I'm not sure why, but today, that remark stuck with me.

My automatic response to this type of comment is usually that I just don't have time. But that's not true. When I look at my daily routine, and measure the time it takes to type out some kneejerk reaction to the headline of the day, it's really not all that time-consuming.

What's probably more of a factor, I think, is the fact that nothing's really happening that merits me sitting down for a half-hour each day to try to offer up some unique dissection of the day's events.

I mean, come on folks. Once the election was over we already knew what was coming next. After all, it's nothing that those of us who actually read and digest real news haven't already seen: Yeah, the Democrats lost elections across the board, but it's the Republicans who are doing the purging. Senators, secretaries, career intelligence personnel...it doesn't matter. The same folks who equated dissent with disloyalty before the election are now proceeding to queeze out anyone who isn't practically a wild-eyed idiologue. Moderation will be a foreign term to this new government.

And if you think you've seen it all now, just wait until they start making laws.

Want my take on a few other headlines? Okay...

• Condi Rice is a poor choice for SecState, but you already knew that.
• Arlen Specter got hung out to dry for telling the truth about the battle awaiting pro-life Supreme Court nominees, but you already knew that.
• Kerry lost what should've been the easiest, most self-evident election since 1980. He is sorely mistaken to interpret the God-Not-Bush-Again vote as a mandate to take a leadership role in the party. You knew that.
• "Hillary 2008" would only prove that the Democrats have learned nothing from 2004 and deserve to lose again. If you have brains, you already knew that. I've talked to a few people who still seem receptive to the idea (usually the Dean '04 folks), and I've been good about not expressing my newly reinforced impression that they're not too bright.

But I digress.

Like you, I look to the future and see only dark gray clouds rolling this way. There are huge, momentous battles that will occur over the coming term. But right now, both sides are merely putting their pieces into place.

So what's one to do, then, during this over-reported, over-analyzed post-election period in which nothing significant really gets done? Should I become part of the echo chamber, blogging every topic that comes to mind just for the hell of it, struggling to add just a bit of snark to each blurb so visitors will think it worth their while?

I think not. Don't get me wrong: I like blogging, and I think it's a great outlet for people like myself who don't know many politically knowledgeable people IRL. But more important than just writing, I think, is the need for substance, or at least some unique value that makes that five-second scan of this page worthwhile. You know, like razor blades in soap.

So whether I blog once a day, or once every three days, or once a week, I'll always do it because I have to say something that's worth adding to the din of shrill voices in the blogosphere. I'll never do it just to give you some new text to look at. That wastes your time and, frankly more importantly, it wastes mine. Besides, there are plenty of other places you can go, edited by people who get paid to do that sort of thing.

Well, there goes another hour out of my free time. IM me if you've something thought-provoking to say (and no, not "but Hillary could win!!"), because I'm always up for some intelligent convo. 'Til then, I'm off to play Half-Life 2 or do something equally productive.

I like this idea. Simple and quite effective.

The election is over. The fight is not.

Bush's election is bad for the US, and even worse for the rest of the world. But elections are only one part of democracy. We need to think strategically about direct action, learn from a rich history of nonviolent activism, and develop new tactics to take on this administration.

Let's start from the start: Inauguration Day.

On January 20th, 2005, we're calling for a new kind of action. The Bush administration has been successful at keeping protesters away from major events in the last few years by closing off areas around events and using questionable legal strategies to outlaw public dissent. We can use these obstacles to develop new tactics. On Inauguration day, we don't need banners, we don't need signs, we don't need puppets, we just need people.

We're calling on people to attend inauguration without protest signs, shirts or stickers. Once through security and at the procession, at a given signal, we'll all turn our backs on Bush's motorcade and continue through his speech and swearing in. A simple, clear and coherent message.

Link via nanovirus. Don't bother visiting his site without a magnifying glass.

It was a week ago, just about now, when everything changed.

I've come to accept the election now, and think to the future. But at the time, I remember feeling a profound sense of grief and loss:

Let's be honest: We are aghast at the success of a campaign based on vicious personal attacks, the exploitation of strong religious feelings and an effort to create the appearance of strong leadership that would do Hollywood proud. We are alarmed that so many of our fellow citizens could look the other way and not hold Bush accountable for utter incompetence in Iraq and for untruths spoken in defense of the war. We are amazed that a majority was not concerned about heaping a huge debt burden on our children just to give large tax breaks to the rich.

And we are disgusted that an effort consciously designed to divide the country did exactly that -- and won. With all his failures, Bush could not count on a whole lot more than 51 percent. Karl Rove and company calculated perfectly, organized painstakingly, greatly increased conservative turnout and produced a country divided just their way.

Last Tuesday, I couldn't talk about the election, couldn't blog a response, couldn't respond to all the IMs from friends asking what it all meant. My mind reeled too much to form the words needed to convey what I felt. Today, I can only describe it by saying I didn't feel like an American anymore. Estranged.

Sure, I thought, we could change candidates, tinker with slogans and refine "Get Out The Vote" efforts. But what can you do when much of your country rejects what goes to the very core of your beliefs? When can you do when so many Americans would rather see their children go without quality health care and better public schools, just so long as they can stop two men or women from getting married?

It used to be that we could just ignore the huge swaths of religious fundamentalists in this country. The idea, right up through this election, was just to contain them -- let them impose their creationism-teaching, Ten Commandments-posting, regressive-taxing way of life on the people of Alabama, Mississippi and the like. But the reason containment hasn't worked is because these people aren't limited to a region. They're a demographic, exerting a rightward influence all through Appalachia in the east and along the Mississippi River in the rural midwest, always threatening (and sometimes succeeding) to tip blue states into the Republican column.

That's why 2004 is worse than 1994. Not because the Democrats were routed -- they weren't. It's worse because, in changing their campaign strategy based on each day's headlines, and placing bald-faced pandering over principle, the Democrats ceded the moral high ground to the Republicans, of all people, and allowed them to creep like a cancer and take hold of the very places where ordinary people need Democrats the most.

In the days since the election, as shock has turned into incredulity, and despair into resignation, I've begun to look around and assess what was lost. The truth is, America had been slipping away for a while. Last Tuesday, I think, it finally fell out of the grasp of reasonable people in both parties.

We are now entering an era of one-party government. Republicans continue to hold the executive branch. They have majorities in the congress and the senate, the state governorships and legislatures, and soon, the Supreme Court. From where I stand, the future looks bleak.

Where do we go from here? I don't know yet, but like you, I'm thinking about it. In the meantime, aside from the occasional joke about moving to Canada, I'll be keeping this in mind:

"Liberals, stop threatening to move because Bush won. Real liberals should be pledging to stay because Bush won."

-Bill Maher

But I understand his frustration. [more]

From Newsweek:

Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the Red States, former President Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the Senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, "I'm not going to ever do that."

For shame. My respect for Bill Clinton just dropped a notch, the inverse being true of Senator Kerry.

Fourty years ago, many politicians lost elections for supporting civil rights legislation that was anathema to their constituents. Today, they wear their opposition as a badge of honor. I understand the cold political calculus behind decisions made then and now, but some things have to be more important than winning the next election.

It all brings to mind the most poignant statement of the post-election:

Democrats will never win another elction if they keep trying to siphon off votes from the Republicans. They will only win by creating a lot more Democrats, and you don't do that by trying to leach onto issues that you should be denouncing.

-Bill Maher

- Roe vs. Wade is finished.
- Gay marriage is stricken for a generation.
- Stem cell research remains nothing more than lip service.

Instead:

- Patriot Act II.
- Church and state, intertwined.
- A massive federal debt, paid for by our children. Mine, yours, people who voted for W.
- Arrogance, disinformation and deception = principled leadership.

Mourn.

Mourn.

254-252. It was not supposed to be this close. As of this morning, the future remains in the balance.

I found myself agreeing so much with these articles (summarized here), in which several pundits ponder the consequences of a Bush victory.

I left this post in draft mode for about four days. I've found it difficult to finish, because frankly, the prospect of a Bush win, and the implications of such, are so upsetting.

The root cause of a Bush win, I think, would have to be the profound dissonance that has taken hold in America. There are, for example, the SUV-loving suburbanites who can't connect their choices to our continued dependence on the Middle East, and taxcut-mongering Republicans who eagerly gobble up government rebates despite the snowballing future financial burden on their own children. There are other issues, but overall, a Bush win would be nothing other than a stunning confirmation of the national disconnect between action and effect, decision and consequence.

It would also, I think, be an affirmation of "Anything Goes." The transition from talking points to triangulation to outright disinformation will be complete. Rather than changing positions to fit the facts, future administrations will be counted on to change the facts to fit their positions. And our great watchdog, the press, will roll over, having accepted the election results to mean the rules have changed.

Regrettably, but understandably, many people tuned out of the political process in 2000. But this time we know. We were told. We saw. And an affirmation that our standards have, in fact, been lowered so much that we think Dubya is an apt successor to those who led this nation and served with character, intellect and integrity -- George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan -- is unthinkable.

At home, a Bush win means that the Nixonian veil would settle across the highest levels of the United States government. Transparency and honesty loses to Orwellian spin and up-is-downism. Abroad, The world would look to "lessor" powers to encircle and contain American arrogance and militarism.

Simply: The re-election of George W. Bush would signal the beginning of the end of American greatness.

...Because as we all know, African Americans don't own expensive cars.

Too funny.

Since I'd already been lying awake in bed since 4am, I got up at 5, got ready, and headed out at 7:30 to vote. I went down to the university where, unlike in 2000 when there was no wait, there were about 50-60 local residents in a line that snaked out of the voting area and around the dormitory lobby.

The line moved steadily, though, and after about 20 minutes I was at the front of the line. Looking around the room, the room was set up exactly as it was last time, with four poll workers sitting along long tables, and four voting stations about 15 feet away.

As I approached the table, I noticed the poll workers yelling out and spelling each name rather loudly. One look to the other side of the room and I saw why. There were several people with directories, presumably checking the registration of each voter. Two people sitting in the second row looked to be Republican -- middle-aged, prim and proper, in corporate dress. In the first row was a single person, rather young (and strikingly attractive), dressed very casually, sitting lazily in a lounge chair, probably for the Democrats.

The woman in front of me in line knew one of the poll workers. They said their hellos, and after an awkward pause, the poll worker informed the lady that even though the worker recognized her, she still had to say her name aloud. "They're a lot stricter about it this time around," she said, leaning forward and with an eye toward the "poll watchers" across the room.

In any case, I saw no problems, and no voter was "challenged" while I was there. I voted straight Democrat, though if I were to decide the senate race based on who ran the best campaign I'd have voted for Sen. Specter over Joe Hoeffel. They were using punch card ballots, so I stuck the needle in, punched it all the way down, wiggled it around and then studied the ballot to make sure the "chad" was gone. It was.

Once I was done, I turned around and handed a poll worker my card. And as I walked away and heard the "thunk" of my ballot being deposited in the secure box, a feeling washed over me. It wasn't so much the glee that I felt in 2000 when I voted for the first time. Just relief.

The Democrats, if they have any brains, ought to have a few action items today beyond GOTV if they expect to win. Because simply, it all comes down to their ability to keep people in line to vote despite all the inevitable challenges and delays we can all expect to happen.

On the ground, invest some of that GOTV money into handing out water bottles and umbrellas in all the major, democrat-heavy voting districts. They should know by now where it's going to rain, and that there will be near-interminable lines everywhere.

On the local media level, send Jesse Jackson to Broward County and Bill Clinton to Philadelphia or Detroit, not for rallies but to give people a pep talk about how imperative it is that they stay and finish the job. Get them covered on the local news posing the following question to groups of voters: "Which would you rather give up: four hours or four years?"

On the national stage, send John Kerry out in the early afternoon to talk about the super-long lines at polling places. Have him offer a few platitudes about how great it is that so many Americans are taking part in this nation's most sacred process and making their voices heard. Then have him issue a direct call to President Bush to join him in declaring that polling places should stay open "for as long as it takes" to allow every eligible voter to vote.

It doesn't matter that neither candidate has the power to make it happen. News organizations will juxtapose Kerry's statement with pictures of lines of voters wrapping around blocks. If Bush joins Kerry in his call, then he will be burned badly by 1) high turnout and 2) any Republicans court action (like in 2000 in St. Louis) to close the polling stations. If Bush refuses to join Kerry, or offers some excuse about local jurisdiction, then he'll look like he doesn't want those people to have a chance to vote.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's all about positioning.

So, yeah. We've heard a lot in this campaign about how the Democratic Party would be trounced if it weren't for that monolithic inner-city black voting bloc. More interesting, though, is a recent survey which shows voters with a college education choose Kerry over Bush by a 10-point margin, while Bush retains a 2-point edge among the mill-worker classes.

Yeah. We've also heard a lot about how Kerry is fooling the masses by flip-flopping and changing his position on issue after issue. But another survey shows Bush's supporters are woefully uninformed about where the president stands on major issues. Why? Is Bush sending "mixed messages," or are his supporters just ignorant?

Maybe the whole thing can be explained by the following poll results (and others), which show that Bush Country, by and large, doesn't even read the news:

Nonpartisan, academic poll found 72 percent of Bush supporters still believe Iraq had WMD. 75 percent think Iraq gave substantial support to Al Qaeda. Some 63 percent believe evidence of this support has been found. Should US have gone to war if our intelligence concluded Iraq was not making WMD or supporting Al Qaeda? 58 percent said no.

That's Red America for you.

There's more. Kerry leads in the newspaper endorsement tally, both in the number of papers and overall circulation:

Kerry continues to lead in the overall count by 186 to 151. Kerry also holds a wide lead in circulation of supporting papers, by about 19 million to almost 13 million...In addition, four other papers switched from pro-Bush in 2000 to neutral today, bringing that overall total to at least 15.

It all reminds me of something Bill Clinton said on The Daily Show last August: "If you're a democrat, you win when people think."

Quote of the election. Here's hoping most Americans think for a change next Tuesday.

More sad examples of the conservative cocoon.

But hey, if all I watched was Faux News...

From my friend Eric @ Divigate:

I love it when elected officials use incorrect grammar in their political ads. You probably don't have that in Pennsylvania, but in Iowa several of races feature candidates purposfully using incorrect grammar in an effort to attract hick conservative farmers. "We got 44 million seniors in America." and "I don't think we coulda got the bill passed if it weren't for AARP." Chuck Grassely

Buried in a New York Times piece showcasing the idiotic rationale of swing voters was this priceless quote:

Similarly, Joan Deane, 78, of Scarborough, Me., a registered Republican who is fond of the Bush family, said that she found Mr. Kerry "Lincolnesque" but that it was her sentiment against the incumbent that was motivating her now to vote for the senator.

"George W. is not as smart as other people," she said. "He has about 10 phrases that he uses over and over again. He's a little arrogant when he walks. And he was so foolish to go over to Iraq. Go back and look at the Bible, honey. They've been fighting over that dreadful piece of land forever."

Look, fuck those swing voters. This election has already been decided:

Kerry 296, Bush 242.

The results, from where I sit, are quite clear: If all the votes are counted, John Kerry will win. Clearly. Convincingly. And without need for extensive litigation or Supreme Court intervention.

Allow me, first and foremost, to restate my displeasure with the near-incompetence of Kerry's tone-deaf campaign. Aside from the well-known shortcomings of the candidate himself, Kerry missed several chances by which he might have dominated the race early on rather than sinking into his August slump.

Consider the discipline of the Bush attack machine in contrast. If Kerry had said "I don't think you can win the war on terror," Republicans would have practically strung him up on the spot. The outrage would have been deafening, and would undoubtedly have sunk the senator's campaign.

If a Gore administration had advised Americans that the best they could do to protect their families was to go buy plastic wrap and duct tape, Republicans would never have allowed the public to forget.

If President Gore had stated that "the right track/wrong track in Iraq is better than here in America," Republicans would have howled about how the liberals care more about nation-building overseas than Joe Schmoe mill worker in Ohio.

And President Gore could never have run a baldly exploitative campaign based entirely on 9/11 -- much like if Franklin D. Roosevelt ran on the idea that Pearl Harbor was his finest hour -- because Republicans would have already impeached him two years earlier.

Kerry missed this and many other chances to crystalize Republican incompetence in the mind of the public. And chief among them, I think, was his refusal to fight back against the charge that he is a vaccillating flip-flopper even when there was a vast array of ammo at his disposal.

Still, though, Kerry succeeded in the race simply by not failing; He presented himself as a plausible president in the first debate, which instantly upended the Republicans' cartoonish characterizations of an ultra-liberal, viet cong-supporting, tax-loving, soldier-hating finger-in-the-wind opportunist.

The Bush campaign, for its part, has lost its last opportunity to turn the race into a referrendum on Kerry. Its incompetent handling of the Iraqi munitions story allowed it to quickly snowball and bury any message the campaign intended to disseminate in the final week.

Kerry's Ohio hunting trip, coupled with the Boston Red Sox's World Series win presented enough symbolic appeal to bolster the candidate's support among stupid, testosterone-addled men.

Lastly, and most importantly, the failure to enact intelligence reforms from the 9/11 commission before election day represents a profound political failure. Even signing a bill on Monday is too late to not be seen as transparently political and desparate. Republicans control the House, the Senate and the presidency, and their failure on this issue will drive the final nail in the Bush administration's coffin.

Look, I know the Republicans are having wet dreams about stealing Pennsylvania away from the Democrats, but it just ain't gonna happen.

I was never a believer that this state would remain competitive in the first place. There's just too much anecdotal evidence, too many disaffected friends and co-workers who only voted Republican last time because, in the words of one, "Al Gore was a wimp." Folks around here are socially moderate (pro-choice/anti-partial birth/anti-gay bashing) and fiscally conservative (as if that label means anything nowadays). And they are, by and large, appalled by the incompetence and extremism they've seen from the White House.

Supporting my expectation of a Kerry win is the fact that Pennsylvania elected the liberal mayor from Philadelphia as its governor in 2002. Ed Rendell won in a landslide, taking all the major counties except for those "Alabama parts" in the middle of the state. Al Gore won comfortably in 2000 even with Tom Ridge in charge of the state machinery.

I live in West Chester, which is about 35 miles southwest of Philadelphia. The Philadelphia suburbs are, for the thousanth time, crucial to any party that hopes to win a state-wide race. Yes, it's a college town, but the student population can be better described as apathetic slackers than thinking liberals. Besides, I live far from the student section of town; my block is filled with families and only two apartment houses.

Yet today I counted seven Kerry/Edwards yard signs on my block alone, and none for Bush/Cheney. (A neighbor even asked me if I had an extra "Anyone But Bush" bumper sticker a few months ago.) On the next block up, it was split at four apiece for Bush and Kerry. And on my drive to work, which, on that particular day, I decided would wind through various neighborhoods in a bid to put off work, I saw three times as many Kerry/Edwards signs as I did Bush/Cheney.

(My co-worker and I decided on a whim to steal four or five Bush/Cheney yard signs during our lunch break today, so that should widen the gap a little more.)

Anyway, it's amusing to watch national Republican officials on cable TV, talking about how they still have a shot. They sent President Bush here just last week to visit Downingtown, that conservative little "nowhere" town 10 minutes up the road where my friends and I sometimes go to catch a movie. Both towns are a part of traditionally conservative Chester County, which has been growing more moderate over the years as Philadelphians like myself move out of the city.

Maybe if they'd had a gay marriage referrendum on the ballot, like in Ohio, then things would be closer. Without that, Bush might pick up a few votes in this area based on his emphasis on the L-word, but that's about it. I've been looking, and I just don't see the fervor or the conservative turnout necessary to overcome the reflexively Democratic vote coming out of Philly and Pittsburgh. Maybe Bush's pollsters know something I don't, but from where I stand, I just can't see Bush punching through here.

In the first and second debates, John Kerry won simply by allowing the president to lose. Tonight though, the president came prepared and, particularly in the first half, beat Kerry soundly.

Bush's answers were, on the whole, much more robust and detailed than in previous debates. He aced Kerry on gay marriage, education and the role of religion in politics.

The same way Bush turned each question into an opportunity to attack Kerry's super-liberal voting record, Kerry should have juxtaposed Bush's rhetoric with his record as president, and framed each issue as a choice that reflected Bush priorities: tax cuts over homeland security. Tax cuts over full funding for education. Tax cuts over health care. Tax cuts over virtually every Bush second-term proposal that he's already failed for four years get done.

Instead, tonight was a night of missed opportunities. The president said he would tell an outsourced worker to go get educated. Kerry failed to stick up for those workers and indignantly tell the president that these are highly skilled and able workers, and that it's an insult to them to imply they're unemployable because they're uneducated.

Bush grasped so desperately when he said the No Child Left Behind Act was "a jobs plan," and yet Kerry gave him a pass.

Tonight saw the re-emergence of that old, meandering John Kerry that never fails to show up when the candidate is perceived as being ahead. The senator's answer on catholicism was excrutiating to watch and listen to. He also failed to break through the president's coded language on Roe vs. Wade. And tonight, days after the country became newly focused on the issue of stem cell research, Kerry failed to mention it even once.

Most other times the senator was on the defensive, his voice cracking as he ticked off counter-charges while failing to tie them together into a single indictment of Bush's beliefs and worldview.

Lost, amid all the facts and figures, was a chance to bring home the true enormity of our national debt and how it has worsened under Bush. Lost was the opportunity to cast the fiscal gluttony of the Republican-controlled congress as a tax on America's children.

Finally, the worst and most unforgivable error of all was Kerry's failure to leave viewers (and the press) with a compelling rhetorical question to stew over after the debates. Are you better off than you were four years ago? Are you truly safer? Is your family's future more secure today that it was in 2000?

Right now, the press and the rapid poll responders seem intent on awarding Kerry three wins in three debates. It's what the media needs to get the horse race it wants down the stretch run. Maybe maintaining that status quo is enough, but it's still disappointing, because John Kerry could have done so much better. He should have done so much better.

Amazing. I'd have to say the latter half of the debate was a draw. But in the first half, which is probably all most voters will watch at 9:00 on a Friday night, Kerry simply cleaned Bush's clock.

The president came right out with what was, frankly, a rather shocking strategy of combative bluster. He shuffled around like a cowboy, head bobbing, smirking and winking offstage while Kerry spoke, and making with volume arguments that he couldn't make with facts.

Bush's statements on Iraq went against the grain of the news of the past week, and it showed. Bush talked at the audience and, in denying reality, he looked exasperated and sounded shrill. In the last debate, Bush gradually lost his poise and composure. In this one he never had any, at one point outright ignoring the rules and seeming just plain unhinged.

Kerry was punchy at times but dignified, such as when he derided Bush's "compassionate conservative" slogan in response to the "most liberal senator" label. Bush, however, exuded an attitude that he was fed up. Fed up with the process, fed up with John Kerry, fed up with being questioned. The American people, I suspect, are just now realizing who they elected four years ago.

But if the debate was a decisive win for Kerry, the post-debate period may prove more mixed. Favoring Kerry in addition to his performance is the fact that, for "undecided voters," that audience sure sounded dissatisfied with the status quo.

On the other hand, from here on out, you can expect the Republicans to behave like the Democratic candidates did in December of 2003 toward Howard Dean. There will be unprecedented shrillness. They will be ferocious, tearing into Kerry left and right. The president's behavior tonight was the beginning of that.

I've the feeling that, even though Kerry outmaneuvered Bush on almost every question, Bush' statements may play better on the news because, unfortunately, strong and wrong works in the media highlight reel. It's a shame.

Dean responded to my indictment of Kerry's and Edwards' debate performances. I'm re-posting it here because, frankly, my response was too long, but also because I think it goes to the heart of what's happened in this election.

Aaron: spoken like a partisan, my man. The administration has answered every one of your charges more than once. Perhaps you just haven't been listening? Heh.

It appears from where I stand that what you want most is red meat. You want Kerry and Edwards to be ferocious, tearing into their opponents right and left. It's pretty clear to me that they've chosen a pretty negative attack already and probably realize that if they're much more negative than they are now, they'll delight the Bush haters but will alienate the middle. I suspect they are correct in that.

I frankly think they're doing a pretty good job. On the record, Bush clearly deserves re-election in my view, both for his masterful handling of the econmy--he inherited a worse incoming economic situation than any president since Franklin Roosevelt--and for his excellent handling of foreign policy. And I say that not as a Republican (I'm not) or a conservative (I'm not), but merely because it's my analysis.

The Bushies could do a better job of defending themselves. Bush himself certainly could. Cheney did a good job on defense, he really did. I wish Bush were that good at it.

I think it is important, when piously asserting the partisanship of someone else, to actually know one's target. After all, independents like myself who supported John McCain in '99 and drafted Wesley Clark in 2003 did so not because of some hunger for rancor and "red meat," but rather, because they were the only candidates on either side capable of inspiring rather than dividing, and campaigning, as Clark put it, "not in destructive bickering or personal attacks but in the highest tradition of democratic dialogue."

The problem today isn't that folks like myself have tuned out. Quite the contrary, the reason people are disappointed with Kerry is because we are paying attention. And we see that the truth, or any semblance of it, is long gone from this campaign, bruised by the Republicans who impugned Democrats' patriotism in '02, bludgeoned by the Democrats' lemming-like adoration of Howard Dean, with his kitchen-sink indictments of All Things Republican in '03, and finally, swift-boated today by half-truths and outright lies by bi-partisan surrogates who cast candidates as latter-day Nazis and V.C. interlopers.

It's notable, most importantly, for the hypocrisy of it all. Bush supporters, for example, laud Cheney's "excellent" bludgeoning of the facts, and in the next breath caution the Democrats to play nice. They cheer the "red meat" from their own candidates while admonishing the opposing side for seeking the same. George W. Bush can pull two words out of a sentence to invert its meaning, and can all but equate the election of John Kerry with America's surrender in the war on terror, and there's nary a word. But John Edwards, of course, was already "a little shrill," and to expect more toughness is to expect him to "be ferocious, tearing into [Bush and Cheney] left and right."

I point out these things not because I'm a Democrat (I'm not) or a liberal (I'm not). It's merely my own analysis. Those who give tacit approval to Bush-Cheney's desparate and shrill attacks and pat Kerry-Edwards on the head for good behavior know better themselves which tactic works best today. So do we.

As a result, and with the primaries over, the choices constricted and the board set, those of us who crave true leadership from either party are left seeking something much more practical from those left standing: competence. No, not the competence of a Dukakis-like dignity in defeat, but rather, the toughness and willingness to fight fire with fire, to seek the high ground but defeat them, if they so choose, on the low road.

This is all a necessity nowadays, since our great referree, the fourth estate, is already bought and spoken for and seems to value storylines and stereotypes more than the truth. At this point, the most we can hope for is that the ultimate winner maintain some semblance of respectability. Something he can build on after the pandered-to go back to Survivor and Trading Spouses.

So while we shake our heads at the way both parties have sullied the democratic process, we also realize we need a candidate who will, if necessary, go down into that pit fighting.

So disappointing. Not just the debate, but the evenness of the press spin afterword. The fact is, Cheney came as close to steamrolling John Edwards as he could have come while still allowing the press to call it a draw with a straight face.

Cheney was credible and steady. He exuded competence and gravitas. Edwards will never be a Cheney, that much is obvious, but he was still worse than he needed to be. Edwards batted his eyelashes and flashed his pearly smile between questions, seeming as if he was more interested in getting the moderator and audience to admire his charm than to take him seriously as a potential president.

The task that Edwards failed at was similar to John Kerry's: Don't just slip a few negative details into answers filled with meaningless, boilerplate platitudes. Stay on message and drive the point home, forcing the other side to either answer the charge or concede the point.

For example, we knew Cheney would dodge questions about, say, Halliburton. But it was Edwards' job to call attention to the fact that he avoided the issue, and then tell the American people why.

"The vice president never responded to the the issue of cutting soldiers' combat pay while sending them into Iraq, because it is a fact, and it will stand up to the light of the truth well after this debate, and he knows it."

"The vice president didn't address the outsourcing of jobs because his administration supports it. It's a fact, and one that they prefer not to own up to when confronted by the American people."

"This administration sent 40,000 troops into battle without body aromor. It's a fact, and the vice president knows it, and it's wrong. No parent should have to take up a collection here at home to provide their son or daughter with basic equipment in Iraq."

"In addition to being the first president in 70 years to lose jobs, George Bush refuses to even acknowledge that millions of Americans are underemployed, a situation so bad that parents are competing with their children for minimum-wage jobs. The fact is, this administration would rather cover up the problem by counting McDonalds jobs as 'manufacturing' jobs because they make hamburgers. George Bush refuses to accept the reality of what's going on in America, and the middle class is hurting as a result."

And it goes on, and on, and on. Bush opposed 9/11 commission and the Department of Homeland Security. He didn't fully fund No Child Left Behind. He still hasn't caught Osama bin Laden.

Edwards' mentioned most of these criticisms, but the problem was how. His occasional jabs were quick and forgettable; he never stuck to them and made them the focal point of what will be beamed into millions of households over the next three days. Edwards left us with very few takeaways, when the story could have been how Cheney was too stubborn and ultraconservative to even admit a mistake in voting against the Department of Education, against Head Start, against Meals-on-Wheels for seniors, against a resolution for freeing Nelson Mandela or against a Martin Luther King holiday.

Cheney won this debate because he successfully portrayed Kerry as vaccilating and unsteady. He also revealed how tremendously unready John Edwards is for this job, and undoubtedly left Democrats wishing they could sub in a Joe Biden to close the gravitas gap.

I still think John Kerry will win this race. The two additional cracks at Bush alone should ensure that. But seeing as how the Democrats have been so consistently outmaneuvered by the Republicans in this campaign, if Kerry does lose, tonight's debate will be one of many reasons why.

I soldier in Iraq told me this:

I think the majority of people over here will vote for Bush. I could be wrong, but that is the impression that I get. Even if Kerry's service has been proven, he used to hang out and participate in events with "Hanoi Jane."

So, let me get this straight: George Bush uses his father's connections to avoid service in Vietnam, and then subsequently fails to meet all of his National Guard requirements because, well, he had other things to do.

John Kerry, on the other hand, volunteered to go to Vietnam. He served two tours, saved lives, took life, and carries around shrapnel in his body to this day as a reminder of the experience.

You want to vote against Kerry because his Iraq position is all twisted into knots? Okay. You want to vote for Bush because you think he's clearer and more resolute when it comes to fighting terrorism? Good for you.

But to vote against someone who served honorably because he was seen at the same event as Jane Fonda? And to instead vote for someone who avoided service altogether and partied hard while some poor kid was sent to Vietnam in his place? Well, that's just the essence of stupidity. I sure hope he's wrong about "Hanoi Jane" being the rationale against Kerry, because I want to believe most soldiers -- and indeed, most Americans -- are smarter than that.

What a classic example of groupthink in the national media. Immediately after the debate I thought Kerry turned in a subpar performance on substance, but was still a bit better than Bush. The pundits apparently agreed that Kerry had edged out Bush.

But by the end of the night, buttressed by flash polls and more confident spin from the Kerry camp, pundits -- even those on Faux News -- were almost uniformly trumpeting a decisive Kerry victory. By the next morning, as the coverage snowballed, you'd have thought it was "Lincoln and Douglas vs. Elmer Fudd," as Charlie Cook put it.

Dean says taking my advice would have backfired on Kerry. That by being more aggressive, he would have looked like a nut and turned off the liberals who already want us to be nicer to the U.N. and pull out of Iraq.

I disagree with that completely. Look closer at the Gallup numbers (as Dean is now doing). Sure, Kerry "looked more presidential" than Bush, but he made little headway in changing voters' fundamental assumptions about him. Namely, that he's a flip-flopper who changes positions often, is less trustworthy than Bush and weaker on Iraq, terrorism and national security. By a 17-point margin, voters preferred Bush as the man "tough enough" for the job.

Kerry would have done better to follow my advice. Maintain the same posture, which worked. Talk about the need for allies, which worked. But cut out the references to a "summit" and instead offer some real meat on Iraq. Tell them you'd ask NATO to secure the border areas, and then you'd deal once and for all with murderers like Muqtada al Sadr and Zarqawi, and then you'd break up the terorrist mini-states that had formed in places like Fallujah, so we could finish our work and get the hell out of there.

Yes, liberals badly want to make the point that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq. But at the same time, they don't want to see us just pull up stakes and leave Iraq in a state of civil war or islamist theocracy. Hell, only the Kucinich/Nader crowd wants us out tomorrow, and there are just as many conservatives who'd also just as well see us declare victory and leave, whether Iraq was at peace or not.

So it's possible to press the case that invading Iraq was a collossal error in judgement, but that now we've got to win there to get back on track in the war against al Qaeda, and that we must do so in such a way that's tough on the terrorists but respectful of our allies. John Kerry didn't do that, and that's why, spinning aside, the American people still doubt him today.

Allow me to diverge for a moment from the press's congratulatory orgy over John Kerry's debate performance. Those of us who look for more than mere gaffes and atmospherics recognize that, to gain our true confidence rather than tentative votes, John Kerry needed to convince voters he would see Iraq succeed and crush Al Qaeda. He failed.

Kerry can only change the dynamic of the race by waking people up to the stunning reality of Bush's failed leadership, AND doing it in such a way that offers us his own strong and steady hand and a competent leader. For that to happen, Kerry had to not only attack Bush, but his every statement needed to connect to underlying principles and values that the public would be stunned to learn Bush apparently doesn't share. Diverting resources from catching bin Laden to go after Saddam Hussein? Check. Opposing the creation of a Department of Homeland Security? Missed opportunity. Opposing the creation of the 9/11 commission? Missed. Ignoring newly revealed pre-invasion warnings that Iraq could turn into a guerilla war? Missed. Protecting Saudi Arabia even though it's home to 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers? Missed.

I kept wanting Kerry to lean forward a bit more, to jab his finger in my direction, to act and talk like a man who was ready to lead the United States in war. I wanted him to talk about how the United States of America doesn't retreat, but shockingly, that's exactly what Bush did in Iraq once the militants started flooding in -- backed down and let the terrorists push us out of entire cities like Fallujah and Samarrah, and allowed thugs like Zarqawi to set up terrorist mini-states in places. Placated and nice with radicals like Muqtada al Sadr who repeatedly attacked U.S. forces.

Kerry could have run both to Bush's left and right. That is, he could have driven home his Osama-over-Saddam message, but also shown that he was ultra-committed to smashing the terorrists in Iraq so that the U.S. would succeed. It's that simple: Kerry = Smash the terrorists in Fallujah so we can get back to get back to killing bin Laden. Bush = Iraq is America's new West Bank.

Instead what we got was, in the words of the hilariously shrill Zell Miller, a "bowl of mush." From the former prosecutor, lots of middling over details and scattershot accusations, without a continued focus on the big-picture indictment to tie it all together. Kerry seemed to be running for U.N. Secretary-General, auditioning for chief facilitator of some international circle-jerk. I can see the Bush ads now: "Kerry now says the answer to dealing with Saddam Hussein was to get another U.N. resolution. And now he says his plan to win the war on terror is to hold a summit! A summit?"

Hey, Kerry: Fuck that summit, those resolutions, and that "global test," whatever that meant. Same for the bizarre alarm about American nuclear weapons that "we might actually use." Stop playing dove. Run as an American patriot whose tired of seeing America's reputation sullied, and our soldiers let down by an incompetent chief executive whose battlefield reality check has cost us lives. Remind people that over the next four years there will be other crises, other crucial choices, and that a president who refuses to admit his mistakes and adjust to the reality of current events is doomed to repeat them.

Tonight, John Kerry had the chance to present the alternative vision that was once within our grasp: a willing world, post-9/11, on the march against terror behind the steady and respected leadership of the United States of America. He needed to bring home the magnitude of how that profound opportunity has been lost under George W. Bush. Instead, he lost his focus, playing along while Bush peered at his cliff notes and conflated Iraq with the war against al Qaeda. Maybe he remained "poised" and "presidential," but he was anything but inspiring and left the distinct impression that Iraq under a Kerry administration would remain in flames.

I don't care much if the floodgates open tomorrow and voters stampede toward John Kerry. He failed.

From the Daily Show:

Jon: Rob, the Iraqi prisoner scandal is a huge setback. What went wrong?

Rob: John, you heard the president say the America that turtored those prisoners is not the America he knows.

Jon: Rob, to the Arab world though, those few miscreants who did what they did in that prison -- to them, that IS us!

Rob: Well John, there's no question what took place in that prison was horrible. But the Arab world has to realize that the U.S. shouldn't be judged on the actions of a....well, that we shouldn't be judged on actions. It's our principles that matter, our aspiring, abstract notions. Remember, just because torturing prisoners is something we did, doesn't mean it's something we would do.

Well, it's happened. Gay marriage is here.

I wonder if those newlyweds have had time to destabilize and desecrate any straight marriages yet. Any of those queermongers come knocking on your door?

How appropriate for such a milestone to occur on the anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling. America has taken yet another step forward.

It appears that Mike at Miniluv didn't take kindly to my reference to his post on the Nick Berg murder. Not only did he delete the trackback ping (which he'll undoubtedly do for this post as well), but he posted a swipe in my comments. So allow me to clarify the issue by reprinting Mike's post on Berg, in its entirety:

I've never met Nicholas Berg. I know he was my age and I know he was a telcom guy, just like me. His body made it back to the U.S. today.

I also know that killing a defenseless worker is no way to regain honor. Not in islamic culture, and not in ours. It makes you a murderer and a coward. That's all. Swine have more honor than you al-Qaeda cowards.

If one of you cowards happens to be reading this I'll be happy to prove your lack of honor to you. Swords to the death. Email me and we'll arrange it. Lets see if even one of you will be brave enough to face one normal American face to face.

In the comments, there's some more, mostly along the lines of "Yeah dude, you'd like totally do that!" And "That's right man you know I would, I friggin' MEAN it!!" (exaggeration mine)

So yeah. In my post on Berg, I called Mike's so-called challenge to the terrorists "mindless and meaningless chest-thumping." I mean, you have to wonder what Mike would do if they killed two Americans. Gun duel? Dick-measurements? What?

So what was his response?

Is that what I was doing? I don't think so, but even if I was I'd prefer that to being a boring second hander that can't seem to come up with a single original idea.

"Boring second hander." Wow. He sure knows how to lob those rhetorical bombs, doesn't he?

You know, I actually have to agree with Mike on one thing. His writings may be asinine, but they aren't boring. He obviously has all the sophistocation of a fourth-grader, which explains why his moronic schoolyard taunt of a post is the best reaction he can muster to the Berg video. I find these kinds of posts, coming from the unthinking wing of the Republican party, to be as hilarious as the ultra-liberal rants over at Kos.

Look Mike, you were right and I was wrong. I actually thought all this time blogging with Court would have taught you to use your brain every once in awhile. Now I know better.

According to this story, Arabs are shocked and awed by the level of stubbornness Bush has displayed in endorsing Don Rumsfeld:

"After the torture and vile acts by the American army, President Bush goes out and congratulates Rumsfeld. It's just incredible. I am in total shock," said Omar Belhouchet, editor of the influential Algerian national daily El Watan.

"Bush's praise for Rumsfeld will discredit the United States...and further damage its reputation, which is already at a historic low in the Arab world," he added.

Analysts have said the damage from images seen worldwide of U.S. soldiers abusing naked Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison would be indelible, incalculable and a gift to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Personally, I'm in total shock over how absolutely awful the prosecution of the Iraq war has been, from the very beginning until now, and specifically how rapidly the situation has deteriorated over the past two months. And not only has the civilian leadership not done anything right, but they've been able to parlay their dogged and obstinate pursuit of failed strategies into an image of strong and decisive leadership.

I used to think comparisons to Vietnam were premature. However, at this stage, we really have to consider that if Bush is reelected, America may actually be on its way to losing another war and empowering the terrorists in the process.

But according to Them, the mounting casualties -- American soldiers, American credibility -- are signs that we are winning. Up is down. Black is white. 2+2=5.

Stated aptly by George Will:

This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts....Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.

John Zogby seems to think Kerry has this election in the bag:

I have made a career of taking bungee jumps in my election calls. Sometimes I haven't had a helmet and I have gotten a little scratched. But here is my jump for 2004: John Kerry will win the election.

Though he is hardly cramming for his finals yet and is confounding his supporters, possible leaners, and even opponents with a dismal start on the hustings, the numbers today are on his side (or at least, not on the President's side).

We are unlikely to see any big bumps for either candidate because opinion is so polarized and, I believe, frozen in place. There are still six months to go and anything can still happen. But as of today, this race is John Kerry's to lose.

In an enlightented country, Bush's support would already be at 20% (or, perhaps, the idiotic 27% who think the abuse of Iraqis could actually be justified). Yet here we are, neck-and-neck, the public unable to decide between a nuanced, thoughtful candidate who actually did something with his life and a simple man who, in three-and-a-half years, has nothing to show for himself except war and misery. Shame.

Can someone explain to me the difference between this comment at Kos and this one at Miniluv? Though many lefty bloggers have condemned Kos's statement, I wonder if any righties will comment on Mike's rant.

(An aside -- How the hell is JohnKerry.com's de-linking of Kos "censorship"??)

Both posts strike me as pretty despicable, but it's funny how the outrage only tends to lend itself to one side.

Update: Court dissents. Good for him.

"We come to it at last, the great battle of our time."

-Gandalf, Return of the King

Paul Begala asked:

"Why does Rudy Giuliani get to be married three times and Newt Gingrich married three times and Rush Limbaugh three times and a gay man never once?"

It's statements like this one that put the gay marriage debate in perspective. Like chickenhawks who blithely send other people's sons to war, the spector of hypocritical conservatives making moral decisions for the rest of us would be laughable if it weren't so real.

To ask whether I support gay marriage is almost to ask whether I support black-latino marriage. Regardless of whether I hold the same ethnic preference, such couples exist and their unions harm no one, so who am I to oppose formal recognition of them? I simply can't fathom how any thinking person could be troubled by affording equal rights to equally loving (and taxpaying) gay couples.

But therein lies the rub. The so-called "case" against gay marriage is not intellectual, but rather, an emotional, flailing appeal to the innate bigotry of ignorant people. Indeed, the opposing argument is a flailing one that defies both reason and common decency.

Proponents of caution and nuance say that gays brought this upon themselves "because they would not be satisfied with evolutionary change but instead demanded revolutionary preference." However, gay couples who married in San Francisco are no more culpable than those who demonstrated for voting rights in the 60's, flouting appeals for "law and order" from lawmakers who sought excuses for delaying what was morally right.

And enough, too, of those who apologetically state that President Bush, in his heart, really didn't want to do this. He seeks to place language about sexual orientation, of all things, in the Constitution of the United States. How can there be daylight, then, between those who seek to outlaw homosexuality and the president, who is as wedded to these extremists as he is lacking in moral courage?

Today, the storm rages on in full farce. But at the end of the day, after the Constitutional amendment fails and equality is the norm in many states, gay marriage will be seen in much the same light as interracial unions: common sense, a fact of life, and only a lightning rod in the most anachronistic and backward corners of this newly enlightened country.

As one Massachusetts lawmaker said, "Allow people to get married who love each other. See how it works out. And my guess is it will be the biggest nonevent in the history of Massachusetts." When the storm blows over, the demagogues who opposed gay marriage will be ashamed of themselves. They ought to be now.

I'd say "good riddance," but it looks like Howard Dean will be sticking around for a while. Dean couldn't even bow out with grace, choosing to "suspend" his campaign and leave his name on the ballot so his neo-Naderite supporters can still have someone to vote for.

The Dean campaign was a case study in cynical politics propelled by double-talk and division. Let us examine the ways...

Seeking the anti-war vote, Dean grabbed the spotlight by rapping his rivals for voting for the Iraq war, when he in fact supported a nearly identical resolution. Chasing union endorsements, Dean repudiated NAFTA, curtly correcting reporters who described him as a "strong supporter" even though pre-candidate Dean labeled himself with those very same words. Seeking seniors, Dean hewed to the Party line on entitlements, even though as governor he had supported "absolutely" raising the retirement age for Social Security and cutting $270 billion from Medicare. And finally, the centrist, bipartisan governor suddenly began to channel Ralph Nader, tarring virtually anyone with an opposing viewpoint as Bush-Lite™ and a closet Republican.

Dean grew up on Park Avenue, but became a born-again populist sometime in 2003. He campaigned in urban areas against backdrops of campaign-commissioned graffitti. He showed up at an NAACP meeting decked out in kente cloth. And when he visited Iowa farmers, the New York doctor preached about how "We rural people must not be discounted in Washington D.C, as we are by the current administration."

Dean was the ultimate chameleon candidate: First a well-to-do, Park Avenue preppie, then then a ruthlessly centrist governor, and finally a populist firebrand.

I suppose that, in politics, such artful self-contradiction is a virtue, but I would defy any of his supporters to tell me which Howard Dean was real.

Quoted from Mike's post at Miniluv:

ANOTHER DEMOCRAT BLOWN AWAY

As if being buds with the traitorous Fonda isn't enough, a new story seems to be developing over at Drudge about Kerry.

It seems that you just can't hold office as a democrat without being orally briefed by your intern.

Well, I dunno how this will turn out...but i'm getting ready to stick a fork in Kerry.

Of course this is alot less serious than Kerry's relationship with the traitor Hanoi Jane. It will sure be made into a bigger deal though. The American people don't like a leader without integrity, and integrity is hard to convey when your "taking a poll" with another woman.

The funniest part of this story is the implication that the other candidates knew it but didn't publicly admit it. Leaking it through back channels and going on the offense in public so they come out smelling pretty.

Republicans must have tunnel vision. How else to explain the silliness of taking potshots at Democrats while ignoring indiscretions by prominent Republicans like Newt, Rush, Barr, Hyde and Livingston?

And what to make of the twice-mentioned "Kerry-Fonda" connection? That's like calling George W. Bush anti-catholic because he spoke at Bob Jones University. It's funny to see those who consider themselves informed sink to the silly tactics of guilt by association.

Yeah, there's something to be said for intellectual honesty in the blogosphere, but those two obvious fallacies aren't what really irked me here. The post oozes a kind of smug satisfaction with the Kerry insinuations, with the author, clearly accepting them as fact, concluding he can "stick a fork" in "ANOTHER DEMOCRAT BLOWN AWAY."

I supported Clark for president and not Kerry, so I'm in no rush to absolve the senator of anything. In fact, if Kerry did have an affair, I'd prefer that the truth comes out as soon as possible. Democrats who have yet to vote can then make an informed assessment of the candidate and, if necessary, choose someone else.

But far from ferreting out the facts, what we're seeing in Mike's case is ethical googlism. Whether the accusation came from Matt Drudge, the Washington Post or the Tuscaloosa Shitkicker, it seems anything that can be dredged up from the Internet is wholly embraced by partisan hacks on the opposing side without even a cursory assessment of the facts.

I could just as easily conclude here that George W. Bush is a baby-killing hypocrite, what with the published rumors that he paid for a former girlfriend's abortion. But I don't, because while it's perfectly fine to cite such stories and speculate on their truthfulness, fair-minded bloggers ought to be above seizing on the scandalous and unproven to attack others in such a rabidly partisan manner.

Hmm...let's see. Kerry says "No. The answer is no." The young woman calls rumors "completely false." And her parents say they look forward to voting for the senator.

Those who peddled Drudge's slimeball "news" as gospel must feel really silly today. Or worse, maybe they don't.

Words spoken long ago, in another country:

Now we're standing inside this symbol of our democracy, and we see and hear again the echoes of our past: a general falls to his knees in the hard snow of Valley Forge; a lonely President paces the darkened halls and ponders his struggle to preserve the Union; the men of the Alamo call out encouragement to each other; a settler pushes west and sings a song, and the song echoes out forever and fills the unknowing air.

It is the American sound. It is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent, and fair. That's our heritage, that's our song. We sing it still. For all our problems, our differences, we are together as of old. We raise our voices to the God who is the author of this most tender music. And may He continue to hold us close as we fill the world with our sound--in unity, affection, and love--one people under God, dedicated to the dream of freedom that He has placed in the human heart, called upon now to pass that dream on to a waiting and hopeful world.

God bless you, and God bless America.

Ronald Reagan, Second Inaugural Address
January 21, 1985

If this was Clark's way of winning over undecided voters, maybe it was best that he didn't win the nomination:

A few minutes later, Clark is in the back of the restaurant speaking about the war in Iraq to nine older women in a small private room. When I join the conversation, Clark is standing in the doorway forcefully explaining to one woman, "There are no terrorists in Iraq, ma'am." She doesn't seem persuaded. "You can shake your head ma'am but you should listen to me because I was a four-star general." Clark begins a long disquisition about Middle East policy, jumping from why the Bushes will never deal with Saudi Arabia ("They have had dealings with the Saudi Royal family for years and years and years") to the demographics of Iraq ("Shiites are about sixty to seventy percent of the population....In the North there are the Kurds"). The women stare at him. Clark pulls his Blackberry from his belt. "I got an e-mail from a guy today who is a Washington insider," he tells them. According to the guy, Iraq was just the first war in a string of coming Bush conflicts to transform the region. A woman, in the back of the room stands up. "General Clark," she says softly, politely, "this is actually a gardening meeting." Clark then talks to them about the environment before an aide whisks him out for lunch. "Thank you very much," he says. "I didn't mean to interrupt. I hope I didn't upset anyone." Clark's wife Gert walks into the room after the general's presentation. "You poor women," she says. She notes that Arkansas has the same climate as Tennessee and talks to them about growing daffodils.

If the degree to which you are headstrong is the inverse of the your skills on the campaign trail, it's fair to say you're bound to fail miserably at politics. At this point I'd rather have Edwards on the ticket, and Clark heading the DoD.

While cleaning out some old TiVo recordings of America's Voices, I stumbled across the truest statement I've heard during this entire primary season:

Tomorrow morning, when you're brushing your teeth, and you look in the mirror, you are looking at yourselves when you describe the politicians that you vote for. And think about why we don't have better politicians, because maybe we reward people who we don't think meet our standards by voting for them rather than voting for them rather than voting them out of office.

Former White House Special Counsel Lanny Davis
October 25, 2003

Look, John Kerry is going to make an awful candidate. He is an elitist, aloof, have-it-both-ways rhetorician who is the least able of all the remaining candidates to identify with the working class. For a pol of over two decades, the senator has precious few legislative accomplishments, and his wayward political compass has led him to the wrong side of way too many issues.

But try as I may, I just can't get excited about the prospect of John Edwards at the top of the ticket. Don't get me wrong: Edwards is a great campaigner, notwithstanding the tired "son of a mill worker" rationale he weaves into almost every statement. But where's the beef?

Let's examine, for a second, Edwards' bio, which is supposed to provide proof positive that the neophyte politician is right for the position of Leader of the Free World. Edwards worked magic on juries for 20 years as a phenominally successful trial lawyer before winning Jesse Helms' open senate seat in South Carolina. Barely three years later, with virtually no legislative accomplishments to speak of, and having voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind, Edwards began retaining staff and mapping out his future run for the presidency.

Edwards says "I've been preparing for this fight my entire life," and I believe him. He's a great salesman, and seems to have decided in a rather Clintonesque manner to run for the presidency because, well, he can.

So even though I dislike Kerry, I think his opponent is best kept at the bottom of the ticket. Because so far, it seems the only thing John Edwards has been good at is selling himself.

Wesley Clark and John Edwards must be running for vice president, or perhaps a seat in the Kerry cabinet. In any case, it's clear that the two main challengers are cowed by the Kerry freight train, unwilling to use their mountain of "oppo research" on Kerry, yet unwilling to withdraw from the race lest some 11th-hour revelation critically wound the eventual nominee.

I supported Wesley Clark, the brilliiant, driven general with the stellar resume, believing he was the only candidate who could have jousted with President Bush from a position of strength. Indeed, Clark was supposed to bring together all the positive elements of the other candidates -- a Southern heritage, veteran status, a history of selfless public service, strength on national security, sensible domestic policy, a gifted mind, etc., etc. -- to form a winning candidacy.

What no one knew, however, was how badly Clark's foresight and political instincts would fail him once the time came to make the transition from soldier/teacher/businessman/military analyst to political candidate.

As far as foresight goes, I was dismayed when Clark refused to even acknowledge he had become a Democrat in the months before he launched his campaign. As a result, questions about whether he was a "real" Democrat dogged his campaign from the outset. And when Clark did begin his run, it became horribly apparent that he actually was undecided until the last minute, having done none of the "contingency planning" he liked to refer to so often in the military.

Clark jumped into the race without a plan, with little campaign groundwork, and without having studied the domestic issues that inevitably arise in every presidential race. It was almost as if he thought everything would just fall into place for him. That's appalling judgement, and while September may seem like ancient history, it is because of Clark's ill-preparedness that his campaign always seemed a step behind everyone else.

In the Democratic debates, Clark's anemic answers to domestic policy questions reminded me, most painfully, of Governor Bush in 2000. Here was a top West Point Cadet and Oxford Scholar who'd had months to form positions on the issues, and he was winging it.

Fast-forward to last weekend's meeting of the Party faithful in Virginia. John Kerry had skillfully worked the crowd, bashing Bush's policies while assuming a presidential air. Next up, with his campaign on life support, Wesley Clark took the stage and channeled Howard Dean. He forcefully declared that "the Republicans stole the election of 2000! If the voters of the Old Dominion give me a chance, I'll take back the presidency!"

The speech came a day after Clark had accused John Edwards of standing with special interests against veterans, a shameful accusation for which Edwards deserves an apology.

Last weekend marked a saddening loss of stature for a man whom I greatly admire and respect. Clark could have rallied and eventually won by confronting voters with the stark (but real) choices that distinguished himself from the other candidates. He should have done so, as he promised, "in the highest tradition of democratic dialogue." Instead, he hastened his own demise by embracing cynical politics of distortion.

I devoted my time to the Draft Clark movement, and donated to the Clark campaign twice (including a few days ago). But let's face it: the jig is up. The nomination, barring botox, is lost.

What he said.

So it turns out that anger, money and an unhealthy dose of self-righteous delusion weren't enough to propel Howard Dean to the Democratic nomination.

Dean is finished. His only chance now is to string along victories in New Mexico, Michigan and Maine and then clinch the nomination on Super Tuesday. It's a pipe dream.

Once Dean loses next week, his press coverage will slow to a trickle as the media look for the next horse race. With their candidate crowded out of the news cycle and the money drying up, legions of supporters will unsubscribe in droves from the DeanForAmerica bandwagon.

The candidate's demise came about not as a result of the media or dirty tricks, but rather, his own inability to inspire voters with ideas rather than indignation.

His "I Have A Scream" speech marked the beginning of the end. There he was, working the crowd into a frenzy of angry energy and then blowing his tempermental load on national television.

Partisans who decry the media frenzy have missed the point. Dean's speech, as a whole, was without the dignity or restraint befitting an aspiring leader of the free world. The presidential candidate, unable to concede graciously, could only bellow furiously, petulantly rattling off the names of his competitors' home states and declaring them next on the list of Deaniac stomping grounds.

The astonishing fall in New Hampshire came not because of Dean's third-place Iowa finish, but rather, because his speech startled supporters awake from their six-month-long intellectual stupor. Dean, who had staked his campaign on cynically exploiting party divisions, was finally unmasked as a symbol of mobocracy.

Shocked and horrified, the droves of Deaniacs decided to vote for a safer (though only slightly more electable) liberal. Not everyone came to, but we must accept that a portion of the population will always be hopelessly radicalized and all too eager to take leave of the senses.

I'm heartened that, as it turns out, the vast majority of us are better than that.

I WANT EXIT POLLS
I WANT EXIT POLLS
I WANT EXIT POLLS
I WANT EXIT POLLS
I WANT EXIT POLLS
I WANT EXIT POLLS
I WANT EXIT POLLS
I WANT EXIT POLLS

Kerry: B. Looked presidential, stayed on message, and generally reassured voters that he's the front-runner for a reason. Emerged without being bloodied by attacks that will certainly occur below the media radar in the coming days.

Dean: C+. Did okay. Emphasized his centrist record and exhibited some self-control, for a change. Unless he seizes the agenda tomorrow, Dean will likely continue bleeding in the polls. The ball is in Wes Clark's court.

Edwards: B. Helped himself immensely with a sharp performance, and could have a better-than-expected finish next Tuesday. Looks more and more attractive as the field shrinks.

Lieberman: B. Best debate performance for him. His humor went over well for a change. Came across as strong, principled and consistent.

Clark: C-. Underwhelming performance, as usual. Acquitted himself well when questioned, but failed to truly grab the spotlight as needed. Also failed to leverage his military experience and, as a result, is losing the stature race to Kerry.

Faux News: D-. Botched opening. Confused moderators that made even the Ted Koppel debate look good. And a mysterious early conclusion without even closing statements from the candidates. Why is the Democratic Party holding debates on this network?

"The board is set. The pieces are moving."

-Gandalf, Return of the King

Ezra Klein says we should replace the Iowa panderfest with some rotation:

Not only is Iowa unrepresentative, but because of the interest groups that dominate it the pandering promises potential nominees make can be damaging to the rest of the nation. All pandering is bad, but not all pandering is useless. Ethanol is useless.

I'd like to see first in the nation status be a rotating title. I can see why California and New York shouldn't get it, but maybe you could set up some sort of population limit. I'm all for early testing grounds were unknowns can break through, but I'm tired of seeing that responsibility go to a state that uses its position to blackmail concessions and uses a caucus which makes no sense to anyone.

I'm all for change, but I think we should do more than simply rotate states. Why not go with regional primaries: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West Coast? Each primary season, rotate the voting order of the regions.

As a bridge to the new system, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina could still vote first, each with its own week in the spotlight before the regional voting begins.

Of course, neither of the parties voluntarily institute such a process. They want nominees settled and campaign coffers replenished as quickly as possible, not a half-dozen wanna-be's blanketing the country with multi-state campaigns well into April.

Like the pre-'72 days, when Party bosses and Big Labor hand-picked Democratic nominees, giving each voter a voice in the primaries isn't necessarily the Party's top priority.

That's why one would appeal to the naked self-interest of the state parties. With more and more states becoming envious of Iowa's and New Hampshire's bellwether status, something will have to be done before primaries start popping up before Christmas. And if the DNC insists that nominees be picked quickly, schedule the regional primaries to take place three weeks apart from one another.

Far from dragging out a campaign, the new schedule would give more voters a voice and whittle the field of potential candidates, since the Bob Grahams of the world will shrink from the prospect of financing a truly national campaign.

It would take a strong reformer, someone who can summon a large critical mass of support, to enact such a plan. And I know the perfect guy for it. He governed as a centrist, endeared himself to the party's base, and will really need something to do, come mid-March.

So whaddya say, Howard Dean? You still wanna change this party, or what?

Looks like there could be trouble again:

This time, the vote isn't national or final, but it will go a long way toward determining the alternative to Bush in November 2004. The vote will take place in Iowa Monday night. More than 100,000 Democrats will go to precinct caucuses to select a nominee for president. Which candidate will get the most votes that night? If the race remains close, you'll never know.

Count me in with Saletan and Schiller. I've got a bad feeling about Iowa. The convoluted rules, coupled with the fact that lots of out-of-staters will be flooding the state, means we could be looking at a long night and an ugly morning, with accusations flying and an official outcome that's highly debatable at best.

Unless Dean's vaunted ground operation pulls him well ahead of the pack, it could be that none of the candidates gains any measurable momentum going into New Hampshire.

So who does this help? Why, Wesley Clark, of course. Picture the candidates coming back from Iowa, bickering in the debate over turnout suppression by mysterious callers, volunteer intimidation by Gep's Teamsters, and illegal participation by conspicuous Deanies who were spotted driving New Beetles and sipping lattes.

All Wes would need is a 2-day controversy to make it through the week with his hind relatively intact. Sure, the other candidates would go after him eventually, but he'd also scoop up some of the attack-fatigue vote. That, I think, would be enough for Clark to hold his ground against Kerry.

Of course, I'd never hope for chaos in a Democratic primary, even if it helps my man.

Okay, yeah, I would.

You know you've become a partisan hack when the press publishes a negative story related to Howard Dean, and your kneejerk reaction is to blame the GOP or ... Joe Lieberman.

True to form, Oliver Willis uses this typically terse post to tag the network news as biased against Dean. Apparently, Willis doesn't understand that the term "frontrunner" carries a bigger media spotlight.

(Willis, who dumped John Edwards in mid-2003 to join the Dean groupies, has a history of shifting with the partisan winds. As the Democratic Party's liberal core becomes more LaRouche-like, Willis has kept up with the trend, posting the thoughtless commentary they crave and cramming more blog ads onto his site in the process.)

What's happened at OWillis is only a small example of the increasingly freepish nature of what used to be havens for sensible dialogue. Check the comment threads at Daily Kos. The blog, formerly an enlightening resource for horse-race politics, has turned into an umbrella site for semi-coherent rants by petulant lemmings.

Yesterday CBS rejected an ad by MoveOn.org, sticking to its long-standing policy against running issue ads during the Super Bowl. Willis decried the action as "turn[ing] away money to appease the powers that be."

Some of his loyal readers subsequently pledged to boycott the Super Bowl.

Go figure.

According to the latest tracking polls, John Kerry has pulled slightly ahead in what has become a four-way race in Iowa.

This is bad news, since Kerry's surge has spelled an end to the "Clark vs. Dean" speculation that has just begun to percolate in the press.

In order for Wesley Clark to become the consensus candidate against Howard Dean, Dean has to win Iowa. And the bigger the win, the better. If Dean wins by, say, 3 percentage points or more, then Clark will get his two-person race.

If Dick Gephardt wins, then Clark can still finish sufficiently strong in New Hampshire, but the Gepper, strong in the Midwest, could foil Clark's plans to consolidate the so-called Anti-Dean vote on Feb. 3rd.

From there, the possibilities get worse. Kerry wins, further spreading the "Thinking Democrat" vote. At the next debate, everyone attacks Clark. Dean exploits the fractured opposition, taking New Hampshire and steamrolling his way to the nomination. Dean's supporters, long known to have more anger than brains, drag the rest of the party into another four years of political oblivion.

My prediction: Dean wins Iowa by a slim margin. For all Kerry's and John Edwards' supposed gains, they don't have the ground operation to compete with Dean and Gephardt. And that's just what I'd like to see happen: Kerry and Edwards "surge," but still finish a disappointing third and fourth, respectively.

As long as Kerry finishes third or worse, Clark will be sitting pretty in N.H. and beyond.

Arianna Huffington says all the talk of Howard Dean being unelectable is "nothing short of idiotic." If she hears it one more time, she's going to "do something crazy," like, say, run for governor of California.

Consider the source. The folks besmirching the good doctor's Election Day viability are the very people who have driven the Democratic Party into irrelevance; who spearheaded the party's resounding 2002 mid-term defeats; and who kinda, sorta, but not really disagreed with President Bush as he led us down the path of preemptive war with Iraq, irresponsible tax cuts and an unprecedented deficit.

We can see here that Huffington has taken her cue from Dean's stump speeches: It seems to make a whole lot of sense, and then you think about it.

The only Democrats who have criticized Dean are the ones vying for the same job. In fact, not only has the party been tame in the face of the coming electoral train wreck, but most party insiders are actually supporting the candidate by a wide margin. For someone who built his candidacy on bashing the Washington establishment, Dean sure is trying hard to get into the club.

So if Dean's critics are the inept leaders, who's endorsing him? Why, it's Al Gore and Bill Bradley, the two losers from the 2000 election. And word is it that Jimmy Carter will soon add his voice to the chorus of support as well.

If Dean does go to Georgia to meet Carter, he should take Gore and Bradley with him. That way, flanked by ghosts of the Democratic Party's past, his message will ring clear and true: "Hi, I'm Howard Dean, and I want to take the Democratic Party back."

The Dean campaign today offered a sneak peek of the candidate's approach to swing voters in the general election:

Howard Dean has called on the Democratic Party to stand up and fight the Republicans, and yesterday he offered a firsthand demonstration.

The former Vermont governor, taking a question from the audience after his standard stump speech, found himself being criticized for condemning the policies of President Bush and, with the assistance of the press, showing no respect for authority.

"It just makes me furious when the political media and the columnists slam, bam, and bash Bush," contended Dale Ungerer, 67, a registered Republican from Hawkeye.

"If you analyze it, how many times did you criticize Bush, but what's the sense if you don't actually say that `My plan involves this and this?'"

Ungerer called on the Democrats to heed the biblical maxim of "love thy neighbor," adding: "Please tone down the garbage, the mean-mouthing, of tearing down your neighbor, and being so pompous."

Dean, who listened quietly, immediately replied, "George Bush is not my neighbor." When Ungerer tried to interrupt, the former governor shouted: "You sit down! You had your say, and now I'm going to have my say."

I was one of the few lucky bloggers who got to ask Wesley Clark a question during the last Wireside Chat:

[17:20:50] Clark04.com: Aaron Benson asks: General Clark, after you defeat George Bush in November, you'll likely be faced with a Republican-controlled House and Senate. How do you plan to implement your ambitious 20-year vision without having the bills blocked or perverted with special-interest pork by Congress?

As you can see, I slammed him with a hardball question. (Read the transcript here.) Here's Clark's response:

[17:23:53] Wes Clark: First, I'm not giving up on the idea of changing the make-up of Congress....if we succeed, it'll be easier, but make no mistake, to change the direction of this country is going to be difficult. It starts with a strong mandate from the voters, with a clear vision, and finally with tough, innovative work to bring people together and gets things going in the right direction. It's a matter of leadership and vision. I can do it, with your help.

Contrast that with Howard Dean's responses on dealing with Congress. He once said they'd scurry "like cockroaches" if he were elected. And as far as judicial nominations goes, his knee-jerk response is combative: "You cannot accommodate right-wing zealots. There's no accommodation to be had."

Overall, Clark's wireside chat was good, but only because it's probably the closest I'll ever get to talking to the candidate. The format needs work. I dialed in via Internet Relay Chat, but web readers had to contend with an ugly, hard-to-read log.

Some participants were underwhelmed and complained that the chat felt like little more than a press conference, but I don't know what they expected instead.

Then there was the question filtering. Kevin K., who runs The Tooney Bin, asked "What's your favorite salad dressing?" (For the record, Clark replied "I like balsamiac vinegarette...and creamy parmesan.") That was one of the worst questions since the "Macs or PCs" question at the Rock The Vote presidential debate. Kevin, you're a jive turkey.

But maybe I'm wrong. Someone remarked afterward that the salad dressing question was "the most human." Well, yeah. But I'm not sure that, given a chance to query the potential next leader of the free world, his choice of salad dressing would be the burning question in the forefront of my mind.

-----

Update: Maybe Kevin's response is a bit on the hostile side because somebody else called him a "retard" for asking his salad question. However, my reference here (and terse e-mail to him) was meant to be a good-natured ribbing (hence the intentionally corny "jive turkey" reference) rather than a personal affront.

In any case, I specifically cited the question filtering as a drawback of the chat, which is pretty similar to Kevin's own explanation. Lighten up, Kevin.

"You cannot accommodate right-wing zealots. There's no accommodation to be had."

That was the essential part of Howard Dean's response to a question about breaking gridlock on judicial nominees in the radio debate.

Dean also said the following:

I actually have a plan to try to move the Congress back to being Democrat. What we're going to do, which we did with Congressman Boswell here in Iowa, is we asked our supporters to send Congressman Boswell some money and they sent him $68,000 in 48 hours.

We're going to identify 20 seats in the United States Congress and some seats in the Senate and try to get our majorities back, by using our vast network that we've built of grassroots supporters to change that.

That's the best Dean could muster up in response to a question that was essentially about bipartisanship: "Governor Dean, what would you do about the seemingly permanent warfare in the United States Senate on judicial nominations?"

"Well, Neal, we'll continue to wage that war, of course. It's not bipartisanship or whatever, but you know, tough shit. We can't accomodate (read: work with) Republicans, so we'll just beat them. Once I've sewn up the nomination I'll continue to milk my throngs of deluded supporters and have them send a lot of money to other candidates, and that's how we'll win."

It took Joe Lieberman to remind Dean that "Republican" does not necessarily equal "zealot," something Dean should have remembered from his own seemingly disavowed tenure as governor. Then Kucinich stepped in:

I want to inject a note of caution here, because political extremism grows when leaders are pulled into polarity.

And when any of us start castigating people based on their political philosophy -- you know, let's say the right wing -- we lose an opportunity to go and talk to them about specific issues.

You know, there are very conservative members of Congress who have joined with many of us who are considered liberal in trying to repeal the Patriot Act, for example.

So we've got to be careful not to divide this house. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Our American eagle needs two wings to fly.

Beautiful.

Now, I've always thought Kucinich was more articulate than Dean. But when the fringe, ultra-left-wing challenger is able to understand, and commit to, a greater measure of bipartisanship than the frontrunner, then the party is in serious trouble.

Go to this page, and search for Dean, Howard.

Judging from their political contributions, it looks like the other Howard Deans out there are staunch Republicans. And if the probable nominee wins out, those Howards will be the butt of their golf buddies jokes for, oh, about nine months.

Glad to see there are at least some Republicans who aren't utterly delighted by the prospect of a Dean candidacy.

...and when did he know it? That's the question we should be asking St. Dean after this latest revelation:

Presidential hopeful Howard Dean (news - web sites), who accuses President Bush (news - web sites) of being weak on homeland security, was warned repeatedly as Vermont governor about security lapses at his state's nuclear power plant and was told the state was ill-prepared for a disaster at its most attractive terrorist target.

Security was so lax at Vermont Yankee that in August 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staged a drill in which three mock terrorists gained access to the plant. The agency gave Vermont Yankee the worst security rating among the nation's 103 reactors.

So Dean, who boasts that he could teach the president a thing or two about national security, has a shoddy record himself on the issue. And what's worse, here's the excuse Dean's spokesperson is offering for the candidate's shoddy oversight and inaction as governor:

"As many have said before, hindsight is 20-20 and no one could have predicted what could have happened on a terrible day in September 2001," Carson said.

Ugh. This is a hollow rationalization, disappointing even to non-supporters like myself. As has been reported time and time again, there was ample evidence that terrorists planned to use planes as weapons, which is exactly what they did in September 2001. Incidentally, there were ample warnings that nuclear plants were vulnerable targets before and after the terrorist attacks.

How the hell is Dean going to take Bush to task on the issue if they both have shoddy records, both ignored repeated warnings, and are both offering the same pathetic and demonstrably false excuse?

It wasn't but a month ago that Howard Dean was saying we've got to stop talking about "guns, God and gays" in this country and start talking about real issues like education and health care. At one point, he even went so far as to angrily declare "I don't want to listen to fundamentalist preachers anymore!"

But it didn't take long for Dean to change his tune. Virtually assured of wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, and focused on winning over a skeptical South Carolina electorate, Dean is now pronouncing himself a changed man and discussing his religious faith with anyone who will listen.

(Among other stories, Dean is sharing the tale of how he switched from an Episcopalian to a Congregationalist because of a dispute with the church over, of all things, a bike path.)

Such political opportunism is nothing new, but St. Dean just couldn't leave bad enough alone. Take his response to a question about his 2002 trip to Israel:

"If you know much about the Bible -- which I do -- to see and be in the place where Christ was and understand the intimate history of what was going on 2000 years ago is an exceptional experience," he said.

Asked to name his favorite book in the New Testament, Dean cited Job -- which is in the Old Testament -- because "it's such an allegory." More than an hour later, he came back to correct himself, telling reporters he had misspoken.

You see, it's not just that Dean frequently says one thing and then says another. Most politicians do that, usually as a political necessity, and in a few cases because they've actually become enlightened on an issue.

No, Dean is worse. He is a stubborn and arrogant know-it-all who not only thinks he has all the answers, but frequently displays hostility and contempt toward anyone who would beg to differ.

Let's look at another example. Last month Dean, a neophyte in foreign affairs, huddled with his advisors and then suddenly declared he could teach the president a thing or two about national security. But while stridently criticizing Bush's foreign policy, Dean has committed about a dozen gaffes and ended up sounding like an ass on more than one occasion.

It's enough that an alarmed James Carville said "I'm scared to death that this guy just says anything. It feels like he's undergone some kind of a political lobotomy here. He seems to not appreciate the glory of the unspoken thought."

Dean likes to go around telling audiences that "The biggest lie that people like me tell people like you is, 'Elect me and I'll solve all your problems.'" Fair enough, but equally vexing is the candidate's refusal to use one more phrase: "I don't know."

Some in the blogosphere are whining about the fact that Wesley Clark and the other candidates are pointing out Dean's unelectability:

It is deeply saddening to watch Lieberman, Kerry, and increasingly, Clark, turn their platforms to the 'Dean is unelectable' argument. It's not very persuasive,, it's very negative, and it's ineffective. Indeed, the criticism that Dean is reliant on Bush-hatred to fuel his campaign isn't very useful when you put all your stock in defeating Bush as the only goal of running your campaign. It doesn't seem to me that Dean can win against Bush, but then, it's not clear that saying that outright is really going to appeal to anyone except those already predisposed to not liking Dean.

Well, I can't speak for the candidates who already have no chance of winning, but let's look at Clark's actual statements:

"I don't think the Democratic Party can win without carrying a heavy experience in national security affairs into the campaign," he told Salon in a phone interview last week. "And that experience can't be in a vice president. It's no substitute. It won't work, and it won't carry the election for this party."

Well there, somebody had to say it. Matt Stoller may be right about the other candidates' incessant carping, but Clark's assessment is right on: A candidate who stidently criticizes the president's foreign policy, only to end up sounding like an ass himself, has no hope of winning. And despite the wet dreams of Deanies everywhere, no VP short of Colin Powell or John McCain will suffice as a band-aid for their candidate's glaring weakness.

So while the press marvels at Dean's growing momentum, this race is looking more and more like a slow-motion electoral train wreck for the Democratic Party. Republicans are poised to solidify their hold on the South, and have undertaken what is probably the most systematic institutional assault on another party in history.

The nomination of a candidate who runs on a platform of "the war was wrong, Americans are undertaxed, and public discission of religion is bad" seems all but certain to accelerate the Democratic Party's slide into permanent minority status.

For my part, I can't stand what George W. Bush's policies have done to the country. I dislike him intensely, because of his modus operandi: Give lip-service to a cause (education, restoring the military, "clear skies," etc.), pass a sham bill, declare victory and then move on to the next political opportunity.

I should be a sure thing for the Democrats come November, but, incredibly, I may not be there. Howard Dean is a joke. Any candidate who would actually declare that "This is a president who cares more about Halliburton than about bringing our soldiers home!" is irresponsible, an extremist, and not worthy of my vote.

If Dean wins the nomination, God forbid, I'll stay home on Election Day 2004, and thereafter until the Democratic Party gets its act together.

"I'm probably going to vote for Governor Bush," my friend Matthew Cole said as we sat in a college cafeteria in October, 2000. "At least Bush is saying he’ll work with both Democrats and Republicans. Gore isn’t even acting like he will."

I had that flashback while watching Al Gore endorse Howard Dean for president. Several times in his speech, Gore seemed to question the value of reaching beyond Democratic constituencies, saying Dean is the best candidate because he has grassroots support, and because he is the candidate most fervently against Bush-Cheney when it comes to the war.

The big media were in a tizzy, wondering what could have motivated Establishment Al to endorse the Washington-bashing firebrand from Vermont. By aligning himself with Dean and implicitly rebuking Lieberman, they asked, isn't Gore trying to reinvent himself again?

Don’t let the pundits fool you; this is the same Al Gore we knew before, and his endorsement of Howard Dean should come as a surprise to no one. It was Candidate Gore who ran away from the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years. Despite being himself a son of privilege, Gore opted for the angry, divisive platform of "The People Versus The Powerful."

Sound familiar? Class warfare has become a recurring battle cry, as Gore, like his endorsee, believes that the key to winning elections is appealing to the class resentment of the base first, and leaving voters in the middle to choose the least worst option.

The fault lines in the Democratic Party are now clear.

On one side, there is former President Clinton and General Clark. They believe the way to get elected is by inspiring Americans with a compelling and optimistic vision for the future. Their philosophy, as far as I can tell, is that voters will side with the candidate who best embodies a third way: strong on defense and education, tough on both violent criminals and elites who don’t play by the rules.

On the other side, there is the former Governor Dean and, now, MoveOn.org Spokesman Al Gore. They see American politics as a see-saw act in which each side piles as many interest groups as possible onto the far ends of the plank. They court the Nader-Kucinich vote, aspiring to lead a new, post-sanity Democratic Party that appeals to Americans all across the liberal spectrum.

According to the Dean-Gore wing, to work with Republicans is to commit heresy, to be Bush Lite. This, they say, is why we lost elections in 2002; In order to win, Democrats must remain diametrically opposed to the other side. For them, comparing the Republican-controlled congress to cockroaches wins partisan hearts, and is therefore laudable in aspiring world leaders.

This is why Gore couldn’t be bothered, even after obtaining the 2000 nomination, to offer even lip-service toward bipartisanship. He probably believes he lost not because he was too liberal or divisive, but rather, because he was muzzled too much, afraid to speak about guns and the environment, saddled with a centrist running mate whom he disagreed with on the issues. And now, after shedding all residual respectability afforded him by the trappings of the OVP, Gore has taken his final step out of the ideological closet and endorsed Howard Dean.

It’s also why Dean, who rails against the Washington establishment and constantly speaks about the need for change, pursued and received the endorsement of the ultimate insider, and the one who personifies more than anyone the party's slide from Clintonian centrism.

And so, this week saw the first salvo of an ideological war. Two days after Hillary Clinton saturated the airwaves and boasted that she had voted for the Iraq war, Gore threw down the gauntlet, slammed the pro-war candidates and declared, "It's time to remake the Democratic Party!"

My God, these 2003 campaign posters are just awful. The only one that works is Clark's (and, for her purposes, Moseley-Braun's).

Look, I could hire 12-year-olds to come up with slogans less trite than as "Sharp, Sharper, Sharpton." Check out the rest.

I've been so determined to avoid that Jacko frenzy that I missed a crucial snippet of news. It seems that Wes Clark, who regularly preaches about the right to question and criticize one's government, supports a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag desecration.

The sight of an American burning the American flag turns my stomach. (Rather, I should say that it would turn my stomach if I ever actually saw it happen.) I consider flag-burning a repugnant act, a rejection of everything America is and has done by individuals who hypocritically enjoy the freedoms that go along with being American citizens.

But I also found myself wondering, what would constitute an official, protected American flag in the first place? What if I were to paint the U.S. flag onto a wall, and then splatter that wall with black paint? What if I owned a jacket emblazoned with the flag, and threw it away? What if I drew a flag onto a piece of paper, and then burnt it? The flag is used in so many ways, and appears in so many forms, that any law meant to protect it would be unenforceable.

Practical concerns aside, this is a thoroughly disappointing position for Clark to have taken. The flag is an abstract concept, a symbol, not a specific object. And if I own a physical representation of the flag, then it is my personal property and I have the right to do with it as I wish. What's next? Once we've inappropriately altered the Constitution to "protect" our flag, should we add provisions to protect the Bible? The cross? After all, they're important symbols too, and this is One Nation Under God.

But let's get to the real issue here. Looking past all the rhetoric, the core of the argument to ban flag burning is because people don't like it. Because it offends them.

And here I was, thinking the true test of a free society was whether it upheld speech that offends it the most.

Someone should ask Clark why he won't protect the ideals that his fellow soldiers fought and died for. Yeah, I've never served, but I still know that no soldier ever fought for a piece of cloth. They fought for the ideals and freedoms that the flag represents, including the right to express one’s political views regardless of how offensive that expression may be. And we dishonor them by taking away those very freedoms and legislating patriotic correctness.

After all, America isn’t a great country because it has a flag. It’s great because we can burn it.

Tony Blankley said this today on Crossfire:

Every time we have a discussion with people who are against the war now, and who were against the war then, it's difficult to ever go beyond point A. The fact is the world remains in danger from rogue dictators who may come into posession of weapons of mass destruction and may pass them to terrorists.

That is the fundamental truth of our time. We can haggle over words, but if we don't deal with that fact, millions of Americans and Europeans are going to be killed.

And I don't know why the debate never addresses how do we deal with that fact. All the demonstrators don't have a solution, they don't even recognize it as a problem, and you and I could die tomorrow because of it.

Damn, he read my mind. I live in a college town with no shortage of anti-war liberals. Well before the war began, I asked some questions of the doves both in person and online, then ranted when I couldn't get anyone to answer.

Look, I supported the war against Saddam Hussein (despite misgivings that were later borne out) because I felt we had to confront the problem of Iraq sooner or later. I felt that Hussein's cruelty, coupled with his broadly acknowledged pursuit of WMDs, created a sore that we could not allow to fester indefinitely.

The fact remains that anti-war liberals had no plan to deal with Saddam Hussein. There was nothing -- not his unimaginable cruelty, nor the long-term threat he posed to the stability of the region -- that would convince them that Bush was right to force the world to do something about him.

To focus solely on the Iraq invasion, I think, would be tactical and intellectually narrow. But when it came to offering ideas on how to better combat threats to our national security, people I previously respected became willfully obtuse, focusing on the administration's poorly articulated case for war as an excuse not to think for themselves. Most disturbingly, they seemed blinded by Bush-hatred, and hostile to the suggestion that there even was a looming threat posed by proliferating WMD and the emergence of new nuclear powers.

It was in the run-up to the Iraq war that I learned something about the previously benign ultra-left: They are dangerously intransigent, intellectually dishonest, and as poisonous to the national dialogue as the conservatives who dogged Bill Clinton. A country in which their kind is in power is not one that I would want to live in.

So Arnold Schwarzeneggar takes over as governor of California, capping an improbable victory that turned the political world upside-down.

It is useful, at this time, to examine how Schwarzenegger pulled off this feat. Thanks to Dick Morris's book, Power Plays, we can identify the parallels between Schwarzenegger's run and the presidential campaign of his California predecessor, Richard Nixon.

You see, Nixon began his presidential drive in the unpredictable political environment of the mid-1960's, "a time when traditional precepts and presumptions seemed to be collapsing before the naked eye." Sound familiar?

It was in that environment that voters, disgusted with President Johnson's failure to end the war in Vietnam, were casting about for an alternative. Their savior was not to be found in the Vice President, the "hapless Hubert Humphrey," who had adopted Lyndon Johnson's policy of staying the course in Vietnam. Nor was he to be found in Alabama Governor George Wallace, the racist who became famous for opposing integration in the South, and who was mounting his own independent bid for the presidency.

Between these two extremes, Nixon propose a third way, staking out a middle ground on the issue of Vietnam by moderating his rhetoric and speaking in the vaguest generalities:

Determined to capture the middle, Nixon used his blank-slate presence as a Republican third way -- more moderate than the Goldwater-Reagan wing of the party, but less liberal than Nelson Rockefeller.

Nixon fixed on the idea of "unity," invoking it as a theme that let him avoid taking positions on the issues. He used the word the way a Freudian psychiatrist uses his deliberately blank face, permitting people to read into it whatever interpretation the patient needs emotionally.

Without seriously scrutinizing Nixon's past, voters, disgusted by the president's failure to end the war in Vietnam, pledged to vote for anyone but Johnson.

So what are the parallels? For one, Johnson defeated Goldwater in 1964 by reassuring the public over Vietnam and painting his opponent as an extremist. Similarly, Gov. Gray Davis won reelection in 2002 by playing down concerns over the deficit and portraying Bill Simon as unpalatably conservative.

In both cases, the incumbents faced a public backlash once the truth was revealed. Not only were things not okay, as they had been told, but the place was in deep shit indeed. Now, like then, Schwarzenegger's big chance came at a time of great popular discontent.

In 2003, as with 1968, the Republicans were amenable to a candidate who could appeal to disaffected Democrats, but who was a good old boy when it came to the main issue at play. With Nixon, it was his staunch anti-communist record. With Schwarzenegger, it was his ties to big business and his pledge not to raise taxes.

And much like Nixon, who obscured his position on Vietnam by speaking only of an "honorable peace" and "disillusionment," Schwarzenegger pursued a strategy of avoiding specifics in the election cycle. He skipped all but one debate, and even then he refused to state what he would do to erase the state's deficit. And in victory, he too appealed for "unity" as both sides clamored for action.

Once in office, the public learned that Nixon's "secret plan" was to get us out of Vietnam by pulling us further into the morass. The Schwarzenegger plan is finally taking shape, too: borrow billions of dollars, putting the state much deeper into debt, in order to gain breathing room before the hard work begins.

Of course, I wouldn't venture that Schwarzenegger will follow in Nixon's fate. But if history is any guide, Ah-nold will soon find out that making vague promises is much more difficult than fulfilling them.

Zell Miller, apparently pleased with the Republican response to his earlier idiocy, is at it again:

Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia came under fire Friday from civil rights activists who demanded an apology from the conservative Democrat after he equated his party's opposition to the nomination of a conservative African-American judge to a lynching.

"The Democrats in this chamber refuse to stand and let her do it. They're standing in the doorway, and they've got a sign: Conservative African-American women need not apply. And if you have the temerity to do so your reputation will be shattered and your dignity will be shredded. Gal, you will be lynched," Miller said.

Miller -- who has already rankled Democrats by endorsing President Bush for re-election -- refused to apologize.

What a despicable, loathesome man. Miller has always leaned rightward, but no one could have guessed he'd join the new Republican strategy of calling Democrats bigots for opposing judicial nominees who happen to be black, Catholiic or Hispanic.

It's not surprising, though, that this absurd charge comes from the same person who says the Democrats lost South in the 60's over defense and taxes -- without mentioning that they were on the right side of a slightly more divisive issue: civil rights.

I'm all for the big tent philosophy, but Miller is one person the Democrats should be happy to see go.

Former Senator Zell Miller was just on Lou Dobbs Tonight, and he was asked why he didn't support any of the Democratic candidates for president. Here was his answer:

Well because they have all adopted the same issues...they all sound alike. I mean, look, they have all adopted the worst single feature of the McGovern campaign, that is, cut and run and come back home, and they've adopted the worst single feature of the Mondale campaign: raise taxes.

Umm...excuse me? Since when do all of the candidates want to "cut and run and come back home"? Last I checked, only Kucinich and Sharpton advocated that course of action.

I just canceled my purchase of Miller's book. Maybe there's a valid point in there somewhere, but I won't be bothered to listen to someone who would rather parrot Republican talking points than pick up a fucking newspaper and get enlightened.

It's one thing to be a conservative Democrat -- hell, I sometimes feel like a fish out of water myself -- but either Zell Miller is extremely ignorant, or he's being willfully dishonest about his fellow Democrats' positions. Sad.

...has just been made by Washington Times Editorial Page Editor Tony Blankley.

Today on Crossfire, Blankley excused Dean's confederate flag remarks by stating Abraham Lincoln "played the race card" too.

I didn't know whether to laugh or shake my head.

Hmm, here's my opinion on the controversy in a nutshell: Dean was making a valid point, but he went about it the wrong way and turned off supporters in the process. This is not a surprise. After all, Dean has always been brusque and hostile, and his rhetoric just as divisive as the Republicans'.

As I said before, Dean may wish to appeal to "southern white folk with confederate flags on the back of their trucks," but these people will take one look at Bush's first negative ads and immediately sign up for auto-debit donations to the RNC.

The attacks have just begun. It will be interesting to see if Dean is too arrogant to admit his mistake.

And what the hell is a candidate for President of the United States doing shouting to audiences "Like father like son, FOUR YEARS AND THEN HE'S DONE!!"?

I laughed my ass off watching the clips of Gephardt shown on Hardball. Look, I understand he's trying to channel Dean, but his childish taunts have proven to be self-diminishing. Not exactly a good thing for a candidate who's already been a "miserable failure" at inspiring voters to support him.

Hey Dick: Grow up, or shut up.

Think Howard Dean has flip-flopped on lots of major issues? Well, read here and here, and get a load of Richard Gephardt's laundry list:

While Gephardt speaks in front of a sign that reads "Protect Social Security" and "Protect Medicare" over and over, like computer-desktop wallpaper, I wonder: Does he really want to play this game? Dredging up old quotes and votes about Gephardt's onetime conservatism is what helped to derail his '88 campaign. He voted against the establishment of the Department of Education. He voted for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. He voted to means-test Social Security and to eliminate cost-of-living adjustments from the program. He voted for Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. He opposed an increase in the minimum wage. Does a man with a legislative record this long and varied really want to ostentatiously declare, "There are life-and-death consequences to every position taken and every vote cast"? If that's so, how many times was Dick Gephardt on the side of death?

Umm...wow. I've always loathed Gephardt, who always seems to come across as a cynical chameleon of a politician. But who knew his rightward tilt was so extreme? Did you know he once opposed school busing, too?

Chris Suellentrop is right: Gephardt is playing with fire by attacking Dean for changing his past positions. It seems to me that, if Dean were to rebuke Gephardt by stating the above excerpt in a debate, he could upend Gephardt's candidacy and put his attacker on a permanent defensive. Not only would Gephardt be forced to stop citing Dean's past positions, but he would also be unable to cite his own history of service without reminding voters of the divisive and shameful positions he himself has taken in the past.

With that in mind, there remains just one question: What the hell is Dean waiting for?

Maybe someone can explain Howard Dean's incomprehensible position on the death penalty. He and John Kerry apparently think only child murderers, cop-killers and (now) terrorists should be eligible for the death penalty. I understand that crimes that target children are particularly heinous, but how's the rest of that work?

This position is liberal straddling at its worst, and will be a disaster should Dean or Kerry become the Democratic nominee. After all, how does one justify stricter punishment for killing a cop than, say, a schoolteacher, marine, firefighter or paramedic? What makes the killing of one adult worse than the killing of another? The position is indefensible.

I wish these candidates would grow some cajones and take a principled stand on the issue. Either oppose the death penalty altogether or support it for the crime of murder. In any case, don't start dividing people into classes because a public furor makes it politically expedient (Polly Klass, 9/11, etc.).

My position? Those who intentionally kill others, even in crimes of passion, have given up their own right to life. Period. See? It's that easy.

Why would anybody with a brain support Al Sharpton?

Now he's claiming that "Howard Dean's opposition to affirmative action, his current support for the death penalty and historic support of the NRA's [National Rifle Association's] agenda amounts to an anti-black agenda that will not sell in communities of color in this country."

As I stated earlier, I agree with Dean's position on gun control. Ditto for Affirmative Action, because there's no reason a poor white kid from South Philly shouldn't be able to get the same scholarships I was eligible for. Furthermore, there's no reason why a suburban black kid, who attends private schools and comes from a wealthy family, should gain preference because colleges see fit to assume hardships based on his race.

Race hucksters like Sharpton can cling to the racial spoils system, but the rest of us are focused on socioeconomic class rather than race as the main disparity that needs to be addressed.

The Democratic Party finally seems to be righting itself on the issue of gun control:

Democratic presidential candidates are distancing themselves from tough gun control, reversing a decade of rhetoric and advocacy by the Democratic Party in favor of federal regulation of firearms. Most Democratic White House hopefuls rarely highlight gun control in their campaigns, and none of the candidates who routinely poll near the top is calling for the licensing of new handgun owners, a central theme of then-Vice President Al Gore's winning primary campaign in 2000.

I wholeheartedly agree with Wesley Clark's and Howard Dean's stance on guns. In a nutshell, here is my view: Places like New York City, Philadelphia and Los Angeles grapple with violent crime on a huge scale, and need strict gun laws. Places like Montana and Vermont do not. Therefore, it is silly to enact legislation at the federal level (handgun licensing, "cooling off periods," etc.) that is only warranted in a few places.

Does that mean all federal gun legislation is inherently wrong? Well, no. Here are some examples of good federal requirements:

-No civilian should be able to buy automatic assault weapons, grenade launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank shells, land lines or A-bombs, as the potential damage they could cause if used maliciously outweighs any possible safe use of these in sports or self defense. As Clark says "If you like assault weapons, you should join the United States Army. We've got plenty of them."

-All citizens should be required to undergo instant background checks when they purchase firearms. Period.

-All citizens should be required to secure their handguns when children are present in the home. That means either gun locks, unloading the weapon or whatever other means the owner chooses.

How do we define a "child" in this case? Well, it may be 14 in South Dakota, but 17 in California. All the more reason why most laws should be set at the state and municipal level.

It all sounds simple and reasonable to me. Any questions?

Posted without comment:

As Howard Dean walked over to pet the 600-pound hogs on a visit to a family farm here on Wednesday morning, he blurted out his imaginary headline, "Governor speaks with Washington lobbyists."

Nice. But I still ain't votin' for him.

Dean is doing his "Take Our Country Back" thing again:

Dean, one of seven Democratic presidential candidates to address the Arab American Institute's national leadership conference in Dearborn, pointed to an American flag and named some of the people he said it did not belong to.

"It does not belong to General Boykin, or John Ashcroft, or Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson," the former Vermont governor said to cheers in the packed hotel conference room in the Detroit suburb which is home to one of the highest concentrations of Muslims and Arabs outside the Middle East.

"This flag belongs to every single American, including every single American in this room, and is the hope and aspiration for many other folks who are not yet citizens," he said.

...which prompted me to wonder: Isn't Dean contradicting himself? If the flag belongs to all Americans, as he says, then what's he doing declaring that it doesn't belong to certain Americans like Limbaugh, Falwell and Robertson?

Yeah, yeah, I know what he meant, and I basically agree with it. But Dean frequently makes statements like these. I'm too pressed for time at the moment to look up more quotes, but just watch him on TV and you'll see what I mean. Dean's speeches and interviews are filled with the kind of blunt, rough-edged, semi-articulate pulpitspeak that could only appeal to the partisans who have already fallen hard for him.

Dean's supporters may use many glowing terms to describe their candidate, but "eloquent" is never among them. We met another candidate in 1999 who was like that, and his name was George W. Bush. The difference, I think, is that George W. Bush's lack of nuance came across as a reassuring plainspokenness to average voters, whereas Dean is laughably easy to frame as angry and menacing. Dean will have a hard, hard time in the general election -- if he makes it that far.

I remember a time when liberals ridiculed Republicans for choosing George W. Bush, an empty suit with precious few accomplishments, over John McCain, a Vietnam war hero with a long record of public service.

Stupid idiots, the liberals chortled. We Democrats would never vote for someone with nothing to offer but a famous last name. That's absurd!

So what did Californians do when faced with the prospect of recalling Gray Davis, the governor it elected just 11 months ago? The overwhelmingly Democratic state chose Arnold Schwarzenegger, an empty suit with precious few accomplishments, a mediocre actor who ran on his celebrity and spent three months ducking debates, dodging issues and running out the clock.

Think the dim Democratic bulbs are limited to California? Consider that the polls show Hillary Clinton would immediately garner the support of up to 48% of Democrats if she decided to run for president. Someone remind me, what's Hillary ever done?

In the end, I think, there is little difference between the Democratic rank-and-file and their Republican counterparts.

Schwarzenegger was right when he remarked that "the people don't care" about the facts. What they voted for was an image, not substance. The fact that they're putting "The Terminator" in charge of the world's fifth-largest economy is beside the point; people voted for Arnold because, well, they like him.

Nationally, it's the same story. Bush garnered many votes simply because many working-class voters felt he was one of them, even though all the facts are contrary. Bush trounced Gore among white males because they could imagine themselves sitting next to him at a bar, shooting the shit about nothing in particular. The empty bio, the military desertion, the cocaine use, the shakiness on foreign policy -- those didn't matter because, well, they liked him.

Statements by Court over at Miniluv provide the perfect example:

"But the main reason I continue to support Bush is because I like his attitude. I don't like St. Dean's or any of the other cantidates. From what I have heard, most of the Dems are extremely angry."

Right. How dare those Democrats sound the alarm over the state and direction of the country? Bush good, Dems bad.

It's appropriate, then, that the recent movement over at Miniluv is to appeal for positive blogging. With the recent confluence of negative events, and the emerging consensus that our country is on the wrong track, the reaction is to close one's eyes and think happy thoughts rather than question one's leadership.

Mark Twain is purported to have said: "My theory used to be that we get the government we deserve. Bad as we are, though, I don't think we are that bad." * Well, we are that bad. And because of our cavalier dismissal of competence and substance in favor of style, we are getting the government we deserve.

The next time the vacuous voters complain about the sorry state of our country, I'm going to suggest that they look at their schools, their televisions, their newspapers and their mirrors, and then ask themselves if they really believe the politicians acted alone.

Maybe it's just that liberal media screwing with me, but Republicans certainly seem on the defensive these days.

Let's start with the Bush administration. At home, there's, the Valerie Plame affair which, worse than Watergate, is getting the full scandal treatment. Abroad, the administration is failing afresh in Iraq and North Korea, just as Americans express doubts about the president's leadership.

Even George Will and Rove mouthpiece Robert Novak and are making their displeasure with the administration known.

Ah-nold Schwarzenegger, meanwhile, is grappling with that election's October surprise. Surprise: he's a boob-grabber. But unlike Bush, who could have cut loose his offender and stopped the Plame scandal cold, Arnold played it smart. Rather than face scandalous headlines from here through his first term, Schwarzenegger readily acknowledged the accusations within the same news cycle. Instead of proliferating Arnold The Mysogynist headlines, the papers read I've been a bad boy, and I'm sorry. There: Besides some residual punditry, the scandal is defanged and time-limited. You have to admire the strategery of it all.

Then, of course, there's Republican arch-pundit and compulsive pill-popper Rush Limbaugh, who lost his dream gig because he couldn't keep his despicable politics out of his sports commentary. Looks like somebody quickly found out that football fans aren't ditto-heads.

Nope, no Democrats to blame for that one, either. From here, it looks like the Republicans are on the ropes, and through no one's fault but their own.

According to this Washington Post story, top White House officials may be facing criminal charges for revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent:

A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. That was shortly after Wilson revealed in July that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account eventually touched off a controversy over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq. "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

I have to agree with Kevin Drum here. He's summed up my feelings on the matter. Ditto.

What I would also say, though, is that Robert Novak, who was the only journalist to actually print the information, should be seen as a pariah. Press or not, he clearly violated a federal law. He was implored by a CIA spokesman not to print the CIA agent's identity, and did so anyway. Why isn't he being shunned by media circles? Why is he still employed by the Chicago Tribune and CNN?

Check out Powell's nonverbal statement in his New York Times interview:

Asked whether Americans would have supported this war if weapons of mass destruction had not been at issue, Mr. Powell said the question was too hypothetical to answer. Asked if he, personally, would have supported it, he smiled, thrust his hand out and said, "It was good to meet you."

I think that sums up the feelings of many hawks who supported the invasion of Iraq. I, for one, believe there had to eventually be a confrontation with Saddam Hussein, and that we could not have allowed the sore of Iraq to fester indefinitely.

But the war, as Wes Clark says, was elective surgery. And without the core argument that Hussein's WMD posed a threat to the United States, Powell wouldn't have supported it. I wouldn't have supported it. And with a full, honest assessment of the costs we'd have to bear for that invasion, the majority of the American people wouldn't have supported it, either.

While I stand by my assessment of Arnold Schwarzenegger, my conclusion was wrong. Schwarzenegger, by failing to fail in last night's debate, has assured himself probable victory in next month's election should Gray Davis be recalled.

State Sen. Tom McMcClintock was the night's biggest loser. He needed Schwarzenegger to commit several unforced errors and send conservatives scurrying into the McClintock column, giving the conservative new life and hushing the Republicans who are calling for him to step aside. But now that Republicans know their Terminator won't self-destruct in the stretch run, they'll redouble their efforts to make McClintock drop out of the race.

If Schwarzenegger attends and does well in the next debate, then McClintock will indeed quit. Schwarzenegger will then garner more support than Lt. Gov. Bustamante, who sat passively through the entire debate and left Arianna Huffington to do his dirty work.

The propable election outcome notwithstanding, one thing the debate did prove was the value of "third-party" candidates. The candidate who seemed most focused on issues rather than bickering, and who made the most sense, was Green Party candidate Peter Camejo. If I were a California voter, he'd get my vote.

Despite countless denials, Republicans and the media just can't get it through their thick heads that Hillary Clinton is not going to run for president.

The latest conspiracy theorist is William Safire -- the same guy who brought us the Hillary-will-be-indicted nonsense during Bill Clinton's first term. This time, Safire casts Wes Clark as a placeholder for a Hillary candidacy:

What if, as Christmas nears, the economy should tank and President Bush becomes far more vulnerable? Hillary would have to announce willingness to accept a draft. Otherwise, should the maverick Dean take the nomination and win, Clinton dreams of a Restoration die.

Here is where the politically inexperienced Clark comes in. He is the Clintons' most attractive stalking horse, useful in stopping Dean and diluting support for Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt. If Bush stumbles and the Democratic nomination becomes highly valuable, the Clintons probably think they would be able to get Clark to step aside without splintering the party, rewarding his loyalty with second place on the ticket.

Leave it to right-wing spooks to posit that the Clintons are so power-hungry, and so self-absorbed, that they'd rather the country suffer the ill effects of four more years under Bush so Hillary can have "her turn" in 2008.

That aside, Safire's assumption is wrong. If Wes Clark's career is any indicator, then once he's in, he's in it to win. This is the same guy, remember, who knew the cholesterol level of all the officers vying with him for a promotion. Besides, I have a hard time believing that Clark, who stood up to the Pentagon brass during war, is going to take orders from Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail.

It's no surprise that right-wing pundits keep dragging out the Clinton boogeyman. After all, folks like Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman (and a still-unknown Dean) don't make for good direct mail fundraising in those red states.

And Hell, Clinton couldn't win anyway, in 2004 or 2008, against anyone on the moderate side of Jerry Falwell. Like I said, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for her.

Still, though, I'm sick of the media's willful obtuseness on the matter. How many times does someone have to say "no" before the press moves on to real news?

Why I support Wesley Clark:

WHY are so many here in America hesitant to speak out and ask questions? (Crowd answers “BUSH”; Clark nods his head) Well we’re going to ask those hard questions, my friends, and we’re going to demand the answers. But we’re going to do so, not in destructive bickering or personal attacks but in the highest tradition of democratic dialogue. We’re going to seek out the facts, search for the causes, to find the solutions, and in questioning and proposing alternatives, we’re going to reach for the very essence of our democracy.

And in a time of war, we’re going to ask those questions and propose those alternatives in the highest sense of patriotism.

I support Wesley Clark not only because I agree with him on the issues, but also because he'll be a candidate who raises the level of dialogue and offers serious, mature leadership rather than a cathartic bludgeoning of the other party.

He has a lot of work to do, to be sure. And the attacks will come, not only from the other Democratic campaigns, but also from fearful Republicans. They will dredge up dirt to sabotage Clark, much like Gray Davis sabotaged the one candidate who could beat him -- Richard Riordan.

But Wesley Clark is a class act, a self-made man who's excelled in everything he's attempted in life. In him, we would have a president who works hard and does everyone proud -- Democrats, independents and Republicans.

There are plenty of Tony Blair democrats who have been waiting for a leader who can offer more than than divisive vitriol. We now have an answer.

As John Edwards stood on the banks of North Carolina and announced his candidacy, a hurricane gathered behind him. The name of that hurricane was Wesley Clark.

[click the pic]

Poor John Edwards. He should fire the campaign staffer who refused to reschedule his announcement in the face of the predictable tide of Wesley Clark coverage.

But if Clark does indeed win the nomination, I hope he chooses Edwards to be his VP. Edwards is an appealing candidate not just because he's a telegenic Southerner, but also because he has fashioned the most detailed and imaginative policy proposals of any candidate in the race.

His message -- that Bush has embraced crony capitalism and abandoned the working class -- is the most lethal of those espoused by the candidates. With Clark calling Bush on foreign policy and Edwards hitting him on economic policy, I think the two would make an excellent team.

According to this article in the Washington Post, Howard Dean has asked Wesley Clark to join his campaign if Clark decides against joining the presidential race next week. This will surely set off another round of "He'd Sure Make A Great VP" speculation among Dean's adulators.

Continue reading over at The Clarksphere...

Here's an exchange I saw last night on CNN:

Reporter: Governor [Dean], how would you vote on the $87 billion?

Dean: I'm not in congress, I'm not gonna--

Reporter: It's the most important matter before the U.S. Congress, you want to be president--

Dean: I doubt that very much. I'm running for president. I'll tell you what I'm gonna do, but I'm not gonna tell you how I'd face an issue that is not of my making."

So let's get this straight: Dean advocates sending more troops into Iraq and continuing the reconstruction effort, but he won't tell us if he'd vote to pay for it because the issue is not of his making? Aren't presidential campaigns all about telling voters how you'd respond to the problems the other side created?

Dean's entire campaign has been based on assailing congressional Democrats for their votes on Capitol Hill. In fact, he rose to prominence by informing partisans that, had he been in congress, he would have voted against the war resolution and the president's tax packages.

I have been watching Dean since my last post on him, thinking that maybe the frontrunner warranted a second look. At that time, I merely thought he was unelectable. Now, I thoroughly dislike him. Far from a straight shooter, Dean is a Park Avenue Populist who plays it coy when anyone tries to pin him down on specific issues.

Here are a few examples of Dean double-talk:

Dean flip-flopped on Social Security by stating the retirement age should "absolutely" be raised, then claiming in a debate that he had never advocated the change. He was later forced to admit that he had, in fact, supported raising the retirement age, but that he didn't support it now.

Dean said it would be "a huge issue" for John Kerry to forgo public financing, but months later, rolling in his own campaign dough, he began to drop hints that he would do the same.

Dean strongly supported trade pacts such as NAFTA as governor of Vermont. But now, in pursuing the AFL-CIO endorcement on the campaign trail, he repudiated his earlier unconditional support and embraced the opposite extreme, demanding that U.S. trading partners adopt U.S. labor and environmental standards. Later, when confronted with the consequences of such a policy, Dean equivocated again on the latter position, stating he would require adherence to international rather than U.S. standards.

Dean supported relaxing sanctions on Cuba, then changed his mind after Castro's recent crackedown on dissidents. It begs the question: Is this a new development? Hasn't Castro always had an oppressive regime that stifled dissent? What is the point of formulating a policy toward Cuba if it oscillates with each day's headlines?

Dean made another misstatement in the second Democratic debate, saying he was "the only white politician that ever talks about race in front of white audiences." Tell that to Joe Lieberman, who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Or John Kerry, who frequently mentions his experience serving with African-Americans in Vietnam. Or John Edwards, the senator from minority-heavy South Carolina, who urges racial tolerance in nearly every speech.

(Also, in the Yet Another Foreign Policy Gaffe department, Dean told supporters at a recent rally that "it's not our place to take sides" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.)

As Joe Klein put it:

"The question is: How many of Dean's positions are negotiable? As victory becomes a possibility, how much integrity will he compromise to win? Another question: How long before Dean's tough talk—the apparent candor that propelled his charge—begins to seem arrogant, uninformed, unpresidential?"

Dean will continue to play coy when he's asked what he would do in the place of those he criticizes. But we already know one thing: Howard Dean says one thing, and then he says another.

As evidenced by the dearth of posts, I haven't really been thinking about politics much lately. But when I do, here are a few of those forbidden places my train of thought sometimes leads me to:

1. Boy, am I glad Al Gore wasn't the president on September 11, 2001.

For reasons I stated here. The Gore Administration would have been seen as an extension of the wrist-slapping, soft-on-terror Clinton Administration. Gore himself would have operated under a cloud of impeachment, and his approval ratings would have been at lows not seen since the Carter administration.

Even after toppling Saddam Hussein (which, by the way, Gore would have done as well), the Democrats would have almost certainly lost the presidency in 2004. Furthermore, they would have earned the public's distrust on the national security issue for yet another generation.

2. Gee, it's a good thing the terrorist attacks didn't occur closer to November.

After pledging themselves to bipartisanship and unity, both parties bade each other not to use the terrorist attacks for partisan political purposes.

But almost immediately, the Republicans began to exploit September 11. They gave away commemorative 9/11 trinkets at fundraisers, and even sold pictures of Bush flying in Air Force One on that day.

The Republicans also began to paint Democrats who criticized the president on homeland security or Iraq as unpatriotic, terrorist-coddling, blame-America-first liberals.

But the most egregious exploitation of Sept. 11 is yet to come. Next year's Republican convention is scheduled for Sept. 3, probably the latest convention date for that party in the last century. The strategy is clearly to extend Bush's post-convention bounce through the Sept. 11 commemoration period.

Had the terrorists attacks occured in, say, October, the Republicans would have similarly used the commemoration for partisan purposes, and sprinted like hell from then to Election Day.

3. I hope the U.N. rebuffs the United States on this latest resolution.

The Bush Administration's actions are a perfect lesson in how not to prosecute a war. Before the war, the administration was both arrogant and dishonest. It spent months belittling our allies and the United Nations, and misled the American people about the threat posed by Iraq.

You see, my problem is not that the United States decided to go it alone, but rather, the fact that we shouldn't have had to. For years, the Bush administration has shown contempt for international institutions and treaties, causing resentment that culminated in a worldwide rebellion over Iraq. Had we leveled with the rest of the world, we may well have had a "coalition of the willing" to end Hussein's regime and shoulder the burden of reconstruction. Instead, the administration's fearmongering made unilateral action a necessity.

Now, though, we are groveling for the United Nations to step in and help us. Our requests should be rebuffed, at least initially, because this administration is no more humble than it was six months ago, and because the neocons need to lie in the bed they have made.

4. I hope it becomes clear that Al Qaeda is in Iraq.

Those with simple minds will call this casualty-mongering. It's not more casualties that I hope for, but rather, clear, unretutable evidence that the ongoing attacks are the result of reconstituted Al Qaeda elements that we left to regenerate in Afghanistan.

We invaded a country that had nothing to do with terrorism against the U.S. and, through abysmal postwar planning, created a hornet's nest that now has Arab fighters flowing in from all sides. "Bring them on," our president said in a moment of stupefying ignorance, as it became clear that the troops were fighting a guerilla war.

The American people need to know that, unlike before the war, the secular Baathists and islamic terrorists are now fully allied against a common enemy. If Saddam Hussein did indeed harbor chemical or biological weapons, he now has no incentive to refrain from turning them over to Al Qaeda.

5. I hope North Korea declares itself a nuclear power.

Furthermore, I hope it holds a nuclear test to put an exclamation point on that statement. Why? Because nothing, so far, has gotten the American people to pay attention to a threat that is far greater and more imminent than Iraq ever was.

For over a year, Bush himself antagonized the North Koreans and refused to even talk with them (until just recently). Then, eager to corral public support for an invasion of Iraq, the administration downplayed the North Korean threat and allowed the problem to fester while the Koreans worked feverishly toward a nuclear deterrent.

A nuclear declaration, I think, is the only thing that will force the administration to acknowledge the gravity of the situation and address the problem head-on.

6. Thank God for the United States military, because this administration hasn't done anything else right.

Leadership requires more than pointing to a map and allowing the military to unleash its B-52s and smart bombs. And the fact is that, even when we put aside its dismal domestic record, the Bush administration has been thoroughly incompetent in all things.

The last three thoughts in particular, I think, are unfortunate but necessary developments, for they will make it crystal clear that the Republican stewardship of the past three years has been a disaster for this country.

Now that the rumors of a possible presidential run by Hillary Clinton have been debunked, Democrats who actually care to win the election can breathe easier.

Republicans, who were probably heartened at the prospect of a "Hitlery" candidacy, will have to redouble their efforts to prepare for a race against Howard Dean or Wesley Clark, either of which can beat George W. Bush.

I've really never understood the fervor with which the pundits and partisans have cheered on the political career of Hillary Clinton. Her accmplishments remain few and far between. She is more wooden and dispassionate than Al Gore. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard Hillary discuss an issue without feeling she was motivated more out of ego and political ambition than some transcendent duty to foster the common good.

Hillary Clinton, like Dick Gephardt, makes my stomach turn. And barring some Giuliani-like transformation, I do not want her as my president. Not now, not ever.

In the end, the excitement surrounding Hillary makes one thing clear: There is little difference between Democratic partisans and the Republican stalwarts they love to ridicule. Like the Republicans, Democrats would clear the field for an empty suit with little political experience, more starstruck by their candidate's last name than proud of the person's history of public service. The "bases" of the parties are the same, really, in that their standard-bearers exemplify the low regard with which the followers regard the presidency.

An election in which Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee would likely mark the third time I support a Republican. (I supported John McCain over Gore in 2000, and Sam Katz for Philadelphia mayor over John Street in 1999.) Her eventual candidacy is not some grand achievement to be heralded, but rather, a looming electoral train wreck for the party.

Maybe I'll just stay home and watch her lose in a landslide in 2008. Either way, her supporters need to learn a lesson about their lemming-like behavior, and this race to the bottom has to stop.

Prometheus posted this comment:

I agree with your analysis regarding what his impact will be on the race, but now I'm the one getting irritated with delays. After repeatedly indicating he would announce around the end of August, if he now waits until mid-September, supposed indecisiveness likely becomes the meme. Why the most recently suggested delay, in your opinion?

I couldn't agree more. There is no need for Wesley Clark to wait until after the financial reporting deadline. If that deadline is, in fact, in mid-September, Clark could announce immediately and simply file the official papers later.

Clark has until about three or four days after Labor Day to announce that he's running. After that, his delays will begin to cause serious damage to his candidacy. Memes will spread that the general doesn't know what he wants to do. That he's timid, indecisive, or worse, afraid of the Howard Dean juggernaut.

When he does announce, the exasperated press will swoon no longer. "FINALLY," the headlines will read. Rather than channeling his vision for America with McCain-like softballs, reporters will demand "what took you so long?"

The general perception will be that the general acquiesced to the Draft Clark movement rather than decisively rising to the challenge. The Deanies will sneer that their guy wants to be president while Clark had to be dragged into the race.

Wesley Clark has until the end of next week before the story mutates. If the rumored Hillary meeting takes place, the press will explode with speculation and Clark could be out of the spotlight for at least another week. If he still won't even call himself a Democrat by that point, then the damage will be manyfold.

If he is, in fact, going to wait until the 19th, he must do two things. First, acknowledge that he would run as a Democrat. We know he's nonpartisan, but he needs to at least acknowledge the practical course of events. Second, stop saying "I haven't made a decision" and start saying "I've made my decision, and I will announce it on [date]."

We know Clark is brilliant. Now, it's time to find out if he's politically savvy.

Spurious rumors of a Hillary Clinton candidacy aside, the only remaining threat to Howard Dean's march to the nomination is Wesley Clark.

Ironically, Howard Dean himself has invalidated the argument that it's too late for a tenth candidate to jump into the race. His surge in support has made the race so lopsided that all the other campaigns are either on life support or rolling merrily toward defeat in January. The Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards and Graham campaigns are now low-hanging fruit for the Clark campaign to pick.

We've all heard the repetitive stories about how a Clark candidacy would hurt each candidate. But I'm willing to take that assessment a step further: The quickness with which the Wesley Clark campaign materializes and gains legitimacy will stun the other candidates and suck up all remaining oxygen from the race. Several big-name candidates will not make it to Iowa, much less Super Tuesday, instead casting their lot with Wesley Clark and against Howard Dean.

The sequence of events, at this point, is quite predictable. Not only are fence-sitting donors and "neutral" politicos still waiting to commit to a candidate, but the perturbed grassroots supporters of several candidates are also likely to defect to a viable candidate.

With a Clinton-Soros money machine and a swooning press on his side, Clark's Iowa and New Hampshire supporters will arrive not from the grassroots, but from the other campaigns. Kerry's candidacy is over the day Clark announces, plain and simple. His supporters know that there is no plausible way the man can win. John Edwards, mired in single digits after a barrage of television ads, will drop out and run for reelection to the senate. Joe Lieberman, for all his recent bomb-throwing, will become another Bob Graham, a man with good national security creds but little reason to continue wasting his time campaigning for the top spot.

Despite the fact that Dean has been working like hell to garner as many endorsements as possible (and therefore sustain the growing perception that his candidacy is inevitable), Dean will spin his failure to gain party support by casting Clark as The Establishment Candidate.

Dean's backers will spread memes that Clark isn't garnering support on the merits, but rather, out of some backroom conspiracy with Lieberman and the rest of the DLC Mafia. Furthermore, they will point to Clark's initial lack of specific policies as evidence that he is the George W. Bush to their John McCain.

It is closer to the truth, though, to view Clark as playing R.F.K. to Dean's Eugene McCarthy. We never got to see that contest through to the end. This one promises to be just as surprising.

A few months ago, in the aftermath of Gulf War II, I opined that the Democratic nomination would come down to a fight between Howard Dean and John Kerry. I stated that Kerry would do well to sieze the moment and attack Dean mercilessly:

This is one moment -- a brief one -- when pro-war candidates can bask in the military victory in Iraq before Bush's atrocious postwar planning and economic issues begin to userp the headlines. Kerry would do well to drive home the point Joe Leiberman made during the debate: "No democrat will be elected in 2004 who isn't strong on national defense, and this war was a test of that."

The contest is over, and the winner isn't John Kerry. You see, Kerry could have gained new life by challenging Dean head-on, but he left that work to Joe Lieberman, instead running a listless, uninspired campaign that has left him in a steady decline.

There is but one frontrunner now, and that person is Howard Dean. You can forget the headlines for the next four months; even if some explosive allegation were to emerge in, say, November, it is difficult to see any other candidate surging ahead. It has become clear that Dean is by far a better campaigner (and therefore a better nominee) than any of the other eight candidates. If the current field remains static, the nomination will be his.

Of course he's running.

Silly me.

The Tough Democrat thinks the media hooplah over John Kerry's cheesesteak debacle is unfair:

...if there is any more evidence for the proposition that the press just hates John Kerry, I don't think it's necessary any more. I guarantee you that each candidate, every week, has a small screw-up like this on the road. But for this one, the press started to sneer and hiss because it allowed them to write, in a factual way, about why they think Kerry is weird, and to let the rest of us in on the jeering.

Point taken. Those reporters can be such dicks, can't they?

Still, though, there's an important message Kerry's campaign should take from this episode. It's not just about the nature of the press, but rather, popular perception of their own candidate. Think about it: would partisans, pundits and the press have relayed the details with such glee if, say, Gephardt couldn't handle the sandwich? Lieberman?

During the 2000 campaign the press, with prodding from the Republicans, jumped on every Gore misstatement and presented it as evidence that Gore had problems telling the truth. Sure, most of those claims have long since been debunked. But the fact that they were allowed to spread during the campaign pointed to serious preexisting concerns with the candidate himself.

Al Gore's willingness to fudge the facts (such as in his debates with Bill Bradley) gave plausibility to the argument that he was a habitual liar with no real convictions, eager to say anything just to get elected.

Kerry, likewise, is stiff, insecure and seemingly unable to level with voters and speak from his own heart. Furthermore, he is seen as an arrogant Massachusetts aristocrat who wants the presidency not because of some personal calling, but rather, because it's his turn.

Kerry walks and talks the part, with a persona that lends itself well to Saturday night caricatures. He will increasingly be cast as an imposter in events like these, and ridiculed, as Hillary Clinton was for suddenly donning a Yankees cap.

As a native Philadelphian, I have to admit I laughed pretty damn hard reading the story -- louder than I would have if Howard Dean had made the same mistake. Now that I think about it, the equally WASPy Howard Dean would've at least given that sandwich a hearty bite before giving up.

You see, it's not so much about background as it is about personality. And with John Kerry, personality is the heart of the problem.

Today comes news that the Pentagon wants to cut the pay of military personnel currently serving in Iraq:

Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."

The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.

I certainly hope this report turns out to be untrue. But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it is in fact accurate. After all, it follows a long line of doubletalk and broken promises that span the length of George W. Bush's term as president.

Ours is a president who campaigned on a strong but humble foreign policy, yet his administration has repeatedly alienated our allies and made the United States an anathema to the rest of the world. Ours is a president who campaigned on leaving no child behind, then subsequently refused to fund his own educational programs. Ours is a president who presents himself as a friend of the working class, yet his tax cuts provide a windfall to his rich country club buddies at the expense of government services the less fortunate depend on.

Why is it a surprise, then, that Bush, who failed to answer the call of duty himself, would praise the sacrifice of American heroes in Iraq while looking the other way as they shoulder the cost of his economic policies?

I have been suffering, for some time now, from outrage fatigue -- "the notion that the left is knocked so off-balance by the audaciousness of this administration that a coherent response is impossible."

Sure, I want to be outraged -- to howl and yell and blog, anything to get the word out about the shocking and tragic rape of this country. But not so much anymore. Instead, I hold in my anger and redouble my efforts, soldiering on to 2004.

I've been a bit despondent as of late.

Why, you ask? Because the past few months have confirmed what I've long believed about the Democratic candidates running for president: They each have glaring flaws that make George W. Bush's reelection frighteningly likely in 2004.

The script, I think, has largely been written. John Kerry is perhaps the worst candidate -- a stiff, aloof, overpositioning, overcoached, insulated aristocrat who will have plain folk everywhere opting again for the guy who speaks their own language. More insecure than even Al Gore, Kerry is the hold-your-nose candidate who may win the nomination but will inspire precious few working-class voters in the general election.

Richard Gephardt, like Dole, is a tired old has-been who would scrap his way to the nomination only to leave the party coasting warily toward an Election Day train wreck.

Joe Lieberman would send droves of liberals running to Ralph Nader. Game over. (And Lieberman, with his just-happy-to-be-here persona, would probably go down smiling.)

Edwards is the only candidate to marry a cogent indictment of Bush with thoughtful proposals on crucial issues. Yet he is still a virtual unknown and, being to the right of Joe Lieberman, and having little experience and few accomplishments, he has zero chance of winning the nomination.

And as for Howard Dean, well, where do I start? For reasons I've described already (and will continue to point out), Dean cedes the South, women, military types, journalists and pretty much any other group outside of the party's core base.

I'll admit that perhaps I'm being a little too pessimistic. After all, the Bush administration is so deceptive and extreme, the economy so stagnant, the casualties in Iraq so wrenching, that each of the major candidates has a chance at retaking the White House.

But let's not kid ourselves: With the current crop, Campaign 2004 is largely a faith-based initiative, more likely to result in four more years in the wilderness than a 1994-like tide that puts the Democrats back in the driver's seat.

Yet hope remains for proud moderates like myself -- Tony Blair Democrats who wish to be inspired by a positive and uplifting vision rather than raw partisan fervor.

For many of us, the hope is that Wesley Clark will join the race for president. We have spent tens to hundreds of hours, from furtive mousing at work to coordinating Meetups in the field, to build the necessary campaign groundwork should the general decide to run.

In fact, such has been the investment that the slightest insinuendo, casts a pall over one's afternoon. As the imminence of his decision increases, so to does our excitement as we search for some sign that the general is ready to answer the call.

And beneath it all, I think, there is also a bit of fear that Clark may not run -- fear arising from the knowledge that, with the current field, the future is looking rather bleak, indeed.

Robert Novak should have been fired by now.

Prometheus does a great job compiling all the damning details that make Arnold Schwarzenegger's California candidacy a laughable spectacle.

But what if he announced as a Democrat? Can you imagine the critique from the Right?

"Another Hollywood type who is out-of-touch with mainstream American values thinks making sadistic movies has somehow prepared him to oversee the world’s fifth largest economy? He’s not ready to be dog catcher in Mayberry."

"He’s a horrible role model for children. The violence, the steroids, the womanizing. The Democrats should be ashamed to have him. Hell, he even talks funny. Uh, don't tell him I said that, okay?"

I wanna post it all, but you can just go on over and read the rest.

It does seem to me that the Republican embrace of Schwarzenegger is blatantly hypocritical. The news networks should roll tapes of these same indignant politicos and pundits telling Janeane Garafalo, Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks to shut up and stick to their day job, and that as entertainers they had no right to even voice their opinions about the looming war. How, by that standard, is the considerably less sharp Schwarzenegger even remotely qualified to run the most populous state in the union, with the world's fifth-largest economy?

Republicans, who say they're only trying to move the state forward and Get Shit Done, will instead accomplish just the opposite. If successful, the recall will herald the spread of a disturbing trend in politics: the permanent campaign. Indeed, elected officials everywhere will be pushed harder to put political expediency before hard choices. They will conceal bad news, lest the partisans pounce on tough times and, feigning outrage, coerce their lemmings into forcing electoral do-overs.

There are still a few of us out there who value some measure of plausible common sense in the political process. We can take heart in the fact that Schwarzenegger will lose to Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante in the recall election.

How do we know Schwazenegger will lose? Because less than a week into his candidacy, the man has already peaked. His slide will hasten, I think, once he begins to discuss major policy issues and the public realizes their star bodybuilder is decidedly lightheaded.

Schwarzenegger will be attacked on the right by the same idiotic and impractical Republicans who got duped into choosing sure loser Bill Simon over sure winner Richard Riordan. And he'll be attacked by California's liberal Left for being, well, a Republican.

But Schwarzenegger (boy is it tiring typing that name), in the end, will be done in by the moderates. With the help of Feinstein, Bustamante, and in no small part the loathsome Gray Davis himself, these voters will slowly realize that gee, $38 billion is a whole lot of money, and this state is in too dangerous a position to hand the reins to some inexperienced celebrity who will need on-the-job training. As the election draws near, look for these people to gradually sober up on Schwhatever's star-studded candidacy.

Personally, I think that once you get past all the hooplah, the real reason California voters should reject him is because Terminator 3 sucked, as did pretty much every other movie he's made in the last decade, save for True Lies. And did you see Jingle All The Way? Even Gray Davis wouldn't have green-lighted that one.

When you really think about it, Ah-nold has already wasted our money, $8 at a time, for a couple of years now. And from the looks of his career, it doesn't look like he'll ever make up that deficit.

According to this New York Times article, the Democratic Party is "perilously out of touch" with young black voters -- mainly 18 to 35-year-olds who grew up after the height of the civil rights movement.

It is a group too important and complex to ignore, many strategists caution, when analysts are predicting another close election.

Democrats have traditionally counted on more than 90 percent of the black vote. Blacks 18 to 35 make up about 40 percent of the black voting-age population, but turnout among young blacks was so low in the 2000 elections that they made up only 2 percent of the entire vote.

Democratic leaders are expressing concern about the disengagement. Young blacks are responding by warning the party not to take their votes for granted.

"Not only do I not see myself as part of the base," Nnamdi Thompson, a 30-year-old investment banker, told Ms. Spencer at the restaurant, "I wish the Democratic Party would stop seeing me as part of its base. We have more power as voters if they have to come and court us."

I certainly seem to fall within the article's described demographic. But I'll say up front that, though I grew up in the heart of North Philadelphia, I can count the number of blacks I've actually been close to on one hand. And, in being largely alien to the vast majority of blacks I've encountered, I'll have to leave the role of Speaker for All Black People to someone else.

I will, however, make two points:

First, the slide in black turnout more or less mirrors that of other groups. Most young people in general seem oblivious to political developments, save for huge events such as Sept. 11 or the war with Iraq. And in those cases, their interest in the political backstory is more in passing than out of sheer intellectual curiosity.

Even in college, I found that students of all backgrounds were maddeningly apathetic and underinformed. If they leaned toward a party affiliation, it was because their parents had belonged to that party -- not because they felt strongly enough about the issues to go out and vote.

In some cases, no matter how sincere the effort, many of these young people are probably lost to both parties. Cynical toward politicians and oblivious toward the real-world effect of political advocacy, many in younger set won't bother connecting the dots until they begin raising kids of their own, paying property taxes, using municipal services, and so on.

Second, among blacks who are politically active, the list of issues is very similar to that of "mainstream" voters: (via Willis)

We now find ourselves in a never-ending nightmare. Thanks to Bush, we are now mired in an unnecessary and expensive war, ruined foreign relations with our long-standing allies, record unemployment, a record-breaking federal deficit, record-breaking numbers of Americans losing their homes to foreclosure, record numbers of African American children living below the poverty line, bankrupt states, cuts in all types of aid programs and educational assistance for the most needy among us, a permanent cloud of anxiety and fear, unfair tax cuts for the wealthy, and the list of horrors just goes on and on.

I think blacks are eschewing party affiliation not because of some specific failing tied to race, but rather, because they are disappointed by the political process in general. Now that traditional Civil Rights-era loyalties are fading, it is becoming clear that both parties are largely ineffectual (or plain inattentive) on longstanding problems that, in the end, affect all Americans.

Serious tasks such as fixing public schools and overhauling Social Security seem largely frozen in time, captive to opportunistic election-year demagoguery on both sides of the aisle. And the problem of poverty in America -- an issue of limited utility to parties pursuing soccer moms -- has largely disappeared from the public consciousness, forgotten by everyone except bitter souls like myself who had to grow up in it.

Democrats won't bring young blacks into the party through Sharptonism -- speeches from the pulpit that appeal to traditional biases rather than common sense. That's because blacks increasingly want what other Americans want: genuine ideas and effective solutions to the problems facing the country. They want innovative plans posited by can-do candidates who inspire optimism rather than fear that those racist Republicans will make things worse.

Then, and only then, will they convert so-called independents like myself into a new generation of inspired Democratic activists.

From Oliver Willis:

Aaron Benson accuses me of giving out literary handjobs to Dean for slamming the party while deriding Lieberman for performing what he sees as a similar function.

Here's the difference: Howard Dean is begging, pleading and cajoling the Democratic Party to act like Democrats. The Lieberman message is basically "let's be just like them except in one or two ways". We tried that last year, and it bombed.

In some ways, adding Lieberman to the 2000 ticket was the first attempt at that same mistake. Putting him on the ticket as a sop to anti-Clinton voters didn't win Gore any more votes, and probably turned off a few who went for Nader. President Clinton succeeded because he presented himself and his party as a progressive alternative to the Republicans. If we don't do that, no matter who the candidate is - we will lose badly.

I disagree, obviously. From the very beginning, Dean has tried to conjure images of do-nothing Democrats sitting in Washington, wringing their hands over Bush and doing nothing to advance the party's agenda.

Dean's Austin television ad underscores this ungrounded and combative angle: "Has anybody really stood up against George Bush and his policies? Don't you think it's time somebody did?" The cynical subtext is conveyed through the use of the word "really." Sure, the other candidates may say a whole lot, but they're not really sincere about standing up for you.

Now, Willis spins this as "begging and pleading with the party" to be Democrats. I say Dean is perpetuating the despicable and opportunistic myth that the Democratic Party isn't out there fighting for working-class America. There is a difference between losing fights on Capital Hill and not fighting at all, but Dean can't be bothered with such nuance.

That meme intersects with the second argument: that any candidate who isn't yelling louder than Dean is not being A Real Democrat. Because, of course, Real Democrats don't agree with Republicans on anything. We have no common ground. And when a Republican advocates something, a Real Democrat reflexively pushes back twice as hard.

This movement, I think, is in no mood for a thoughtful candidate like Wesley Clark -- someone who can articulate our opposition to Bush within a positive overarching vision for the country. Instead, we want someone to serve as a vehicle for our frustration, our anger, and our uncompromising disdain for the DLC and all things Bush.

I'll echo a Dean line: "I'm tired of being divided." But unlike the candidate, I don't think the path is found by tarring any candidate with an iota of nuance and moderation as "Bush Lite."

If Democrats don't want to support Lieberman, then fine. He won't win anyway. But I couldn't disagree more with this noxious idea that speaking and acting like a Democrat involves combatively espousing positions that are always diametrically opposite to what the Republicans say. That's not being a Democrat. That's being a reactionary.

It seems Lieberman has finally thrown down the gauntlet and begun to name names of candidates he feels will lead the party in the wrong direction:

Lieberman Warns Party On Ideology

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), expanding a fight among Democrats, attacked former Vermont governor Howard Dean and several other rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination yesterday, arguing that they have embraced extreme left ideas that threaten to return the party to political exile.

Saying he is in a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, Lieberman said policies rooted in the "vital center" of the political spectrum, not what he termed the antiwar and big government policies of his rivals, provide the only hope of defeating President Bush. He warned Democrats that abandoning the policies that helped elect Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 would result in a terrible setback for the party.

Let's be clear about one thing: Lieberman's candidacy is dead in the water. There is no chance whatsoever that he will even be a contender come January, because he's just now employing the strategy I said he should have embraced months ago, and, more importantly, because he doesn't have the right stuff to pull it off even now.

It's interesting to note the reaction to Lieberman in the blogosphere, particularly from supporters of Howard Dean -- the candidate Lieberman is mainly targeting.

Oliver Willis, a former John Edwards groupie who recently became smitten with the Dean campaign, echoes many Deansters' comments by basically calling Lieberman a DINO -- Democrat In Name Only. "When will Joe Lieberman come out of the closet and admit he's a Republican?" Willis states. "There will be a vigorous contest for the nomination, but Joe has decided to take the very low road on the way there."

Then there are the folks over at the fairly unbalanced Not Geniuses, who state Lieberman "needs to join the attacks on Bush and quit his attacks on other Democrats."

And of course, the Dean Defense Forces are outraged that a Democratic candidate could attack another Democrat:

The real threat to the party's electability next year is now coming from the desperate attacks by the Lieberman campaign, a campaign that can't find traction and is now taking pot shots that reaffirm an outdated view of the Democratic Party.

...we think the Lieberman campaign has already entered dangerous territory. Let them know how you feel by writing info@joe2004.com. Tell them you don't appreciate thinly veiled attacks on other Democrats and you don't appreciate these dangerous memes that could cost us the election next year.

Let's understand the dynamic here. As an oft-dismissed gadfly earlier in the campaign, Dean raised his profile by constantly attacking other candidates -- so much so that he repeatedly had to apologize for getting the facts wrong. But now that Dean is now the frontrunner rather than the insurgent, such attacks are passé to the Deansters, and even "dangerous" to the party.

Lieberman, who lent respectability to Al Gore's laughably inept candidacy in 2000, is attacked as a D.I.N.O when he disagrees with the direction of the party. But when Dean attacks Democrats over the direction of the party, as he's done nonstop for the past year, he gets literary handjobs from swooning bloggers such as Oliver Willis.

I say Lieberman should keep criticizing. He won't become competitive in the race, but at least he's starting an important debate -- one that John Kerry hasn't yet had the courage to engage. And as for the Deanies, well, it's too bad they can't take criticism as well as they dish it out.

Maybe someone can explain to me, rationally, the straight case against gay marriage.

The statements I've seen thus far have been rather vacuous, characterized more by well-I-just-think-it's-wrong dismissals than serious, thoughtful misgivings. Others put forward self-contradicting arguments that are absurd on their face, unwittingly making the case for gay marriage while underscoring the writer's own ignorance.

Here's what you commonly hear once you get the detractors to cease their frantic, seething, hair-pulling, Bible-thrusting frenzy and articulate their reasons for opposition:

Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.

A non-argument. Simply re-stating the current definition of marriage does nothing to justify its exclusiveness.

It denigrates the institution of marriage.

I fail to see how husband and wife, upon hearing that the gay couple down the street just got hitched, will subsequently flush their rings down the toilet and call it quits. How does the prospect of someone else getting married make yours any less meaningful? And how does the idea that others can get married make it a less attractive option for men and women who love each other? Another non-argument.

Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species.

No, procreation is for ensuring our continuation, and I think nature has that part set on auto-pilot. I've seen some strange arguments against gay marriage, but I don't think even the most extreme conservatives would argue that gay marriage will cause people to stop fucking.

But marriage IS for procreation.

Wow, really? They should require fertility tests, then, when straight people apply for marriage licenses. And no old people, either. They need procreation like they need to be behind the wheel of a car.

Slippery slope: People will want to marry children.

There is an entire body of national and state law that states children do not have the right to make adult decisions until, well, they become adults. Those laws have never been eroded, and they won't be invalidated by gay marriage either.

Slippery slope: People will marry their dogs!

Riiight. Allow consenting adults to marry, and suddenly there will be no defense against inter-species marriage.

This is a silly, flailing argument that nevertheless needs to be addressed so we can move on to more serious discussion. Animals, like children, cannot legally give consent to such pairings. Therefore, I think we're on solid legal grounds when we exclude bestiality. Reductio ad absurdum is the last refuge of those who cannot put forth a rational case.

Slippery slope: Incestuous family members will want to marry!

Please. First, such relationships involving children are child abuse, plain and simple. And as a rule, adult incestuous relationships are discouraged, if not outlawed, because of the danger inbreeding poses to the potential offspring of such unions. Unfortunately for anti-gay zealots, gays don't have the capability to produce deformed offspring.

Slippery slope: Groups of people will marry!

Then why hasn't group marriage occurred in any of the countries that already allow gay marriage?

Besides, there are plenty of legal reasons to limit the number of individuals who can be part of a marriage contract, one of them being the need to prevent fraud -- groups of people getting together and sucking resources from the system like it's some group discount at BJ's.

Gay marriage allows gays to recruit more members.

Ah...now we're getting down to the real reasons people oppose gay marriage: fear and loathing of homosexuals, and a belief that gays simply wish to make their "lifestyle" more attractive to lure more straight folk.

This is the argument implied by Deb, the detractor I linked to above: "To me, being gay for some is the only way that otherwise really awkward people can 'fit in' to a group. Who wouldn't 'choose' that over being isolated, especially now that our entertainment industry has glorified being gay to such a huge extent."

So, all gays started out as "awkward" people who found their true calling in having sex with other men/women. Like I said, absurd.

Next, they'll want adoption.

And then, of course, gays will recruit the children and abuse them, much like the catholic church.

This argument is an appeal against gay adoption, the merits and drawbacks of which can be debated later. It does not directly address the issue of gay marriage, since many straight couples do not have children.

Second, the argument implies that exposure to gays is inherently harmful to children. Deb, the writer I linked to above, made a particularly revealing comment to this effect -- one that goes to her own laughable ignorance:

Case in point...I have a friend who's gay. He has pictures of naked men all over his apartment. He's a great guy, very nice, very responsible and very successful. Should he be allowed to adopt a child if he gets married to his boyfriend? Would you put a child in a hetero home with pictures of naked women (or men) all over the walls?

The none-too-clever insinuation is clear: Gays, while "nice" and "responsible" on the surface, are voracious horndogs whose obsession with sexuality would undoubtedly spill over into their child-rearing. Placing kids with these people is akin to child abuse.

And while I'm at it, I'll offer one final, damning quote from Deb:

I'm fairly sure those with my view are going to lose in the end. Can't put the genie back in the bottle and all...But I'm sad about it. I do see that our society/culture is taking a nosedive in the civility and focus on the common good sense. Not sure it was ever really that strong except for a time in the mid-fifties (if you were white), but still.

Uh-huh.

Overall, opponents of gay marriage can't offer a reasonable case against gay marriage because there is none. They appear to be motivated more by the "yuk" factor than any broader, rational concern for society.

It's been said elsewhere, and I think it bears repeating: "These arguments serve mainly to obscure the issue, not illuminate it. Conservatives say they abhor gay marriage because they value marriage. The truth is they abhor gay marriage because they abhor gays."

Now comes word (via Prometheus) that the Dean camp plans to run campaign ads in Texas.

Dean Campaign to Run TV Ads--in Texas

Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean will begin running a combative anti-Bush television commercial Monday--in Texas only.

In the ad, which Dean taped last Wednesday in Council Bluffs, Iowa, he wears a blue, open-necked work shirt, faces the camera, and says, "I want to change George Bush's reckless foreign policy, stand up for affordable healthcare, and create new jobs... Has anybody really stood up against George Bush and his policies? Don't you think it's time somebody did?"

The media buy cost between $100,000 and $200,000, U.S. News has learned. It will run in Austin, 87 miles away from where Bush is vacationing in Crawford.

So let me get this straight. Thousands of none-too-wealthy contributors pitch in to aid in Dean's fundraising success. But rather than spend the money prudently, his campaign sees fit to squander large wads of cash in an audacious publicity stunt?

Some say this move proves the candidate is bold and ballsy. I disagree. I think this sort of spectacle is indicative of the ever-widening stature gap between Howard Dean and the president. That they would go nipping at the president's heels on his way to vacation underscores the Dean campaign's tendency to engage in petty, bring it on-ish venting rather than cultivate an image of a serious and concerned candidate who is ready to govern at a crucial point in the nation's history.

The news of Dean pouring resources into Texas -- a state in which he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning -- reminds me of Gov. Bush's trips to California and New Jersey in the waning days of Campaign 2000. Bush's advisers told him that he was doing great. That he already had the election in the bag. That it would be fun to "run up the score" and stick it to the Dems one last time.

Bush and his faithful must have enjoyed high-fiving the fringe-state Republicans along his victory lap. They were shocked, too, to watch on Election Day as Al Gore nearly pulled off the Pennsylvania-Michgan-Florida trifecta to guarantee himself the presidency.

Sure, the first primary vote is over 4 months away, but this kind of irresponsible move isn't promising. As a Dean detractor in a battleground state (Pennsylvania), I'd much rather he address the serious concerns about his candidacy than whoop up his angry partisans by projecting ads into the heart of Bush Country.

For now, I hope the Deanies have fun gloating that they are carelessly making hay in the belly of the enemy. If this attitude continues into the general election, that statement will be more accurate than they think.

That's right. After all the posts and e-mails, I found my head spinning with Dean talking points at 5:30am. After a full day of point-counterpoint, I now have debate fatigue. I think I'll just go to bed and try to get the candidate out of my head.

We'll come back and revisit these predictions six months from now...

The Davis recall effort will fail. Oh, Davis will be removed, alright. The Republican turnout will be too high (and Davis' approval ratings too low) for him to remain. But if Davis' poll ratings are still dismal by the filing deadline, the Democrats will put a popular Democrat on the replacement ballot as an alternative.

It's the second half of that ballot that will be the Republicans' undoing. They will be fractious as ever, and, in refusing to unite behind a single candidate, they'll fumble away any chance at electoral redemption. Sure, it's possible that the Dems won't run a candidate, they're not that stupid.

Well, maybe.

Condi Rice stays. The blogosphere is buzzing now that she's in the crosshairs of the media. But not to worry, the Republicans need her too much to cut her loose. Hell, they already lost J.C. Watts, so Condi and Colin are all they've got left.

Yeah, they've got big plans for Condi. Look for her to run for California governor after the Republicans lose the recall effort.

And while we're at it...

George Tenet stays. Because he's more dangerous cut loose from the administration than working for it. Simple as that.

Howard Dean's goes down. Look for him to be attacked, ferociously, during the September-October period. And the perpetrator will be none other than John Kerry.

This is not to say Dean won't keep raking in money or stay competitive in the polls. That said, the honeymoon will be over. Dean will be confronted with questions about whether he performed abortions, whether there's more to the Vermont miracle than meets the eye, and whether he's just too mean and unpresidential to be president.

Dean will never be able to transition his demeanor from that of a brusque, stubborn gadfly to a thoughtful, presidential candidate. He will never outgrow concerns about his electability, but rather, he'll give them more credence, and his big mouth will continue to get him into trouble. And just as Dean's perpetual anger starts to get old, he will attempt to lure more moderates into the fold by playing up his centrist credentials, causing the ultra-left to cast an eye toward Ralph Nader.

The uranium flap blows over. It's already getting old, Bob Graham's comments notwithstanding. Problem is, the Democrats needed to sustain that story by systematically pointing out other embellishments, such as the claim that Iraq's WMD could be ready within 45 minutes, or that the aluminum tubes were for producing nukes, or that we had "found the weapons of mass destruction" when troops found two trucks that turned out to be anything but. Or, to seize a ripening story, the contention that the Saudis are allies in the war on terror rather than enablers of terrorism.

The Republicans were great at painting every Gore misstatement as part of a broader character flaw. The Democrats just aren't as good.

Several Democratic presidential candidates drop out...but nobody important will leave before the first votes are cast. Look for Moseley-Braun to bite the dust early. Then Bob Graham will end his useless candidacy. After that, Kucinich and Lieberman will wise up, with Dean finally going down after Super Tuesday.

Joe Biden doesn't enter the race. I saw him on Meet the Press. He sounded great, and might make a good VP. But again, he will not run for president.

Wesley Clark enters the race. This will effectively mean the end of John Kerry, who cannot win New Hampshire with a charismatic military man on his flank. Kerry's own minions will slowly realize this and jump on the Clark bandwagon, as will the Dean-By-Default moderates.

Not sure if he'll run? I saw Clark's last two television appearances. Mark my words: he's in.

I used to think John Kerry was the only candidate with a chance in hell of getting nominated and beating Bush. But at this point, the more I see of him, the less I can stand him.

Kerry, you see, is a tactician rather than a strategist. Rather than articulate broad principles and stick with them, he tries to milk the day's top story for maximum political payoff. Easily the most insecure Democratic candidate, Kerry constantly second-guesses and nuances his statements. He does this so much, in fact, that his overall position becomes contradictory in all but the narrowest of readings.

Witness Kerry's latest repositioning, part of his ongoing flip-flop over the war with Iraq. Kerry is "angry," he keeps telling us using his best Dean impression, that the president "misled every one of us" in explaining the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Bush relied on faulty intelligence (no surprise there), he says, and he should be held responsible.

Mmm-hmm...

Hmm.

Wait a minute. Didn't Kerry rely on that same evidence when he voted to authorize force last year?

Yes, he did. In fact, Kerry is trying to have it both ways again: "Kerry qualified his support Monday, saying it was the correct vote 'based on the information that we were given.'"

So if the president is guilty of exercising bad judgement or, worse, misleading the American people, what does that say about his pro-war accusers in Congress?

You see, Kerry isn't some freshman; he's been in the Senate for a long, long time. And if his support for the war was based wholly on a perceived threat of Iraq's weapons, then why should I believe he would make better decisions as president?

I firmly believe that Kerry will defeat Howard Dean in the New Hampshire primary, as fence-sitting voters come to their senses. But if Kerry can't get his story straight on why he supported war with Iraq, then it will be his downfall.

Posted in its entirety, from Angua:

Reasonable left-of-centre blogger: Fact. Link. Opinion.
Left-wing nutcase: This proves Bush is Hitler!!!! And he was selected, not elected. Oiillll!!!! Quagmire!!!!!
Right-wing sane person: Another fact. Polite opposing opinion.
Left-wing nutcase: You are an ugly smelly troll. You make no sense. You are connving and evil. All conservatives are dumber than rocks. You shouldn't engage in ad hominem attacks, you baby-killing fat Texan racist!
Left-wing sane persons: ....crickets churping.... tumbleweeds rolling....
Right-wing nutcase: You must want to f*ck Saddam! I love Bush!!! I hate Canadians!!!
Left-wing sane persons: Aren't we so cool and neat and amazing that no one on our side ever acts this nutty and inconsiderate?

"As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible, but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind? And what you can bequeath to this anxious world is the light of liberty.

That is what this struggle against terrorist groups or states is about. We're not fighting for domination. We're not fighting for an American world, though we want a world in which America is at ease. We're not fighting for Christianity, but against religious fanaticism of all kinds."

There is no American politician alive today who has the simple eloquence of Tony Blair. Yet his speech, while elevating and inspiring, was also somewhat saddening, we it provided a glimpse of those qualities so lacking in our own leaders.

I supported the war with Iraq for a variety of reasons, but two stuck out as the most important.

The first was the belief that Saddam Hussein's chemical/biological weapons were weaponized, mobilized, and could quickly be deployed against Saddam's enemies or fall into the hands of terrorist groups. The second was that Hussein had a nuclear program that, if unchecked, would soon allow him a deterrent capacity (like North Korea) and also encourage other nations to pursue their own nuclear weapons.

The premises of these two reasons, based on U.S. intelligence and the word of the president, now appear to be false.

This is the trouble, I think, that presents itself when we examine Blair's sublime platitudes against the nagging principles of everyday democracy. Namely, those principles dictating that when democratic nations ask their citizens to shed blood in war, those governments must first be honest and forthright about the reasons for such a war. And while we may well find weapons buried in gardens or hidden in far-flung deserts, it has become apparent that Iraq was not an imminent threat either to its own neighbors or the United States.

It is against this new backdrop of cynicism that one recognizes the red herring that was Blair's address. Indeed, the purpose of his speech may have been to defend the war with Iraq, but it was delivered in the rhetoric of the global struggle against terrorism, so as to invoke images of murderous mullahs in all their fanaticism.

Both Bush and Blair have attempted this strategy, blurring the line between Sept. 11 and Iraq so that, to the traumatized American psyche, there is no longer any difference between the two. They are both guilty of appropriating the lofty language of one righteous struggle in order to advance a conquest already years in the making.

"Destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do. And our job, my nation that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond, our job is to be there with you."

Bush and Blair are, in the end, one and the same, as their fates have become intertwined in this web of platitudes. Their web grows heavier with deceit each day -- so heavy, I think, that they will go, eventually, down into the pit together.

After sizing up the Democratic candidates, I've come to the conclusion that, no matter which of the Democratic candidates wins the nomination, the result will be the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004.

Why? Well, we can start with the Democratic frontrunner du jour, Howard Dean. Liberals seem convinced they've found The One, but Dean will actually be the easiest of the top-tier candidates to defeat. That's why Karl Rove wants him, and it's also why the other campaigns, while surprised by his financial surge, are hardly suffering defections.

Dean is neither a McGovern nor a Dukakis. Rather, he is a cross between them both, having the ability to both fire up liberal partisans and trumpet his moderate gubernatorial record. He also carries their weaknesses: soft on defense, anti-tax cut (read: pro-taxes) and socially liberal.

(If Dean is both McGovern and Dukakis, then Bush is surely a combination of their opponents: Bush 41 and Richard Nixon. He is a son of privilege, out of touch with suffering working-class and low-income Americans, and he is secretive and deceitful, marred by a willingness to mislead the country for his party's partisan ideological ends.)

The Bush campaign will borrow from the playbook of both campaigns. Dean, whose foreign policy vision is easily described as "I'm against everything Bush does," will be tarred as an implicit pacifist, unwilling to use force when most Americans think it is necessary. Unlike fellow loser Graham, Dean's opposition to the war has not been characterized by forceful rhetoric on finishing the war on terror, but rather, an unsettling hostility and indifference toward American military power. As Democrats should have learned from 1968, Middle America would rather have a president who is strong and wrong than someone they see as a panderer to reactionary, Blame-America-First liberals.

Get ready for campaign ads explaining how Dean boasted of spending months skiing in Colorado after receiving a medical deferment from service in Vietnam. The ads will also repeat a Dean quote from Meet the Press: "I do not have foreign policy experience." So much for that Bush vulnerability. Voters will never trust Dean on national security, despite his claims that he's qualified on the issue because he defended Vermont from terrorism.

Dean's weaknesses don't end with foreign policy. He wants to repeal all the Bush tax cuts, including those to middle- and lower-income families, effectively offering the kind of pro-tax increase platform that voters resoundingly rejected in 1984. He voiced support for raising the Social Security retirement age, but now says he's against it. He's also changed his position (read: waffled) on the death penalty, and has become a virtual spokesperson for gay civil unions (read: gay marriage).

And all this, before we even begin to examine his record in Vermont. That is, those gubernatorial records that Dean hasn't already sealed.

Those who think Dean's passion will carry him through need to look again. Unlike John McCain, Dean won't be able to get fawning coverage from the press during the general election campaign. The least presidential of all the major candidates, his angry stump speeches, brusque manner with the press and big mouth will work against him, allowing the punditry to dismiss him as a gadfly ("Howard Dean is at it again...").

Of all the major candidates, the case against Dean is the easiest one to make, because he is so easily encapsulated by a few key issues. He is the perfect anti-war, pro-gay marriage liberal, just the sort of Saddamite who makes Bush look like a moderate.

Though he likes to appeal to "southern white folk with confederate flags on the back of their trucks," these people will take one look at Bush's first negative ads and immediately sign up for auto-debit donations to the RNC.

Indeed, like Bush-Dukakis in 1988, the campaign will not focus on Bush's shortcomings, but rather, how goddamn far-out-liberal that "moderate" Democrat guy is. Come November 2, 2004, Bush will win in a landslide, consolidating the South with little effort and pushing the Democrats back to blue beachheads in the Northeast and California.

Those who believe Dean will become the next president are as delusional in peace as they were during war. A vote for Howard Dean is a ticket to four more years in the political wilderness for the Democratic Party.

The Bush administration executed the political equivalent of a trick play last weekend.

Bush's cronies followed the script to a tee, casting blame to CIA scapegoat George Tenet, who took one for the team despite the fact that the CIA had repeatedly warned about specious claims that Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa.

You almost want to feel sorry for the designated fall guy, Oliver Nor-- err, George Tenet.

Tenet, of course, was subsequently forgiven by Bush, who declared his confidence in the man and summarily declared the matter closed.

Watching it all unfold, I can't help but wonder what happened to the George W. Bush who promised to restore honor and integrity to the presidency, and who said he would "change the tone in Washington" and usher in "a responsibility era" as president.

Instead, Bush has gone the route of "No Controlling Legal Authority," obfuscating the issue and splitting hairs ("It's technically true, but we shouldn't have said it."). The White House, the Dept. of State and the CIA are passing the buck like a hot potato rather than than owning up to what amounts to a lie.

The controversy offers a lesson, I think, for the conservatives who love to whine about "the liberal media." While the press is questioning the veracity of the administration's claims, they have largely given the president himself a pass, instead wondering if he will find out who dropped the ball and fire them.

Indeed, a President Gore would never have been allowed to put forth such an intellectually dishonest case for war. Not by the press, not by his base, and certainly not by the Republicans. If he had uttered one-tenth as many half-truths, there would be none of the depersonalized discussions in the press about "exaggerations by hawks within the administration."

Instead, the media and pundits would work themselves into a frenzy. What's wrong with him? the editorial pages would ask. Why is our president a serial liar?

Already operating under the cloud of impeachment after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President Gore's every move would be subject to second-guessing and psychoanalyzing. "Is he really trying to protect the American people, or is he merely overcompensating for the failure of Sept. 11?"

Gore's approval ratings would be at levels not seen since the Carter administration. And unlike the current disheartening Democratic field, the Republicans would be salivating over their chances in next year's election, already tossing about names for the next cabinet.

George W. Bush is a dishonest man, even on issues where soldiers' lives at put at risk. Yet when Democrats criticize the president, they are the liars, the opportunists, the unfit ideologues who are "not interested in the security of the American people," as Bush put it.

And so, even when leveling devastating criticisms at the president, the Democrats wilt under pressure from the perpetually outraged conservative establishment. The president is able to rally his forces, scatter theirs, and carry on while the American public remains none the wiser.

I'm just surprised that the people making this test could actually nail down Kerry on a few positions.

Anyway, the poll ranked the candidates exactly in my order of electability (except for Kucinich, who should be way at the bottom, even lower than Bush).

1. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (100%)
2. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (92%)
3. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (91%)
4. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (88%)
5. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (84%)
6. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (76%)
7. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (72%)
8. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (69%)
9. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (69%)
10. Bush, George W. - US President (23%)

Take the test!

I just watched Howard Dean's appearance on Meet the Press. After a full hour, here's what I imagine voters gleaned about Dean and his views:

-Dean wants to repeal 100% of the Bush tax cuts, and therefore raise my taxes along with the rest of the middle class.

-Dean is willing to raise the retirement age for my social security benefits.

-Dean would give my 12-year-old daughter an abortion without notifying me, the parent, because of the possibility that maybe I caused it.

-Dean supports gay marriage because that's what they did in Vermont. As president, he would want the states to recognize gay marriages from Canada.

-Dean was against the death penalty and now he's for it. The political pundits in Vermont say it's because of his political opportunism.

-Dean wants to send hundreds of thousands more American troops to secure Iraq and Afghanistan, but he boasted about what a great time he had skiing in Aspen rather than serving in Vietnam. He says he'll get military advisors to help him make those decisions once he wins the nomination.

-Dean thinks the Bush foreign policy is making Americans less secure, but he can't/won't say how he will protect me and my family by combating terrorism abroad and securing the homeland.

Of course, many of these perceptions are far off from Dean's actual views. But I only know that because I've followed Dean since he announced his exploratory committee, not because he clearly explained those views in a way that normal, working-class Americans can understand them.

Predictably, the Deaniacs are taking to the Web to decry Tim Russert's big corporate hit job on their candidate. It's funny that they should speak up now, after being so silent when Russert took the same bulldog approach and savaged John Edwards a few months ago. Many of them were even delighted when reporters played "gotcha" with George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign ("Can you name the current leader of Pakistan??"). Now that their golden boy has stumbled on national television, it's a conspiracy. Typical.

A successful candidate parries silly questions like "how many active duty troops are there?" and uses the opportunity to repeat broad themes that appeal to the electorate. Instead, Dean allowed Russert to control the entire discussion, spending much of the hour on the defensive and even bickering, at one point, over whether saying "I'm sorry" constituted an apology to Bob Graham. I'm sure many viewers had deja vu over the meaning of "is."

This was Howard Dean's chance to define himself before a national audience and not only point out Bush's faults, but also set forth a positive vision that would inspire people to support him.

Instead, in a single hour, Dean allowed himself to be defined as a bleeding-edge liberal more along the lines of Dennis Kucinich than John McCain. Worse, he was unpolished, rambling, shifty on his past statements and generally unstatesmanlike. He was unpresidential.

Dean's appearance was a failure, not because he'll lose any liberal activists' support, but because it illustrated faults that are unlikely to diminish over the course of the campaign. There is plenty of time to change, but if Dean's character is any indication, he won't. That said, I've concluded that his candidacy is doomed, and if he wins the nomination, so is the party.

This is my early assessment of the democratic presidential candidates and their chances of winning the nomination. If you're viewing this for the first time, please start with the first post.

Dennis Kucinich

The Good: Kucinich's major political accomplishment was presiding over the city of Cleveland as it defaulted on its loans and nearly went bankrupt. (See "The Worst Mayors") His candidacy is being ignored by serious democratic partisans.

The Bad: Kucinich is the Gary Bauer of the race -- a fringe candidate with such an extreme agenda that he's best ignored rather than engaged on the campaign trail.

He flip-flopped on the crucial issue of abortion when he announced his presidential run (coincidence, of course) -- and then had the nerve to claim his new position was consistent with his long-held views.

The Verdict: Kucinich will win the all-important LaRouche vote.

The Odds: A cold day in hell.

Joe Lieberman

The Good: Lieberman is, for the most part, an honest, likeable fellow. His centrist positions play well with moderate voters, and his anti-hollywood crusades play well with the two or three conservative democrats left in the party.

The Bad: Leiberman has shown a propensity to cater to powerful business lobbies.

His real problem, though, is his character: he's too damn nice to attack any of the current frontrunners and save his campaign. Lieberman needed to separate himself from the pack by claiming the party was on the wrong path, and more stridently declaring his hawkish and family values positions.

In doing so, the race could have been framed as Dean vs. Lieberman: A Battle for the Soul of the Party. Gephardt would have been eclipsed by the bolder Lieberman, and Kerry would have been seen as a waffler in comparison.

Instead, Lieberman is seen as Kerry lite -- a tad more consistent but less electable. His disappointing fundraising totals are indicative of this problem.

The Verdict: Ignore the national polls. Lieberman began the race as a marginalized candidate and he'll stay that way. Everyone respects him, but few will vote for him.

The Odds: 10-1

Al Sharpton

The Good: ?

The Bad: Sharpton is a rather appropriate example of the state of the Democratic party's relationship with its black bloc. The party, which claims credit for embracing and nurturing diversity, cannot produce any black leaders with a national profile to counter an albatross like Al Sharpton. Therefore, the other candidates are forced to glad-hand him for fear of offending the presumed Representative of All Black People.

Sharpton has never apologized for his role in the Tawana Brawley mess. However, he has somewhat made amends for his history of spewing anti-Jewish invective. He is clearly hoping his presidential run will give him a Jesse Jackson-esque bounce in prestige, vaulting him from his Brooklyn stronghold onto the national stage.

The Verdict: While Sharpton may consider himself the new Jesse Jackson, he's more like this year's Alan Keyes. Sure, the party faithful love to hear him speak, but in the end, no one will support him.

Sharpton's only votes will come from disappointingly ignorant black voters.

The Odds: 1000-1

Go to Democrat Derby #2...

This is my early assessment of the democratic presidential candidates and their chances of winning the nomination. If you're viewing this for the first time, please start with the first post.

Richard Gephardt

The Good: Gephardt has the benefit of a favorable primary calendar, with midwestern-friendly states such as Iowa, Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico and Oklahoma on the first three caucus/primary dates. He's experienced and can claim the same small town, fighting-for-working-people argument as Edwards.

The Bad: Old and uninspiring, except for a few brief moments thus far in the campaign. Easy to portray as an interest group-beholden liberal who has flip-flopped on major issues in the past.

Gephardt grabbed the spotlight, briefly, by being first out of the gate with a healthcare proposal. He held center stage until the first debate, when his rivals lustily seized the opportunity to portray his plan -- and him -- as an unweildy (and unpassable) product of old liberalism.

Lieberman said Gephardt's plan was "a big spending liberal idea of the past." Edwards said it "takes almost a trillion dollars out of the pocket of working families." Others lit into him as well, saying the plan would break the bank and was bad for the party.

Beyond the health care issue, Gephardt hasn't put forth any bold, cutting-edge proposals. Other ideas, such as an international minimum wage, just haven't caught on. The rest are a laundry list of traditional special interest issues.

The Verdict: The health care debate provided a blueprint for the rest of the campaign: Whenever Gephardt puts forth a proposal that garners any interest, his rivals will step in, gang up on him, and then offer their own (better) plans.

They know Gephardt has a primary advantage. Consequently, they will lowball their chances in Iowa so much that the second-place finisher (Kerry or Dean) gets more of a "bounce" going into New Hampshire than Gephardt does.

Unless he can get fiery on the stump a la Dean, Gephardt's victory in Iowa will not carry through to a higher standing in New Hampshire. There, the battle between Dean and Kerry will take center stage, with the winner gaining palpable momentum into Super Tuesday. However, if Gephardt can place third in that contest, then he will likely take his share of states on Tuesday. Any worse than third, and he's in serious trouble.

The Odds: 5-1

Bob Graham

The Good: Graham has homeland security credentials and hails from Florida, a must-win state for democrats.

The Bad: Zzzzzzzz. He's is even more boring and uninspiring than Gephardt and Lieberman.

Graham is this year's Orrin Hatch. What's his vision? Nobody knows, or cares.

The Verdict: Graham will be the default choice for VP (unless Evan Bayh slips in). Mission accomplished.

The Odds: 12-1

John Kerry

The Good: Kerry snapped up lots of campaign talent early, and has done a good job of cultivating a de facto frontrunner status, even though he isn't first in announcing his run (Dean), raising money (Edwards) or political experience (Gephardt). Being a Vietnam "war hero" certainly helps as voters look for candidates who have credibility on the national security issue.

Kerry has also shown brief flashes of being likeable.

The Bad: Kerry is the anti-Clinton; He seems unable to articulate clear views that resonate with voters -- and then stick with them. Instead, Kerry takes a position and then continually nuances it, which obfuscates his stand and leaves him open to the popular charge that he's an aloof, overpositioning stiff who tries to have it both ways time and again (and again). This does not bode well at a time when the opposing party is winning elections with bumper-sticker arguments. ("It's not the government's money, it's your money!")

Kerry made a huge blunder by challenging Howard Dean rather than ignoring him. His move elevated Dean from insignificant gadfly to top contender.

Kerry also seems overcoached. He stumbled badly when he called for "regime change" in the U.S. while the country was going to war. (Which campaign aide planted that idea? Visions of Gore.)

There's still plenty of time, but Kerry's campaign still hasn't recovered from these two mistakes.

The Verdict: He doesn't have to place second in Iowa, but the early win over Dean would help. New Hampshire is the key contest though, and if Kerry doesn't win there, his campaign will be put on a permanent defensive. His people will spend more time answering questions than regaining the momentum. If he loses, he might was well pack it in.

If Kerry wins in N.H., he kills off Dean and heads into a Super Tuesday showdown with Gephardt. Survive Super Tuesday, and he wins.

The Odds: 5-1

Go to Democrat Derby #1...

Go to Democrat Derby #3...

This is my early assessment of the democratic presidential candidates and their chances of winning the nomination...

Carol Moseley-Braun

The Good: She a black woman running for president (as she reminds us in every speech). The precedent is good.

The Bad: She's a black woman running for president. But more importantly, her thin political resume is plagued with scandal after scandal, making her presidential bid a joke.

Fox News hilariously pans over all the rows of empty seats when covering her press conferences.

The Verdict: She won't win. Duh. But that's really not important. See, Moseley-Braun knows she has no chance, but she's running for two reasons. First, she'll act as a check on Al Sharpton so he doesn't become a kingmaker of sorts for the black vote. (Since the stodgy old white men can't attack Sharpton themselves, they'll be grateful.) Second, she regains some credibility and stature rather than remaining a one-term political has-been.

If she holds out for a few more months, she'll achieve both goals and be rewarded with either a prominent ambassadorship or a cabinet position in a democratic white house. That, for her, makes it worth it.

The Odds: 1000-1

Howard Dean

The Good: He's the John McCain of the race, only a lot more exciting. When Dean speaks, his straight talk sets democrat partisans on fire. He's mad as hell, and when he's done talking, so are you.

Not only is he a straight talker, but he's also the only outwardly, genuinely passionate candidate in the race. This will help him maverick-friendly New Hampshire. Also, his unassailable health care credentials and strident anti-Bush rhetoric will do well for him in Iowa, where most democrats were against the war.

Dean's fortunes have been steadily rising ever since he scuffled with John Kerry and the DLC.

The Bad: Dean is a fiesty character, but his continued sniping at other candidates is starting to rub media observers and democrat insiders the wrong way. As other candidates turn to serious issues and train their fire on the Bush administration, Dean has started to sound less and less presidential and more like an obnoxious gadfly.

Dean's biggest problem is that he has failed to articulate an positive overarching vision for the country, instead allowing himself to be defined by what he's against ("Dean criticizes Bush / Kerry / Edwards..."). Unless he finds something better to talk about than other people's shortcomings, he will peak early and, assuming WMDs are found in Iraq, fade as a top-tier candidate well before next year's primary.

The Verdict: Clearly, the key to Dean's candidacy is an insurgent campaign that topples Kerry in New Hampshire and carries that momentum forward into other states. If Dean can finish higher than Kerry in Iowa, he can then win New Hampshire and put Kerry into a must-win situation on Super Tuesday. On that day, he must win at least two states, and then take Michigan on Feb. 7. Anything less, and he loses.

The Odds: 6-1.

John Edwards

The Good: Edwards is bright and telegenic, with a Clintonian gift for connecting with crowds and simplifying issues. He runs on his life story of being "the son of a mill worker" and "fighting for working people" throughout his career. And he's a southerner, though that doesn't help him much in the primaries beyond South Carolina. At last tally, he leads in fundraising (but not for long).

The Bad: It's pretty audacious of him to run with only four years of public service under his belt. Edwards is running on his bio because that's pretty much all he has going for him. He lacks the credibility of John Kerry on war matters, Joe Lieberman on foreign policy, Bob Graham on homeland security, Howard Dean on health care or Dick Gephardt on labor issues and trade.

Light on policy, Edwards is trying to gain momentum by stridently criticizing Bush while filling out his campaign with ambitious proposals. There are only so many times you can hear "Mr. President, BRING-IT-ON!" before it gets annoying.

The Verdict: Edwards is Rick Lazio with a brain. That is, he's bright, but ultimately a pretty boy who's dismissible unless a bigger boy stumbles and creates an opening -- much like Giuliani's dropping out of the Senate race allowed Lazio to step in.

Edwards only has a chance if Kerry loses his frontrunner status. But if Kerry loses New Hampshire and Edwards wins South Carolina, then watch out.

The Odds: 8-1.

Go to Democrat Derby #2...

See the newest assortment.

P.S. Is it just me, or is there something just plain wrong with buying those panties?

Lieutenant General James Conway's words on Iraq could come back to haunt the Bush administration:

Conway said he was convinced when U.S. and British troops swept into Iraq from Kuwait that they would come under chemical or biological attack before they reached Baghdad. But such shells have not been found even in ammunition storage sites, he told reporters.

"It was a surprise to me then. It remains a surprise to me now that we have not uncovered weapons ... in some of the forward dispersal sites," said Conway.

"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been through virtually every ammunition supply site between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad. But they're simply not there."

This, along with allegations that the administration manipulated intelligence to support its claims of an imminent threat, has officials retreating again into incoherent arguments to justify the war. Rumsfeld, for instance, is now claiming Iraq may have destroyed the weapons before the war.

Let's examine this for a moment. During the war, Defense Dept. officials said the Iraqis hadn't used chemical weapons because they didn't have time to. How, then, would they be able to destroy tons and tons of chemical and biological weapons during the same period? And how could they do so completely undetected, at a time when virtually the entire U.S. intelligence community was focused on the region?

Rumsfeld's theory falls apart when we consider the strategic realities during the weeks leading to the war. Saddam Hussein knew that his refusal to disarm would lead to war, but that his agreement to disarm could prevent it. Why, then, would he publicly defy the United Nations, but privately get rid of the weapons that would be effective in the resulting war?

Despite officials' flailing attempts to change the subject, a simple, awful truth is gradually emerging in Iraq: The American people were grossly misled on the single rationale that made the country different from other states that defied the United Nations (Israel), abused human rights (Cuba) or brutalized their people (Eritrea).

I certainly hope that renewed efforts to find the WMD are successful. But if they aren't, and if our ADD-afflicted press stays with this story, then it will prove devastating to the administration.

Worse than Watergate, Bush will have defiled the office in ways worse than anything Bill Clinton did.

Bush's Republican cronies would save him from impeachment, but left-leaning hawks like myself could still take solace in the ensuing course of events: Bush deposes Saddam Hussein, but is dragged down in the war's aftermath as the public realizes the full extent of his incompetence. He then loses the election, replaced by a Democrat who would hopefully rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan -- and U.S. credibility -- the right way.

Best line of the evening was from Howard Dean, a physician: "The president's prescription for everything is take two tax cuts and call me in the morning."

Candidate benefitting most from Lieberman's and Kerry's absence: John Edwards. "We should not cede [the national security] issue to a president and a party whose idea of homeland security is plastic wrap and duct tape."

Edwards called Bush "out of touch, out of tune" and said he would be "out of time" after the election. Pointing to the layoffs of more than 3,000 city workers in New York caused by the fiscal crisis affecting states and cities, Edwards said, "The Republicans are planning to hold their convention in New York to showcase the leadership of George W. Bush. I think it turns out to be a great place to showcase the leadership of George Bush."

3,000 Bodies Exhumed at Iraq Mass Grave

Body after body, villagers are exhuming the remains of neighbors and loved ones killed after a 1991 Shiite revolt against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). After nine days of digging, locals said Wednesday about 3,000 sets of remains had been uncovered, including some of people who had apparently been buried alive.

The mass grave in Mahaweel, 60 miles south of Baghdad, is the largest found in Iraq (news - web sites) since U.S. forces overthrew Saddam's Baath Party government last month. Rights groups expect hundreds more to be found in coming months.

Contrast that with the article fronted by the Council for Secular Humanism, which states "We object to the impending war on Iraq on moral grounds." Emphasis theirs.

Like other intellectually dishonest war opposers, it argues around the central issue by criticizing Bush on the Kyoto Treaty, international courts, using religious imagery and having "an increasingly chauvinistic character." Therefore, of course, the war is immoral.

It's hard to move on from this issue when so many people will neither clarify their positions nor admit the incoherence of their arguments. I never thought so many people on the Left could be so collectively myopic. Now I know.

In a rare redeeming act, the Supreme Court rejected Kentucky's attempt to place a huge granite replica of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state Capitol. This story hit a nerve because my county practically did the same thing.

The governor in 2000 signed into law a resolution adopted by the state legislature that required placement of the monument, which is more than six feet tall and almost four feet wide, outside the Capitol. At the top of the monument are the words, "I AM the LORD thy God" followed by the commandments, a sacred and religious text for Jews and Christians. At the bottom are two small Stars of David and a symbol representing Christ.

Why are people so insecure about their own beliefs that they feel this deep-seated desire to have the government endorse those views? And what is it that they don't understand about the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

There is no plausible argument for displaying the Ten Commandments that does not violate the Constitution. Here's Kentucky's argument:

The states said the permissibility of governmental displays of the Ten Commandments raised a question of "national importance." They urged the high court to hold that governments may have such displays to acknowledge the Ten Commandments' historical role in American culture and law.

Hello? Isn't that the problem?

It seems The New Republic is the only left-leaning magazine whose writers have brains these days. Not only does Jonathan Chait point out the folly of war opposers who point to the lack of WMD as proof that they were right all along, but he also makes a point that I've been stating time and time again:

Perhaps the most disheartening development of the war -- at home, anyway -- is the number of liberals who have allowed Bush-hatred to take the place of thinking. Speaking with otherwise perceptive people, I have seen the same intellectual tics come up time and time again: If Bush is for it, I'm against it. If Bush says it, it must be a lie. Their opposition to Bush has made liberals embrace principles -- such as the notion that the United States must never fight without U.N. approval except in self-defense -- to which the Clinton administration never adhered (see Operation Desert Fox in 1998, or the Kosovo campaign in 1999). And it has made them forget that there are governments in the world even more odious and untrustworthy than the Bush administration.

This is a crucial point: Why is it that the liberals who were docile in the face of Clinton's unsanctioned military action in Kosovo and Desert Fox are so vociferously against military action against Iraq today? Why haven't they explained the key differences that suddenly necessitate worldwide consensus, other than the fact that the president is George W. Bush?

The answer is simple: they can't.

Today comes news of more shocking failures by the Bush administration. It seems we didn't even protect WMD sites during our invasion of Iraq:

Seven nuclear facilities in Iraq have been damaged or effectively destroyed by the looting that began in the first days of April, when U.S. ground forces thrust into Baghdad, according to U.S. investigators and others with detailed knowledge of their work. The Bush administration fears that technical documents, sensitive equipment and possibly radiation sources have been scattered.

Hello? Isn't securing the WMD the reason we went to war? How could we invade the country and subsequently allow the sites to be even less secure than they were under Saddam Hussein?

Now, as a Friday bonus, consider the fact that the administration is now acknowledging it can't stop North Korea from developing nukes. I nearly spat out my drink when I saw that headline. This is, of course, the same North Korea whose actions the administration downplayed in the months leading up to war with Iraq. So much for protecting the American people.

I've always viewed George W. Bush as incompetent, stupid and, most importantly, a failed (accidental) leader.

But as I look at the panorama of destruction that will be left in the wake of this administration, from the fiscal destruction of the tax cuts to its ruinous foreign policy, I realize the country's problems go well beyond the vexing idiocy of one man.

The problem is an ADD-stricken American populace that ignores that stories that matter. Anarchy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Insecure borders at home. Eroding civil liberties. Deficits as far as the eye can see.

Rather than being cast as a doomed lightweight, the president is getting high marks and high-fives on aircraft carriers. Saddam and Osama run free, but Americans breath a sigh of relief at news that the fearsome United States military has finally captured the elusive eight of spades.

America has become an intellectually lazy giant, drugged to sleep by tax cuts and smart bombs, raped in the night by a cabal of disengenuous idologues.

Forgive me for mixing analogies.

The country is being looted and run aground as we sleep. It began the day George W. Bush took office. It accelerated after 9/11. And now, after the war, it proceeds full steam ahead.

So I watched the democrats' first debate the other night. Everything that happened pretty much confirmed what I'd already thought about each candidate. I'll post more about each candidate later.

There was one interesting subplot to the evening, though -- one that will prove the first big story of the campaign. It was Howard Dean and John Kerry, sniping at each other all night, as they have in the weeks leading up to the debate.

Why would Kerry, the presumptive front-runner, repeatedly go after underdog Howard Dean? Because several months into Dean's insurgent candidacy, during which he capitalized on opposition to war with Iraq and fired up democratic audiences, he has now pulled even with Kerry in New Hampshire.

Kerry's entire candidacy depends on a win in New Hampshire. He won't win in Iowa, and Leiberman and Edwards are already duking it out for South Carolina. Lose in a friendly Northeastern state, and the Kerry campaign would be on a permanent defensive. The candidate himself would be swallowed up by a sea of candidates eager to steal the momentum for themselves.

In the kind of David vs. Goliath battle New Hampshire voters love, Dean could well slay Kerry. Kerry's managers recognized this, but they couldn't go on the offensive before now. Not without risking a backlash from the rabidly anti-war Hollywood elites and liberal academics who have fervently supported Dean's anti-war position.

Now, though, with the war over and most of the doves' dire predictions proven wrong, the plan is clear: sieze on Dean's typically blunt comments and lack of foreign policy experience to show he doesn't have the national security credentials to defeat Bush. Discredit him, as many anti-war liberals have temporarily been discredited, so that he is marginalized through the remainder of the campaign as the guy who was "wrong on the war."

This is one moment -- a brief one -- when pro-war candidates can bask in the military victory in Iraq before Bush's atrocious postwar planning and economic issues begin to userp the headlines. Kerry would do well to drive home the point Joe Leiberman made during the debate: "No democrat will be elected in 2004 who isn't strong on national defense, and this war was a test of that."

It'll be a contest worth watching.

It's just a whisper now, but it could grow into a roar.

It seems that ever since the first soldiers crossed into Iraqi territory, the ADD-stricken press has been running stories about the fact that no significant quantities of weapons of mass destruction have been found.

At the time, I thought the stories were laughably premature. I still do, sort of, since we've never known exactly where the weapons are stored (if we knew that, the inspectors would have found something, dontcha think?), and since it will take time for the search effort to reach critical mass and produce results.

Still, though, today's story concerns me. Why aren't the Iraqi scientists talking? That they would refuse to be interviewed or provide vital details while being "minded" by Saddam's henchmen is one thing. But why, now, with the nation free of the Baathist menace, are the scientists still denying that there was any functional WMD program in the country?

A scary, horrible thought has begun to creep into my mind: that either the Iraqis are great at hiding vast research programs and weaponry, or the country did not have a WMD program nearly as robust and theatening as the administration claimed.

If the latter is true, then the implications will be devastating, not only for the president himself, but also for the United States' already-damaged credibility in the world.

If it is true, then the Gulf of Tonkin will have occured all over again, and Bush will have "taken the country to war on the wings of a lie," as Tom Friedman stated.

If it is true, then dark clouds will appear over the White House, as Bush will be charged with unnecessarily sacrificing American lives, and ineptly prosecuting wars that left both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein still at large (something that Bush's opponents are unwilling to state due to his current popularity).

I won't rush to judgement. Indeed, I hope we find the tons of toxins that the Security Council repeatedly agreed Iraq posessed. And I certainly still think the war was worth it anyway, as the images on television and stories in the paper assure me each day.

But something tells me they'd better find something before the scandal-obsessed press kicks into high gear. Because if they don't, there will be hell to pay.

The United Nations has become a circus.

I couldn't help but think that today, as I read the news that Cuba has been reelected to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. This is the same one, by the way, that is chaired by Libya, and that the United States was kicked off a few years ago.

This latest spectacle proves of the folly of elevating worldwide consensus to the point where it becomes the ultimate determiner of right and wrong. It becomes especially foolish when that consensus is borne out in decision-making bodies such as the United Nations -- an unelected, dysfunctional, undemocratic bureacracy of states that pursue their own foreign policy aims.

The question must be asked: In the case of Iraq, why is it that so many people suddenly equated such worldwide consensus with morality?

We can reach the answer by examining the people themselves. Many of them revile the American president, and view the United States as the main threat to world security, not Saddam Hussein.

Therefore, in my opinion, their sudden faith in the U.N. was not due to a desire to see world consensus before war with Iraq. Rather, it was a convenient excuse for inaction so as to thwart another exercise of American power.

This is why they did not visibly or vocally oppose war in Kosovo, but rose up so fervently to protect a far worse dictator.

I can certainly identify with those who are disgusted by the current administration. However, I believe today's Left is in denial about even the existence of more pressing issues, namely terrorism, WMD and the genocide commited by despotic regimes. In this case, that denial nearly cost the lives of countless more Iraqis who would have needlessly perished or been imprisoned by Saddam Hussein's regime.

From French philosopher André Glucksmann:

This is exactly the complacency, the crime of complacency, which once made Hitler possible. This complacency has cost us about 50 million lives. It also worked well for Stalin. ‘Better red than dead!’ Pacifism is a kind of complacency. And this complacency continues with Milosevic, with terrorism, with Saddam Hussein; people just want to sleep.

As Peter Burnet said, "We all need principles to interpret this crazy world and ground our hope for a better one. But, left, right, religious, or secular, when our commitment to the abstract is so unthinking we don't see or care about real, concrete horrors, we are lost."

Tonight I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO. This guy, Brian from North Carolina, phoned into the show: "Don't you think the SARS virus could be a terrorist attack, and if so, how can we fight it?"

'Nuff said.

This picture is from a deeply moving article that ran in Thursday's New York Times:

"This is all because of Saddam!" shrieked Ali Majid al-Shamali, in tears, as he waved his arms at the long rows of graves marked with metal signs, well over 1,000 of them. "My brother! My brother!"

He sat on the ground and stroked the dirt on the grave of his only brother, Walid, arrested in October, 1993. A man from another family at the graveyard tried to comfort him. "You lost only one person?" the man asked. "We lost eight here."

Two women in black wailed. Both men started to cry.

These are heartbreaking anecdotes that have become increasingly common, as Iraqis begin to assess the human toll of two decades under Saddam Hussein.

Just last week, hundreds of Iraqis searching for long-lost relatives rushed to a highway underpass because they had heard rumors that it held a secret prison. Prior to that, Iraqis were seen digging in prison yards with their hands and shouting down a well in a desperate attempt to find loved ones imprisoned by Saddam.

Contrast these stories with the reaction of largely anti-war democratic activists on April 9th, the day Saddam's statue fell in the center of Baghdad:

Lieberman used his opening statement to praise Saddam's ouster. "As I saw that statue of Saddam Hussein falling in Baghdad, I could feel the hopes of the children of Iraq for a better life rising," he said. On my recording of the event, one can just hear the faint sound of a lone pair of hands clapping slowly three times and then abruptly stopping, as if cowed into silence by the obvious lack of enthusiasm in the audience.

The crowd was considerably warmer toward Howard Dean, who said "We've gotten rid of [Saddam Hussein] and I suppose that's a good thing," and who later told CNN "we don't know yet" whether we're better off for having toppled Saddam.

Personally, it is difficult for me to contain the resentment I feel toward those who not only vociferously opposed the war, but also bitterly refuse to acknowledge, even today, that Iraqis will be better off with Saddam Hussein gone.

Today's protestors are like the American Gentiles who opposed American involvement in World War II despite the atrocities being committed by Nazi Germany, clinging instead to their isolationist views and ignoring the broader ramifications of shirking responsibility.

Indeed, the contemporary political Left is alarmed not by human atrocities, but rather, by American power. And it is so blinded by its antipathy toward the Bush administration that it maintains, even today, that war under any circumstances is "illegal, immoral and unnecessary."

The leftists who have thus far been proven wrong are looking past the images of liberation coming out of Iraq, instead fixating narrow-mindedly on the small details of a greater struggle (or falling silent altogether).

With its continued opposition to "the occupation," the American Left has jettisoned any remaining element of humanism -- humanism which might have allowed supporting American power that does good in the world while opposing those who currently wield it.

As Mary stated: "Support of the liberation of Iraq not ‘pro-war’ – it’s pro-civilization, anti-genocide. Saddam’s regime was a slaughterhouse – the peace activists knew it, and they weren’t willing to do a damned thing to stop it. ... Someone said a while ago that the peaceniks lost their minds a long time ago. Now they’ve lost their hearts."

Tom Friedman's latest column dovetails nicely with my post on the same subject:

It is clear that in ending Saddam's tyranny, a huge human engine for mass destruction has been broken. The thing about Saddam's reign is that when you look at that skull, you don't even know what period it came from — his suppression of the Kurds or the Shiites, his insane wars with Iran and Kuwait, or just his daily brutality.

Whether you were for or against this war, whether you preferred that the war be done with the U.N.'s approval or without it, you have to feel good that right has triumphed over wrong. America did the right thing here. It toppled one of the most evil regimes on the face of the earth, and I don't think we know even a fraction of how deep that evil went. Fair-minded people have to acknowledge that.

Straight from the transcript:

SANTORUM: Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality--

AP REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

Sorry, lost the link. You'll just have to trust me.

A Republican fundraiser who once said Bill Clinton was "a lawbreaker and a terrible example to our nation's young people" has pleaded guilty to production of child pornography. Richard Anthony Delgaudio took lewd photographs of a 16-year-old girl and had sex with her.

You gotta love it.

James Carville once called Pennsylvania "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between."

Sure, Al Gore narrowly won Pennsylvania in 2000, but don't be misled. Aside from the metropolitan areas, this is Bush Country, with wide swaths of red counties lapping up against the blue beacheads of its two major cities.

And it's precisely those red counties that keep ignorant politicians like Senator Rick Santorum in office. Here's what he said regarding the Supreme Court case over Texas' sodomy law:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

First of all, since when is adultery against the law? Sure, a spouse may have legal grounds for divorce if you've broken the marriage contract, but screwing your wife's best friend is not criminal behavior.

Ditto for incest. I won't even waste time stating the obligatory "I wouldn't do it, but..." It is not a crime when commited by consenting adults. And if they ain't adults, it's child abuse, plain and simple.

These redneck states' sodomy laws are an infuriating infringement on citizens' rights. If I have to explain why, then our educational system (and, indeed, common sense) has surely failed us all. It stands to reason that, in a free society, a government ought not to criminalize victimless actions such as these.

If you think these laws ought to remain in place, or that they're defensible in any way, please, please post a comment or IM me. I want to know who the stupid people are.

This is the kind of stupidity I've come to expect from politicians in heavily Republican districts:

Bill would ban aid for students from terrorist nations

...The proposal was drafted by state Rep. Dick Kravitz, who said he doesn't like the idea that the United States is educating people who will return to regimes that oppose America.

Kravitz argues that students from terrorist dictatorships aren't poor and may even be related to government officials. "It is naive to think that any of them are not well-to-do or connected to the regime in power," he said."

I can just see the ignorant, blubbering southern redneck seeping out in those words. His proposal would be laughable if it weren't so malicious.

Oh yeah...and I love the part about how Cuba was amended out of the bill, even though it's on the list of terrorist-supporting states. I mean, we are talking about Florida, and the idea is to go whoring for votes, not lose them.

Now, don't get me wrong on so-called profiling: I don't think it's wrong that, for example, airport screeners will be more on guard when a young Arab male with no luggage is passing through security than they would be with, say, someone's grandmom. That's to be expected (as long as they don't hassle the man because of his nationality).

But the congressman's proposal targets minorities while doing little or nothing to stop terrorism. In fact, it achieves the opposite effect, sending a signal to young Arabs that we hate them because of where they were born.

This bill reeks of political opportunism and xenophobia. I hope it doesn't become law, but with a Republican congress, you never know.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen? WM: By "world," I meant the United Nations. PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations? WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council. PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council? WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council. PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council? WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

...and so on. It's pretty funny.

Sort of out of date now, but still a fun read. I could probably respond with a piece that shows how the peacenik's logic is similarly tied up in knots, naive, or worse, just plain intellectually dishonest.

Check out the rest...

The Unknown As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don’t know We don’t know.

Read more....

Today, there is only one question that those looking backward ought to ask: Is there anything we could have done to compel Saddam Hussein to disarm that we have not done? Not contain, but disarm. Please, tell me.

I will recap history only briefly: The Gulf War cease-fire agreement required Saddam to disarm. Since then? Twelve years of diplomacy. Twelve years of crippling economic sanctions. Seventeen United Nations resolutions. Hundreds of weapons inspectors under two different regimes. And now, 260,000 troops and an armada of ships and planes surrounding his country. And the result is only more deception.

Before Sept. 11, the best strategy was indeed containment -- the naive but prevalent belief that terrorists may bomb remote embassies and ships but would (and could) never endanger the American homeland with weapons of mass destruction. Today, change is the answer.

We may bemoan, as I do, the president's failure at uniting the world behind us. And we can fret, as I do, that the administration may not have the staying power required to bring true democracy to Iraq. But one thing is clear: continuing on our current path (in other words, doing nothing) will not secure the peace, and a strategy built upon wishful thinking and intransigence is not an option.

The fight against the spread of weapons of mass destruction will constitute the defining struggle of this century. And I don't know about you, but a world in which terrorists and rogue regimes are allowed to obtain such weapons is not a world I want to live in.

Take the quiz here.

Your Political Philosophy:

Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty.

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 60%.

Your Economic Self-Government Score is 40%.

Check the last paragraph of Howard Fineman's latest. He makes a good point: that the Bush White House is hanging by a thread these days. And the key to holding it all together is Colin Powell.

Americans are already ambivalent about war. And I'm getting the distinct feeling these days that it won't be the cakewalk that some hawks predict. True, Iraqi soldiers could surrender en masse, or Saddam could be deposed at the last minute by someone in his inner circle. But if they actually do fight, I'm convinced it could be hell on Earth. Oil fields afire. Turkish incursions. Reporters taken hostage in Baghdad. And countless civilians caught in the chemical crosswinds.

Or maybe the war will go well (whatever that means), with Iraq disintigrating into warring factions in its aftermath. A new quagmire.

These days, all the talk is about Tony Blair's endangered political career. But back home, the implications for Bush's presidency are just as momentous. Fineman:

Which brings me back to Powell. As Fineman stated, "he's never been fully trusted by Bush's inner circle." Karl Rove doesn't like that Powell is largely immune to political pressure, unlike the rest of Bush's cabinet. Bush himself jokingly calls him Mr. War Hero.

Americans trust in Powell courage, experience and honesty -- perhaps even more than they trust President Bush, and certainly more than anyone else in his administration. Indeed, support for war increased substantially only after Powell said Saddam wasn't complying. So if Iraq does turn out to be a tough fight and Powell so much as utters a single negative word about the administration, Bush's presidency could collapse like a house of cards.

The economy has already tanked, and things are getting worse, not better. On top of that, the world now hates us and Bush is close to spilling American blood in a war that many aren't convinced is necessary.

Powell is probably too much of a good soldier to criticize the administration. But if he did voice dissent, it would bring out all the fears lingering just below Americans' kneejerk patriotic support of the president. Instead, they'll wonder, "My God, what the hell are they doing in the White House?" And barring a miraculous resuscitation of the economy, Bush would be on a permanent defensive from here to election day.

Talk to any rational hawk these days and you're likely to hear three main points:

1. Aside from the main issue of whether war is just, the Bush administration's strategy for selling the war at home and abroad has been an absolute disaster. Richard Cohen, who makes the best case thus far for forcing disarmament, summed it up nicely:

2. Despite bungling its "case" for war, the United States has little choice in this post-9/11 world but to insist on full disarmament. Not containment, not deterrance, but disarmament. As stated by Bill Keller, the man who should have been Editor of the New York Times:

3. Efforts to peacefully achieve real disarmament have failed. It will not be achieved by giving inspectors "more time" to be deceived by Saddam Hussein, nor by tripling or quadrupling their numbers. As John McCain stated today, Hussein has repeatedly shown that the only way he will be disarmed is by force:

The bottom line: Yes, the administration's strident, arrogant, unilateralist and religious rhetoric has already damaged the war effort and left us without valuable allies. But if you still believe, as I do, that Iraq must be disarmed, then barring some onforseen sea change within the next week, it has become clear that war will be the only means to achieve it.

Now comes word that Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, in giving his positively upbeat address to the U.N. Security Council last week, neglected to mention the discovery of unmanned drones in Iraq that are capable of spreading chemical and biological weapons. These are the same drones Secretary Powell claimed Iraq had in his Feb. 5 address to the Security Council.

Blix defended his decision, saying he decided not to mention the drones at all because he wasn't sure they were illegal. What does he think the drones are for? Spreading fertilizer?

True to form, Blix is enacting his own agenda: to slow the momentum toward war (and thereby prolong his ineffective inspections regime) by trumpeting minor concessions by the Iraqis and deemphasizing their overall substantial noncompliance with disarmament resolutions.

Indeed, so lopsided was Blix's report that resistance to a deadline for compliance hardened in the Security Council and the Iraqis actually demanded an end to the sanctions.

Here's what the Bush administration should do now. First, forget the inspections and forget the draft resolution (which was a serious blunder with no chance of passage anyway). Instead, propose a short, simple resolution that declares Iraq has still not met its disarmament obligations and is in further material breach of the 17 previous resolutions. The resolution should demand immediate compliance with resolution 1441 with several actions, including producing all stocks of banned chemical and biological weapons that have previously been documented by U.N. weapons inspectors (or proving that they have already been destroyed).

It should not include a deadline, since it is now too late to set a deadline date late enough for the Security Council to accept but soon enough for an attack in March.

Instead, this new resolution would assuage the concerns of fence-sitting council members by setting several benchmarks that the Iraqis will never comply with, and it would force Blix into a binary argument for all future reports: either Iraq has complied with the benchmark or it hasn't. And the wording of the resolution would appear so reasonable that a French veto could be framed as a vote against inspection progress, not against war.

Second, have Blix report to the Council, say, 10 days after passage. Sieze on Iraqi non- or half-compliance and declare Saddam Hussein has missed the deadline of "immediately" complying with 1441. Tell the inspectors to leave and get on with the business of deposing this man.

Third, put me on the White House payroll, because if I had the president's ear instead of the right-wing wackos currently there, this diplomatic fiasco wouldn't have happened in the first place.

My first rant.

Why can't I find one anti-war protestor who's willing to engage in a frank exchange of views on the issue? This question has been nagging me for the past few weeks now. I certainly know enough people who've delighted in joining war protests or otherwise opposing hostilities (they're especially plentiful in college towns near major cities, like mine.).

These people appear to be very outspoken around like-minded folk, but every time I try and broach opposing viewpoints they're either dismissive or they fall silent altogether. This tendency is found in many people who subscribe to political extremes, but it's particularly applicable to the young, naive liberals who can be found on most college campuses.

Before I go any further, I'll state that I do not mean to disparage the peace movement as a whole. In fact, there are plenty of valid reasons to oppose war -- ones that the Democratic party could seize on if it wasn't so incompetent.

I do not, however, respect the college slacktivists who mobilize against the wicked and imperialist United States government for their own idiological reasons -- without bothering to analyze the real-world circumstances that may necessitate our current position.

Again, this doesn't encompass all liberal activists -- just the specific type I've spoken to on many occasions, and who I can usually identify within 30 seconds of conversation. I try to engage them with reason (even if I already agree with them), but they can't be bothered to come down from their moral high horse and discuss specifics.

There were some who said, for example, that after 9/11 the answer was to "give peace a chance." To turn the other cheek, so to speak. This is because they oppose power -- ANY power, and are against the use of force in any circumstance short of a direct attack on our own soil, their own state and their own hometowns. Those of us who support war will never convince these people; they are naive, their hands soft as a baby's bottom, and yet they are paranoid at the same time, relentlessly spouting every conspiracy theory imaginable.

These super-liberals don't like the specifics of their ideas questioned for one simple reason: they have none. That is, they have no alternative suggestions that are not built completely on wishful thinking.

And once they're finally convinced to offer their own vision, one quickly realizes that every course of (in)action they would have the United States take would leave the rest of the world to its own devices against evil, and eventually leave this country encircled and impotent.

I may regard George W. Bush as a failure as president, but thank God the country isn't being run by the intellectually lazy Naderites I went to school with.

Adding to its long, ever-changing list of reasons for war, the Bush administration is now saying Saddam Hussein must disarm and relinquish power to avert hostilities.

By adding a requirement that is unrelated to our self-defense and has no foundation in international law, the administration has moved away from the solid logic of enforcing United Nations resolutions and unnecessarily embraced true unilateralism. This move will further damage the credibility of the United States and give its detractors one more reason to believe it was bent on war all along.

As spun by rc3.org:

Now, it seems, war depends on this more than anything else.

All I can say is someone's got too much time on their hands.

Those words were spoken by President George Bush following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Ironically, we face the same question today as the world debates whether to authorize force against Iraq.

Bush can already make a compelling case for attacking Iraq under resolution 1441. Though some may feign ignorance now, the security council members knew what "serious consequences" meant when they voted unanimously for the resolution, just as members of both houses of congress knew what "all necessary and appropriate force" meant when they passed their own resolution.

Truth be told, Bush is prodding the U.N. for another resolution simply because the British need one to save Tony Blair's political future.

But the overarching issue here is really the U.N.'s own legitimacy. We live in a different world now, with new challenges, namely terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction from outlaw states. And if the United Nations refuses to act in this most egregious case, after clear Iraqi defiance of 17 resolutions (the last of which being its "final chance"), then it will in fact become irrelevent regardless of whether or not the United States acts.

Indeed, its words have already become meaningless. The previous 16 resolutions demanded disarmament, not containment, and they have all been defied. The 17th resolution, 1441, is clear and unambiguous. And if it does not act, the U.N. will have become a debating society, a mere side act in the defining struggle of our generation.

The U.N. has a terrible record at preventing massacres and removing the despots who cause them, except in cases where its members have prodded it to act. It can no longer afford such willful intransigence. And a nation that has become the target of such actions will not (and should not) be paralyzed by the inaction of the rest of the world.

I posted these questions to a discussion list and got a bunch of half-assed non-answers. Maybe some of the doves in cyberspace (particularly those who have protested against war) can shed some light?

The questions are obviously biased toward my point of view, because, well, they're my questions. But as always, I remain open to counterpoints provided they are based on reason.

(A) Why weren't any of the protesters demanding that Saddam Hussein disarm, as the United Nations has repeatedly ordered him to do in 17 different resolutions?

(B) Where were the protestors during the decades that Saddam Hussein brutally oppressed millions of innocent people and unleashed chemical weapons on those who opposed him? What is it about a coalition of nations intervening and putting a stop to his regime that is so much worse?

And please, don't answer that it's wrong because the U.N. hasn't approved force. See the next question.

(C) Few of these protesters marched when the United States bombed Kosovo, even though in that case there was little or no "immediate threat." There was no U.N. mandate for war, either. In fact, the resolution merely warned Milosevic of "additional measures" if he failed to comply, which is even more tepid than the "serious consequences" and "final opportunity" Hussein was given in 1441. What makes this case so different, other than the offenses being so much more indisputable and horrific?

(D) It has become abundantly clear that the inspections process will not disarm Saddam Hussein, yet Bush's detractors oppose using force to do so. If Saddam will not disarm peacefully, which he won't, then how else are we going to disarm him? By e-mail?

(E) Many who oppose war state that if Saddam Hussein will not disarm, we should settle for containment. What will they say if Iraq's nuclear program achieves its goal, and Saddam, armed with a nuclear deterrent, begins another brutal campaign of killing to consolidate his control over the Kurd and Shiite areas of Iraq? And please, don't dismiss this as mere speculation. Saddam has a history of such brutality.

(F) More on containment: What will you say if states in the region are successful in developing nuclear weapons? What if terrorists gain control of chemical, biological or nuclear devices from sympathizers in these states? Not necessarily Al Qaeda, but Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad -- groups that these states aid on a regular basis.

Three nukes and Israel is wiped off the map forever. Shall we simply hope that this doesn't happen and trust in the sanity and restraint of despotic dictators and terrorists? Or should we state, as the conservatives did in Kosovo, that as long as American lives are not immediately put at risk we ought not to get involved?

And again, don't just dismiss this as mere disasturbation. Just as those who support war should consider the potential consequences of their actions, those who oppose it must also consider the potential consequences of inaction.

(G) Do they have a better idea for what course of action the United States should take? What is it?

It is maddening to see the Bush administration downplay the North Korea crisis because of its singular focus on Iraq. We might not even be in this predicament if it weren't for Bush's attitudes and policies toward North Korea in the first place.

If we don't refocus our diplomatic and military resources on the Korean penninsula immediately after securing a military victory in Iraq, we could be powerless to stop the selling of nuclear weapons to other countries in the future.

But at the same time, the North Korea situation also shows us how important it is that we disarm Iraq. Unlike Kim Jong-il, Saddam has a history of armed aggression toward his neighbors, designs on dominating the region and a demonstrated eagerness to use unconventional weapons when it suits him. That makes him just as dangerous, if not more.

One could certainly argue that North Korea should be our focus first because 1) its nuclear program is more advanced, and 2) it will likely sell its arms and/or technology to another country.

However, disarming Iraq cannot be put off indefinitely. Like North Korea, Saddam continues his weapons development programs and will press forward with nuclear armament as soon as he thinks the United States is too preoccupied to attack him.

Just as we would not trust in the sanity and restraint of Kim Jong-il to remain "contained" and not proliferate WMD throughout the world, we should not engage in wishful thinking and assume Saddam can be "contained" once he gains a nuclear deterrent. And as we're painfully learning with North Korea, deterrence works both ways; we might not have the option of attacking later without putting ourselves and his neighbors in great peril.

The point, I think, is that we must be ready to deal with both countries, forcefully if necessary.

It is looking more and more likely that the United States could be fighting a three-front war by the summer: Afghanistan (which will expand across the Pakistani border if a new terrorist attack occurs), Iraq (an occupation) and North Korea (a defensive war after we bomb their nuclear facilities).

To reject Bush's silly rhetoric, I think these would actually be three different wars, not a single, three-front war. But the purpose would be the same: to protect ourselves from proliferating weapons of mass destruction and the terrorists who would use them.

In the case of Iraq, it's become clear today, after Blix's useless presentation, that we will not get the strong U.N. resolution we wanted. But there is still a way for the United States to either force peaceful disarmament or wage war with some claim of international legitimacy. The U.S. should propose a new U.N. resolution that is very simple: Iraq must come forth with all of its weapons of mass destruction (particularly those that have been well-documented by the United Nations and that we know are there), or it must provide the inspectors with proof that those weapons have already been destroyed. It must do this within 15 days.

The U.S. could quickly garner support for this resolution, because it does not declare a material breach. But it does set a concrete deadline, which negates the need for any polarizingly explicit authorization of force. France, Germany, Russia and China can argue they are still giving peace a chance, while the U.S. can argue it has the right to wage war if Saddam does not comply.

If France, Germany, Russia and China would prefer to keep the United Nations in a state of perpetual paralysis, then U.S. should offer the resolution for a vote anyway and let them veto it. It would prove to the world that the other great powers were never serious about disarmament, and that we must move forward alone.

Who are we kidding that war is not already at hand? This has been a certainty for quite some time now, becoming probable at the time of Bush's election, made virtually certain after Sept. 11, 2001, and finally cemented into reality by Iraq's noncompliance with the latest U.N. resolution. Even without the State of the Union address, the developments of the past week have served as a clear indication of what will come.

The inspections are not working. In the words of Chief Inspector Hans Blix (whose selection, I might add, was approved by the Russians and Iraqis precisely because he would not be as stringent as his predecessor, Richard Butler), the current system is fraught with Iraqi intransigence and superficial, half-hearted compliance. The inspectors haven't even found the many thousands of biological and chemical weapons we know Saddam has, much less any covert W.M.D. programs that may be hidden deep underground or in mobile labs.

And who said they were supposed to "find" anything, anyway? The point was never to keep Saddam Hussein in a box, but rather, for him to come clean, disarm himself, and then submit to rigorous inspections like other states who undertook the process and were serious about disarming.

This is not disarmament. This is cat-and-mouse child's play, a mere distraction that leaves Saddam free to feign cooperation and subsequently coax an end to the sanctions while still maintaining his current weapons and developing new ones.

The question is no longer whether Iraq will voluntarily disarm. Even as the country is surrounded by American forces, Iraq has made it clear that it will not. The question is whether the United Nations will enforce its own resolutions and thereby affirm its continued legitimacy, or shrink from the challenge yet again and become a modern day League of Nations.

I suspect that some who oppose war would prefer the latter. By arguing the Bush administration is acting unilaterally, they conveniently ignore 12 years of U.N. resolutions demanding Iraq disarm and finding it in material breach of its cease-fire agreement. And what if, in the most likely scenario, a veto-holding power blocks a new resolution and the United States proceeds anyway with a coalition of willing nations? Is this unilateralism? To argue this is to be either disingenuous or downright ignorant of the facts.

By insisting that the United Nations either enforce these resolutions or fade into irrelevance, the Bush administration is actually showing more regard for the organization than the apologists and doves who push for the status quo. Indeed, every line of liberal, peacemongering logic leads us to the same scenario: a toothless world body, paralyzed superpowers and tyrants all over the world who are free to amass weapons of terror. The current crisis we find ourselves in with North Korea underscores precisely why we must not stand by and wait for this to happen.