do. But he has a long way to go to be viewed as presidential by a majority of voters. Granted, I’m often amazed that anyone with more than a 5th grade education views Dubya as presidential so I’m not necessarily an expert. I know he is going after that John McCain magic, and is closer to it than most. But while John McCain had more candor in 2000 than most candidates, he also had far more political savvy than Dean has displayed. McCain showed unusual restraint for a man with a supposedly legendary temper.

I get the feeling Dean just wants to get back in the ring and wrestle somebody, anybody. And to beat the VRWC a candidate has to have a lot of fight. But he or she also needs sufficient restraint. Dean routinely chooses his words poorly. If he were a football coach other coaches would love the bulletin board material he provides. Russert may have had him in his sights, but he just hit him with the ammo Bush & Co. already had in their quiver. Perhaps now he can get better prepared, but I doubt he’ll come far enough, fast enough. Dean’s relative honeymoon with the media is coming to an end. From here on out it just gets tougher.

I don't see Dean becoming a much better Presidential candidate in the future. Impulsivity has apparently been a problem all his life. And contrary to some of his followers belief, he is no "Goldwater" in the sense that he is presaging a movement. What would that movement be? Goldwater was a conservative who was a counter to country club Republicanism. What are Dean's key ideological beliefs? Fiscal conservatism? Seriously, Dean tapped into a movement, he didn't create it. Is it a peace movement? No, he was against a particular war, sorta. As a serious Presidential contender, Dean is done. Maybe he can replace Jeffords. I think Dean would make an interesting contribution in the Senate representing Vermont.

Deaniacs, if any still read this site, as the title of the progessive website states, Moveon.

Clarification:

A reader asked if "Moveon" meant Dean supporters were not welcome here. That was not what I was trying to communicate and I regret the ambiguity that may have led to that conclusion. As Clinton has said, Democrats fall in love, but there is a time when we need to fall in line. We are rapidly approaching that time. Within a couple of weeks we'll know if Edwards' long-shot campaign still has life. If so, we'll still have a battle. If not, we need to get on the same team. I've slammed Kerry on this site. Not my first or second choice. I'm concerned about what I perceive to be his weaknesses, but I have no doubt that he is far superior to Bush. Then again, the average person on the street would be better than Bush. That's how bad it is. I'd rather take my chances picking a name out of the phone book than have the Shrub for four more years. Actually, I think Kerry would make a reasonably good President. I suspect Edwards is more electable. Either way, the nominee is my candidate.

Boundless, Stunning Arrogance

Richard Perle wants someone to be accountable. Look in the mirror, you cocky, moronic bastard.

Heads should definitely roll, alright

WASHINGTON—Richard Perle, a chief proponent of last year's U.S. invasion of Iraq, yesterday called for the chiefs of the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency to step down because of their faulty conclusions that Saddam Hussein possessed mass-killing weapons.

Perle, a close adviser to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said top officials made no attempt to skew the intelligence about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Instead, he implied, top policymakers relied in good faith on the conclusions of the intelligence agencies.

"George Tenet has been at the CIA long enough to assume responsibility for its performance," Perle told reporters, referring to the director of the agency. "There's a record of failure and it should be addressed in some serious way."

"The CIA has an almost perfect record of getting it wrong in relation to the (Persian) Gulf going back to the Shah of Iran," Perle said. He called for "a shakeup" in the U.S. intelligence establishment.

"I think, of course, heads should roll," he said. "When you discover that you have an organization that doesn't get it right time after time, you change the organization, including the people.

"I'd start with the head head," Perle said when asked which heads should roll at the CIA. Perle said the DIA " is in at least as bad shape as CIA (and) needs new management."

I have to agree-- in principle. When you have an organization that doesn't get it right time after time, you change the people. Bush chose to listen to Cheney, Cheney chose to listen to Perle and Chalabi. Let's clean house!

Before the war, Perle had no doubt:

We know, Mr. Chairman, that Saddam lies about his program to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.  We know that he has used the years during which no inspectors were in Iraq to move everything of interest, with the result that the database we once possessed, inadequate though it was, has been destroyed.  We know all of this yet I sometimes think there are those at the United Nations who treatthe issue not as a matter of life and death, but rather more like a game of pin the tail on the donkey or an Easter egg hunt on a sunny Sunday.

The bottom line is this: Saddam is better at hiding than we are at finding.  And this is not a game.  If he eludes us and continues to refine, perfect and expand his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, the danger to us, already great, will only grow.  If he achieves his holy grail and acquires one or more nuclear weapons there is no way of knowing what predatory policies he will pursue.

Let us suppose that in the end a robust inspection arrangement is put in place and after a year or two it has found nothing.  Could we conclude from the failure to unearth illegal activity that none existed?  Of course not.  All we would know is that we had failed to find what we were looking for, not that it was not there to be found.  And where would that leave us?  Would we be safer—or even more gravely imperiled?  There would be a predictable clamor to end the inspection regime and, if they were still in place, to lift the sanctions.  Saddam would claim not only that he was in compliance with the U.N. resolutions concerning inspections, but that he had been truthful all along.  There are those who would believe him.

Given what we now know about Saddam’s weaponry, his lies, his concealment, we would be fools to accept inspections, even an inspection regime far more ambition than anything the U.N. contemplates, as a substitute for disarmament.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, the President is right to demand that the United Nations promptly resolve that Saddam comply with the full range of United Nations resolutions concerning Iraq or face an American led enforcement action.

I have returned last night from Europe where the issues before you are being widely discussed.  Perhaps the most frequently asked question put to me by various Europeans is, “why now?”  What is it about the current situation that has made action to deal with Saddam urgent?  My answer is that we are already perilously late. We should have acted long ago—and we should certainly have acted when Saddam expelled the inspectors in 1998.  Our myopic forbearance has given him four years to expand his arsenal without interference, four years to hide things and make them mobile, four years to render the international community feckless and its principal institution, the United Nations, irrelevant.

We can, of course, choose to defer action, to wait—and hope for the best.  That is what Tony Blair’s predecessors did in the 1930’s. That is what we did with respect to Osama Bin Laden.  We waited.  We watched.  We knew about the training camps, the fanatical incitement, and the history of acts of terror.  We knew about the Cole and the embassies in Africa.  We waited too long and 3,000 innocent civilians were murdered. If we wait, if we play hide-and-seek with Saddam Hussein, there is every reason to expect that he will expand his arsenal further, that he will cross the nucleardivide and become a nuclear power. 

I urge this committee, Mr. Chairman, to support the President’s determination to act before it is too late.

I urge the American people, to send these sorry bastards packing before it is too late.

A few thoughts on the primaries

Some of my better predictions:

After just one week of Kerrymania, I don't think he is wearing well in South Carolina.
...
Edwards will take South Carolina fairly comfortably. One poll shows Clark within striking distance of second. I would like to believe it. In any event, reaching the 15% threshold in South Carolina would be a minor victory in that state at this point.

Kerry faded, Clark faded, Edwards surged. Of course, he should have. It was his home state.

Clark will win Oklahoma by 3-5 points, scoring in the low to mid 30s. Kerry's support here is largely manufactured momentum and he may be surpassed by Edwards. All three get delegates and no one else does. (Sorry Joementum, you even sang the state song on camera!)

Make that low, low thirties. Kerry did fade, Edwards did surge, and I'm crediting Barry Switzer's robo-call on his behalf.

My "upset special" did not materialize, but it looks like Clark will be able to claim one win and three second place finishes. Not horrible, although it won't be a big momentum builder. I wish Clark had come out and said, "Two candidates came into Oklahoma with media buzz and momentum. Well, it was a tough fight, but we went toe-to-toe with those candidates and came out on top."

The Dean implosion I anticipated even before Iowa continued. He will launch a few grenades at Kerry and hope one explodes close enough to do real damage.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the DNC Chair, an extended primary is beneficial. It not only makes the eventual nominee better, IMHO, it also keeps the media focus on the Dems who are bashing Dubya. It is no mystery that AWOL's numbers have steadily dropped since Iowa. He failed to even get a STOTU bump. Let's at least go through March 10th. Kerry is a seasoned poll and probably won't make a major misstep (provided he wasn't already caught in a Botox lie), although his wife may be a different matter. Don't get me wrong, I kinda like her, but you can be assured the media will love her-- and not in the way they fawned over Barbara Bush and even made her look "sweet"-- which is almost as tough as making AWOL look like a strong leader.

Clark focuses on TN, VA and maybe Maine, although he didn't mention it tonight. Less than two weeks ago he was endorsed by 30 Maine legislators. If they're holding on, it is worth a trip and some commercials. I expect TN and VA to be close races a la OK. For Clark or Edwards to break through, Kerry must stumble. One month before Super Tuesday it is his to lose. One month ago it was Dean's to lose. He has done so in a colossal fashion. Further into the 1992 race than this, it was Paul Tsongas' to lose. You remember President Tsongas. Another MA pol foisted on us by NH.

Prognostications

With polls all over the map, predicting results tomorrow is a somewhat risky business-- especially considering my strong biases which may impact my normally exceptional objectivity. What the hell, here goes...

Clark will win Oklahoma by 3-5 points, scoring in the low to mid 30s. Kerry's support here is largely manufactured momentum and he may be surpassed by Edwards. All three get delegates and no one else does. (Sorry Joementum, you even sang the state song on camera!)

In my upset special I'm picking Clark to win either New Mexico or Arizona- or both. There are no good New Mexico polls, and Arizona polls vary greatly, although all show Kerry ahead. Still, I think Clark has momentum in both states and believe that a few negative stories in recent days may have given potential Kerry voters just enough pause to make a difference. Clark had built a strong base here before Iowa and his voters may be coming back. Early voting, according to my calculation, began around January 19th in Arizona and January 12th in New Mexico. For those voting right away, Iowa may not have had a great impact yet in Arizona, and no impact in New Mexico, and Kerry's momentum didn't fully take shape until after New Hampshire, which was only a few days before early voting ended. If early voting had began in January 12 in Arizona, Clark would have been the beneficiary, given that he was at about 39% at that time. In any event, it stands to reason that early voting benefited Clark far more than Kerry. It is unlcear how this may be factored into polling. I am also hoping that Native American endorsements will have more of an effect than the polling is picking up.

Also, hearing that Kerry has a large lead may actually depress his less enthusiastic supporters, and I still have trouble believing that the guy who had to mortgage his house a few weeks ago to pay the bills in Iowa has truly engendered die-hard support. Clearly, my bias may be impacting my view of this and I realize it remains a long-shot, but I won't be shocked to see Clark close very strong in both states. If he doesn't win, I still think he closes within 5%. It is worth noting that while Zogby's last New Hampshire numbers were largely accurate, the most glaring shortcoming was that he underestimated Clark's performance by over 25%. Maybe that was due to ground game or the sheer enthusiasm of Clark's voters and volunteers, but almost all New Hampshire polls showed Clark trending two or more points behind Edwards and yet it did not happen.

After just one week of Kerrymania, I don't think he is wearing well in South Carolina. Actually, one of my biggest fears with a Kerry candidacy is that he won't wear well on the general electorate. In fact, I believe that if the primaries were two weeks after New Hampshire, Kerry would be in real trouble in various states.

Clark was far more of a natural for North Dakota, but Kerry's appearance yesterday may make the difference. If Clark had had time for one more push, I think he would take it. Still, the voting there seems a bit challenging and only the most dedicated voters may bother to find a polling place. (I know they call it a caucus, but it is not an Iowa style caucus.)

Although I agree with the Southwest focus, I'm disappointed the Clark campaign did not at least run minimal advertising in Missouri and Delaware. The press is already spinning Missouri as some kind of general election test and Kerry's strong showing there will be given far too much attention. Again, given the time, Clark was more natural for Missouri than Kerry. Kerry will win, but Edwards and Sharpton may surprise. A minimal effort by Clark would have rendered delegates as it would have in Delaware. As it is, Clark seems unlikely to crack the 15% threshold in those two states.

Edwards will take South Carolina fairly comfortably. One poll shows Clark within striking distance of second. I would like to believe it. In any event, reaching the 15% threshold in South Carolina would be a minor victory in that state at this point.

Okay, let the fun begin...

Kerry: Son of a ...

As I've said before, Kerry has done a masterful job of taking every other candidate's best themes and lines-- a plagiarizer extradornaire who would make Joe Biden blush. Loserman, of course, had no good lines or themes to steal, at least not for a Democratic primary. I check the Kerry website from time-to-time, expecting to find his bio modified to read, "John Kerry was the son of a millworker who won a coveted appointment to West Point."

Who is this new guy on the campaign trail?

Kerry accuses Bush of caving on prescription drugs

FARGO, N.D. (AP) — John Kerry on Sunday accused the Bush administration an "incredible cave-in" to drug companies at taxpayers' expense, citing the dramatically higher cost estimate for the new Medicare overhaul.

The administration now puts the 10-year cost of the prescription drug benefit at $534 billion. That is one-third higher than the $395 billion figure from the Congressional Budget Office that administration officials and congressional GOP leaders cited as they pushed the legislation through Congress in November.

Kerry promises to "stand up" to these special interests if elected President. Well, he should be well rested enought to do it, since he's never stood up to them before. He forgot to mention to the crowd that he failed to show up to vote against this legislation. Of course, the media gives him a pass, which is exactly why this race needs to keep going through at least March 10th.

Who needs highways?

We have a moon to (re)conquer.

Deficit Puts Brakes on Highway Spending

Multibillion-dollar legislation authorizing new highway construction in hundreds of communities has become unexpectedly bogged down in Congress by differences between GOP fiscal conservatives and Republicans willing to spend more to create jobs.

Clark Pumps up the Volume in Santa Fe

I don't know much about the New Mexico caucus, but perhaps the state is in reach.

Clark Wins Over SF Crowd With Help From Actor

       SANTA FE   —   Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark told a tired but energized crowd Friday night that the race for the White House will be tough, but he has what it takes to win.
    "We're a nation at war," the retired four-star general told about 700 people who were stuffed into a ballroom at one of Santa Fe's downtown hotels. "We need a candidate, a nominee who has the kind of experience and record to go toe-to-toe with George W. Bush on national security."
    Pointing his finger and engaging the crowd, he continued: "We need a nominee from the heartland of America who can reach out and touch all four corners and every interest group all across this country and pull everybody together and help us move forward. And I am that person."
    Clark, who was last to enter the race for Democratic presidential nomination, again tried to make a distinction between himself and his challengers. He pointed to his humble beginnings with his mother in Arkansas, his accomplished military background and lack of political experience.
    "I'm not a professional politician," he said, getting shouts of "Good!" from the crowd. "If you like what's going on today in Washington . . . you should vote for someone who is a Washington insider. I'm not."
    Friday marked Clark's second stop in New Mexico this week. He plans to hit other parts of the state before Tuesday's caucus along with the rest of the Democratic presidential field.
    Clark, who was delayed about an hour because he had to switch to a smaller plane before heading to Santa Fe, was saved Friday by mariachis, a team of New Mexico politicos and actor Ted Danson.
    ...
    Danson finally got the stage and warmed up the crowd with his thoughts on Clark, whom he called a "quiet hero."
    "You want to wake up and look at your president every morning and go, ©ˆI see that he cares about me.' That's not something you can put on. It's not like kissing a baby. It's not like campaigning," Danson said. "This is something you either naturally and truly have   —   a sense of caring for everybody   —   or you don't. This man has a true sense of caring."
    Santa Fe Mayor Larry Delgado, former Gov. Jerry Apodaca, former Lt. Gov. Roberto Mondragon, former Albuquerque Mayor Jim Baca and state Sen. Mary Jane Garcia of Dona Ana were also on hand Friday night.
    They stood behind Clark as he pitched his plans for helping more Americans get jobs, raising the minimum wage to $7 and undertaking the most significant income tax reform in 30 years.
    He also touched on the environment   —   something dear to many New Mexico voters. He proposed a $2.2 billion plan that would use oil and gas royalties for a trust fund to protect historic places and public lands.

Get your snake oil right here

John Kerry is one phony bastard. Granted, he's our phony bastard and if he gets the nomination I'll support him over the phony bastard the Repugs are peddling, but still, anyone who has watched this campaign knows that Kerry has watched the other candidates and stolen what has worked for them. Of course, there is a degree of that in any campaign, but Kerry has taken it to a disgusting level. When I hear him decry the economics of the "privileged" I almost lose it every time. Most recently, after 20 years in the Senate, Kerry has decided to bash "special interests" as if he's Paul Wellstone. He's not.

Between the media annointment, bandwagon effect and truncated primary schedule, Dem voters could easily be sold a bill of goods long before most of them can vote and well before a media focused on the "horse race" can sort through the facts. Here is a beginning, though.

CHARLESTON, S.C., Jan. 30 — The Democratic presidential hopefuls have been crossing the country this week promising to drive "special interests" and "influence peddlers" out of the White House.

But campaign finance reports show some contenders benefit significantly from the lobbyists and special interests that they attack.

While Senator John Kerry regularly promises to stand up to "big corporations," his campaign has taken money from executives on Wall Street and those representing the telecommunications industry, which is under his purview in Congress. Mr. Kerry denounces President Bush for catering to the rich, but he has depended more heavily on affluent donors than the other leading Democrats except for another populist, Senator John Edwards. Mr. Kerry's spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter, said the contributions had no effect on his votes.

Clark's Ads Need to Close the Deal!

As I talked to undecided voters in New Hampshire it quickly became clear that their indecision was not because they viewed themselves as choosing between the lesser of a few evils. Rather, they tended to like 3 or 4 of the candidates, generally including Wesley Clark. They were looking to beat Bush, and therefore considering electability-- an argument Clark's feel-good ads didn't really make. In the waning days of the campaign Clark simply didn't close the deal. Edwards did. Kerry did. Clark didn't, even though electability was the rational for many of us supporting his campaign.

Now the campaign is at a crossroads. A surprise showing on February 3rd could set this nomination process on its head. But a surprise in a "likeable" field requires bolder action than Clark's cautious stategists have shown so far. He needs to make the case for his electability over the other candidates. And he needs to do it 30 seconds. And repeat it over and over until it sinks in to the electorate. His current speech at least partially makes the case:

Let me finish up by saying this: I respect my opponents in this race. But I think that there is one issue above all others in this primary. And that is: Who is best equipped to beat George Bush. In a closely divided country, I think we need someone from the heartland to win. In a country at war, I think we need someone with the experience and understanding to lead. Someone who's been on the frontlines of battle and international diplomacy. In the face of a ruthlessly political President, I think we need someone who knows what he stands for -- who has put his career on the line for what he believes -- to stand up for Americans.

He needs an ad NOW that drives it home. It could go something like this:

Narrator: "Wes Clark is not a lawyer or a smooth-talking politician. Wes Clark is a man of action who gets things done. A man of humble roots who grew up in Arkansas, went to college by earning an appointment to West Point and served his country for 34 years. Three bullets in Viet Nam couldn't stop him. A ruthless dictator in the Balkans could not deter his resolve. He ended genocide and brought peace without the loss of single American soldier. And he did it by working with our allies, not against them. He is also a successful businessman who is dedicated to working tirelessly every day to help make average Americans' lives better. Better jobs, better health care, better education and a better environment. Wes Clark is the man who can beat George Bush in November in every region of the country and is not beholden to special interests."

Clark: "I'm Wes Clark and I approve this message, because our country's future is at stake. I recently became a Grandfather and I'm committed to making sure that America continues to provide the best opportunities for all of our children. I'm asking for your vote so that together we can beat George Bush in November and keep the American Dream strong for everyone."

Why isn't Kerry taken to task for his introductions?

Try googling this story and then google Michael Moore's introduction.

Or perhaps the candidate who receives the worst introduction speech of the campaign wins. At that Friday event in Manchester, Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., introduced Kerry with a long, rambling speech that included the word "Chinaman." As Hollings was explaining that "50 percent of the furniture in this country comes from China," a shockingly loud pop crackled through the speakers and startled most people in the room. "Some Chinaman got mad at that," Hollings said to laughter. (Later, when more noises popped through the speakers, Kerry politically corrected the joke to, "This Chinese guy is still around.") Hollings also declared that Dick Cheney "is the Jesse Jackson of the Republican Party. He wants it all, his time has come!" A few people applauded when Hollings said he was about to finish.

It's the cover up that kills you

The John Kerry Botox issue-- Should it be an issue? Does vanity matter? How about judgement?-- by this I mean Kerry apparently received "classic bad Botox." Shouldn't we expect more from the leader of the Free World?

Nope. It's the lying about it. Reagan claimed he never died his hair and see how much damage he did. Previously Kerry lied about having prostate cancer. Now he lies about Botox. Lying about sex I understand-- who hasn't? It's really the whole thing-- the vanity, the creepiness of paralyzing one's muscles when you already resemble Herman Munster, and the lying about it. Something tells me this isn't the way the Dems are gonna score with white men. Whoops, look at the time. I'm late for my manicure. Later.

The scoop:

Two prominent New York plastic surgeons - after examining "before" and "after" photos posted on the Drudge Report - told Lowdown yesterday that Kerry exhibits all the signs of a Botox injection.

"Not only is it Botox, but it's classic bad Botox," said Dr. Michael Kane, a surgeon in private practice.

"His forehead is just way too smooth. It looks weird. It's a bizarre appearance that he's got not a wrinkle. That doesn't happen to 60-year-olds."

Dr. Gerald Ember, an attending plastic surgeon at New York Presbyterian Hospital, agreed.

"The pictures ... show a marked absence of the horizontal lines of the forehead and wrinkles between the eyes. Only Botox or a forehead lift would do this," he said. "And I say good for him!"

In a Tuesday interview with a Boston radio station, the Massachusetts senator was asked about Lowdown's Tuesday item. Kerry "absolutely" denied receiving Botox treatments, and added: "I've never even heard it. Where did this come from? ... I've never even heard of it. Never heard of it."

Methinks he protests too much.

"Native son" Kerry Fails to get 40% of the Vote in New Hampshire

(Manchester) Despite being broadcast into Southern New Hampshire living rooms for over two decades, John Kerry could not even muster 40% of the vote in his neighboring state. This is devastating, considering that much of the southern part of the Granite State serves as a bedroom community for metropolitan Boston.

Perspective is everything, ain't it? Kerry gets back to where he was months ago and it is hailed as the most dramatic comeback ever. Home boy takes only four more delegates than a candidate derided as a joke all week long and it is spun as a nomination clinching victory. He pretends to smoke a joint in Iowa, and says the "F" word in an major interview and he gets spun as "Presidential." Wes Clark merely refuses to pretend an AWOL drunk has been unfairly accused and he gets labeled as not ready for prime time. As Joementum would say, "Is this a great country or what?"

Joe Trippi and Me

Big news from the Dean camp today. Blogmaster architect Joe Trippi is outtathere. As luck would have it, I had met him and chatted the day before the election. Whatever one may think about the man, I found him to be friendly, forthcoming and completely unpretentious. He didn't know me from Adam, but acted as if we were neighbors-- and I was wearing my Clark button. He hadn't shaved in a couple of days, and was clearly a bit frustrated with recent events, but very personable.

He seemed surprised when I told him that I hoped Dean would pull an upset. I explained that Clark wasn't going to overtake Kerry at that point, but a Dean win would deflate the Kerry balloon. What I didn't say was that Dean was already damaged goods, and therefore, less of a concern than Kerry. I forget what brought it up, but he did say that this was probably his last campaign. Of course, maybe that was the lack of sleep talking. I thanked him for the innovations he had brought to the electoral process and he replied that Clark's campaign had energized the process as well.

Whatever he does, I wish him well.

Update

I just read this:

Trippi had been part of the staff faction that had urged Dean to focus on a few upcoming states that could be won, skipping all or most of the seven Feb. 3 contests in favor of Michigan, Washington state and Wisconsin. Dean and Neel dug in their heels, insisting that he had to play everywhere - an argument that prevailed as Trippi left.

This is interesting, because one thing Trippi said to me, I thought in a reference to Clark and Iowa, was that he believed you had to compete in every state. Either he changed his mind overnight, or this story may not be right. In any event, it caught my eye.

Back from New Hampshire

Well I'm back from New Hampshire and I finally got my "always on internet connection" back up. For the political junkie, going to NH for the waning days of a contested primary must be somewhat akin to going to Mecca. I'm glad I finally made the pilgrimmage.

I would vote for ABB, but I have to really believe in a person to risk frostbite just to provide "visibility." In addition to "visibility," I called voters and entered voter data. There was a great deal of positive energy at Clark HQ and some very good people. At times, things seemed a little chaotic on the volunteer end of things, but enthusiasm never wavered and I suspect that had something to do with countering the conventional polling wisdom that Edwards had eclipsed Clark by about 2-3 points the day before. A win at Dixville Notch probably wasn't bad news for undecided NH voters to wake up to, either. And in a close race in a crowded, well-liked field, never underestimate the value of being first on the ballot.

New Hampshire residents are, by-in-large, friendly people. Of course, many of the Republicans are nasty, as they are anywhere. My interactions with volunteers from other campaigns were very positive. While doing visibility, I was only flipped-off and cussed at by Bush-loving, mankind-hating Repugs. Big surprise.

What the campaign officially called "volunteer housing" was referred to by actual volunteers as the "crack house" or the "flop house." As bad as it was, it was superior to the "Y." Again, these were committed folks. There are a ton of bright, inspired young people out there, which was reassuring.

Headquarters was located in what appeared to be an old mill and it was not the easiest place to find. I guess Clark got more space for the money, but less visibility. On the flip-side, parking was not a problem. Even Kucinich was on the main drag (Elm Street), not that it did him any good. Dean even had his volunteer HQ located right next to prime polling place in Manchester. He also had the best "Y" reserved for his troops. These are the advantages to starting early-- not that it did him a lot of good, either.

New Hampshire Bound

I'm heading out to Manchester this weekend to see if the Clark campaign can use another hand. I may even lend both hands given what's at stake. I doubt I'll get much chance to blog while I'm there, but if so, I'll try to post something. My first goal is to avoid frostbite. Selecting a nominee that can slap Shrub back to Crawford is a close second.

Et tu, Peter?

How'd you like Peter Jennings' Fox audition tonight? My email to Petey.

Until tonight, Peter Jennings was my favorite anchor for the last 20 years. Of all the questions relevant to New Hamphire residents and Americans in general, you ask why Clark didn't shout down Moore regarding his "deserter" comment, and then you claim it is baseless? Do your homework. Prove it is untrue on your broadcast. There is no record he ever showed up for duty in Alabama. The commander there said he would have remembered and there would have been records. Bob Kerrey knows it. Dan Inouye knows it. Reputable reporters have reported it and irresponsible "journalists" like you try to bury it. Seriously, do a real investigative piece on this if it is truly relevant. Actually, with 500 American dead and counting, isn't it relevant that the commander-in-chief lacks the moral authority to ask for the ultimate sacrice?

Very disappointing, Peter.

No wonder those former Iraqi soldiers are angry

They apparently had to give up a great gig. Scam mail-- it's not just from Nigeria anymore. Yeah, Operation Iraqi Freedom! The little guy in America is finally getting his shot at the loot!

Dear Sir,
My name is Hazz Mohammed , I am from Iraq. My cousin was a top officer in the former Government of Sadam Hussein. Before the beginning war he gave me $16,000,000.00 (Sixteen Million United States Dollars) to keep for him.

I managed to move the box containing the money out of Iraq through diplomatic immunity to a Security company in Dubai and the box is been deposited as family treasure, for security reasons. Now that the war is over I want to move the money to your country for safety reasons. Be rest assured that this transaction is risk free as no person is aware of this money.

You will be compensated with 25% of the total sum, if you can assist. Expecting your urgent reply via hazzmo@tiscali.co.uk

Yours Faithfully,
Hazz Mohammed

Who's running a 50 state campaign?: Did Dean mention Tennessee in his post-caucus rant?

All eyes may be on New Hampshire, the great state of Tennessee has voters casting ballots now. Early influence could be key. Dean must still be looking for a map to see what states he forgot the other night.

Edwards, Clark tops in time, cash spent in state

Early voting begins today in presidential primary

NASHVILLE - As Tennesseans begin early voting in the presidential primaries today, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has invested more time in the state and Gen. Wesley Clark has invested more money.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry plans soon to begin investing more of both in Tennessee, according to his state director.

Howard Dean's state coordinator, on the other hand, says only that there is a "good potential" for the former Vermont governor to visit the state before Tennessee's regular election day - Feb. 10 - though there are plans for TV advertising.

In the aftermath of the Iowa caucuses, the four men appear to be the only viable candidates for the Democratic nomination headed into the New Hampshire election Tuesday, Jan. 27.
...

Steve Lindsey, Kerry's Tennessee director, said his Iowa victory was "a really good bump for us" in Tennessee and nationally. He said most Tennessee Democrats are undecided now and Kerry is positioning himself to win their support.

He said Kerry will personally visit the state and "we will be active in the Tennessee media market - definitely TV and possibly some targeted radio."

Edwards is from neighboring North Carolina and Clark is from Arkansas. Both claim Tennessee ties. Edwards worked in Nashville as a young attorney while Clark attended a military preparatory school in Lebanon.

Edwards has made seven campaign visits to Tennessee, more than any of the other candidates, while Clark has already spent $500,000 on TV ads to best other candidates by far in that category.

Clark also has 16 paid staff members in Tennessee versus three for Edwards, two for Kerry and none for Dean. Spokesmen for Kerry and Edwards say they will soon be bolstering their staff in the state.

Clark spokeswoman Carol Andrews said Clark will continue running Tennessee ads up to election day.

None for Dean? Just where does he think them boys in them thare trucks are, anyway?

Before Kerry, there was Tsongas

Kerry took Paul Tsongas senate seat after he stepped down in 1984. Apparently, Kerry has not impressed the late senator's daughter. This is actually, from a couple of days ago, but I hadn't seen it.

Clark has the skills and vision
By Katina Tsongas, 1/19/2004

IN 1992, I WAS 14 years old and had the opportunity to experience the New Hampshire primary as few do. My father, Paul Tsongas, came to New Hampshire with a message that resonated with the voters of this state, a message that won him the New Hampshire primary. I saw New Hampshire voters respond to the substance of my father's message and the respect with which he addressed them.

As I look at the current state of our country I believe we need a president whose message is substantive and visionary. This year I have chosen to support General Wesley Clark in his bid for the White House. I believe Clark has the skills, the experience, and the fortitude we need in the next president of the United States.

Grassroots in the Heartland

Ohio would be a plum pick-up for any Dem. Not as tough as Indiana, but I think it is safe to say that if the Dem candidate takes it, election night is over.

At least one guy in Ohio likes what he sees in Clark's grassroots support:

Obscured by the media's premature coronation of Howard Dean as the Democrats' presidential nominee, and the local interest in the quirky candidacy of Dennis Kucinich is the remarkable rise of retired General Wesley Clark as a force to be reckoned with in the March 2 Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary.

At last week's delegate caucuses held all around Ohio, the number of Clark supporters who showed up nearly matched the number who represented Howard Dean, according to Greg Haas, longtime Ohio campaign strategist and current political director for Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman. In Haas' view, what makes this achievement truly stunning is that Dean has been campaigning for more than a year and many of his supporters were bussed in by unions and paid, while Clark has only been in the race since late September and won't even have an officially funded campaign in Ohio until early February.

At the 10th District's caucus in Middleburg Heights last week, I saw many familiar faces — union officials, veteran activists and a smattering of officeholders — in the general meeting room, but once the main group broke into individual candidate caucuses, the 50 or so people who headed into the Clark room were almost entirely individuals whom I had never seen and who had never before participated in a caucus. And of the 18 folks who vied for delegate positions, only two had ever done so before. One by one — a Vietnam vet, a schoolteacher, a small business owner, a high school student, a young working mom — they made their short speeches about how they were inspired enough by Clark to find their way to meet-ups and house parties and finally to commit themselves to an active role in supporting him.

Much has been made of the contention that Howard Dean has brought all kinds of brand new people into the electoral process, but a survey of his early supporters done last November indicated that 80 percent of them were Democratic party members who always vote, have a yearly income of more than $70,000 and who classify themselves as anti-war liberals. Over the past two months, of course, Dean has picked up several endorsements from established politicians and big service unions, the kind of individuals and groups who glom onto apparent frontrunners seeking both the spotlight and some spoils. These are hardly new faces.

Contrast Dean's big-money, big-name, big-special-interests campaign to the true grassroots efforts of the Clark people. First of all, the move to draft Clark into the race didn't even get off the ground until just this past summer. In July, the first small groups of Draft Clark got together to support each other and began to tap into a national computer network that ultimately was able to pledge enough money and generate enough nationwide enthusiasm to convince Clark to finally declare his candidacy in September. Since then, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and his band of grassroots insurgents have had a lot of catching up to do. And based on the number of committed foot soldiers, money raised and polling figures, they've done an incredible job of getting in position to challenge for the nomination.

Scaring Grandma Just Won't Cut It

Many at Blog for America are pathologically in denial. Others are just understandably down. They believed in their candidate, worked hard, gave money, and argued for him all over the blogosphere regardless of what he said or did. Until last night. From BFA:

I just can't be for Dean anymore. I still like him alot, I love his message, and I thank him for setting the tone for the national debate this year. For this he deserves credit.

But everyone was right, only Dean can stop Dean. And he did last night.

I'm now officially undecided, with an eye towards Edwards, and a squint towards Kerry, and a oh well maybe towards Clark.

But Dr. Dean, you show last night, it scared my grandma, and well, that won't cut it in November.

All viable candidates must, at a minimum, meet the "Doesn't scare Grandma Threshold." Dean has stepped into that place that money just can't get you out of, regardless of what Pat Cadell says. He has also become the joke. Okay, some just think he's crazy, but it seems pretty clear today that his post-caucus performance is not something people just chuckle about and move on.

For any Deaniacs or former Deaniacs out there, his implosion was coming. It was just a matter of time. Better now, than after wrapping up the nomination, don't you think?

Iowa and beyond

Wow. After hearing all the old-time Iowans and other so-called caucus experts wax on about the importance of organization and how great Geppy and Dean's respective organizations were, being no expert on the Iowa caucus, I was still left to wonder if the polls trends could be as irrelevant as some pundits seemed to think. Uh, no.

What I was right about:

1. Dean's implosion was imminent and it was self-inflicted. Yes, as the front-runner he took a few hits and whined incessantly about it. Telling old men, "You sit down," doesn't play well in Iowa, or most places. I'm also guessing mindless, state-listing rants, followed by a "yeeaah!" won't play well most places either. I wonder if he could win Vermont now. Yes, they will say, "We have a fifty state organization." We also heard they had the biggest, most sophisticated organization in Iowa. And we'll hear, "But we have money!" Yes, and they spent more than any candidate ever in Iowa. Look where it got you with a lousy candidate.

2. When people pay attention to Edwards, he does very well. He may be the best campaigner of the whole bunch. As Clinton once said, "He could talk an owl out of a tree." He could whip Bush if he gets the chance. If he doesn't, either Clark or Kerry would be wise to make him the VP.

3. Gephardt is a very good man whose campaign was a miserable failure. I was amazed all fall when pundits kept indicating he would be the "anti-Dean." Tired. Very tired.

4. Trippi is no genius. He is on to something, but over-estimated it. He works on another losing campaign. This one will be historic in its collapse.

What I was wrong about:

1. Kerry's campaign is obviously not dead. When he mortgaged his house to finance his campaign I thought it was like a pitcher who has lost his fast ball refusing to retire.

Where from here:

1. Dean needs to retool. He won't. He can't. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, particularly on the blogosphere, his political instincts suck. His message: "You have the power!"; "I stood up against George Bush!"; "We can't win by being Bush-lite."

I've been amazed by Deaniacs who claim Clark has no specifics. And Dean does? He may have some position papers somewhere, but I always hear the same old thing. Clark has now become a much more fleshed out candidate than Dean. The Doctor had the same approach tonight: I'm a fighter!! I'm gonna kick everyone's ass!! Guess what Howard? We just don't care. I vigorously opposed the war from day one. It made and still makes me viscerally angry. I wish Kerry and Edwards had voted differently. I wish the Democrats had questioned it more. But I would still vote for Edwards, and even Kerry, over Dean. Tweety and friends have trouble understanding this. They think voters must have been confused. Howie thought he needed to drive the point home in the waning days. It didn't matter. The world is more complicated than that. I've always thought that Dean has had loser written all over him. Maybe he should run for Senator when it opens up.

2. Gephardt. Class act. Good man. Good public servant. Probably feeling a bit spent right now. Perhaps he can win a senate seat for us in Missouri.

3. Clark will likely be a target in NH. Perhaps everyone will be. Kerry may quickly ride the wave into first-place and the grudge match between him and Dean may take center stage in regard to nastiness.

4. Chris Lehane was been the object of irrational hatred in certain quarters of the blogosphere, including the Daily Dean. It has been way over the top. Nonetheless, the guy is a creepy little jerk who does not play well on TV. He needs to keep his name out of print media, as well. Someone needs to get a clue and bury this dude away from sight.

Your thoughts?