Home

Archives
Biography
Contact




- 4Q03 -


December 31, 2003
Estimates of the Presidential candidates' 4th quarter fundraising totals have emerged, and to me it looks like there's only 2 people who have a real shot at the Democratic nomination: Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. Dean is expected to raise over $14 million, and Clark is expected to raise between $10-12 million. Those totals dwarf everybody else's; none of the others have raised over $4 million.

Kerry lent his campaign over $6 million, but his poll numbers are so bad almost everywhere (although in Iowa he has shown some strength lately), I think he's finished, and he can no longer raise a dime from other people.

In the event that Gephardt wins Iowa, he'll gain some real momentum and have some tangible assets going for him after that (union support, of course, as well as an endorsement from Jim Clyburn, South Carolina's most influential African-American politician, and a likely win in the Missouri primary, which takes place on February 3, early in the process). But even if all his chips fall in the right place, I don't think he has enough money to wage an effective national campaign against Dean. So we can count him out, too.

Edwards – who's a great candidate cursed at this particular time by his youthful looks, Lieberman, and the others should pack it in, the sooner the better.

If you're a Democrat who doesn't support Dean, the only hope outside some act of God is that Clark overtakes Kerry for a strong 2nd place showing in New Hampshire, which will position him well for the contests after that in states like South Carolina and Arizona. If that happens – and it's not a terribly unlikely scenario – the game's on and Clark stands tall between Dean and the nomination. We know now he'll have enough money to compete nationally.
December 29, 2003
On the CNN show Capital Gang this weekend, there was a segment in which the regular panel of pundits gave year-end awards. One of these was "Rookie of the Year." Novak took Schwarzenegger, somebody else took Wes Clark, and somebody took newly-elected Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco. And then the most bizarre thing happened. Kate O'Beirne, a toe-the-line conservative even by National Review standards, showed herself to be as knowledgable about movies as she is about public policy. She chose "Lord of the Rings" helmer Peter Jackson as her "rookie," calling him a "novice director" who did a really good job on these Tolkien adaptations. Not only was it odd that she didn't pick a politician, but Jackson's been making movies for over twenty years.
December 27, 2003
Last week, Howard Dean asserted that America was no safer after the capture of Saddam Hussein. Technically a valid theory, perhaps, but terrible politics. Saddam Hussein is a monstrous mass serial killer, and everybody in America knows it. Voters know it. And it's terribly important for any serious candidate to know how he says things is as important, often more, than what he actually says. Dean has now made a few statements about Hussein (remember his "I suppose it's a good thing Saddam's no longer in power" line back in March?) that an average voter can construe as his being soft on him.

As much as I hate it when Republicans say that it sounds as if Democrats hate George W. Bush more than Saddam Hussein, they have a point with Dean. If you took sound bites of Dean talking about Bush and compared them with his sound bites on Hussein, I think it's clear his more passionate vitriol is reserved for Bush. Dean's a savvy politician on so many different issues, it's hard to understand his tone deafness here. But make no mistake, he's tone deaf on Hussein.

If that weren't bad enough, read what Dean has to say, in a recent Concord Monitor interview, about the one guy in the world Americans hate more than Hussein:

The Monitor asked: Where should Osama bin Laden be tried if he's caught? Dean said he didn't think it made any difference, and if he were president he would consult with his lawyers for advice on the subject.

But wouldn't most Americans feel strongly that bin Laden should be tried in America - and put to death?

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."

This is disastrous logic and language from Dean. He doesn't think it makes a difference where bin Laden would be tried? It would be hugely important. And what in the world is he talking about jury trials for? Does he really think bin Laden should be afforded all the rights of an American citizen? What has he seen in bin Laden's videotapes – including the one uncovered in Afghanistan where he brags about 9/11 planning and delights in al Qaeda's unexpected good fortune in the twin towers crumbling completely as he uses his hands to mimic their collapse – that would make him question bin Laden's guilt?

It's terribly ironic that the candidate who's been so profoundly expert at harnessing voters' anger and leveraging it to his advantage isn't nearly as angry as would be appropriate when it comes to the world's most despicable terrorist. 

If you're a Democrat who wants to hold onto a chance of beating Bush, then donate money right now to Wes Clark, who's actually been much tougher on bin Laden than Bush has (Bush doesn't talk about bin Laden any more – a politically necessary silence, I'm sure, but what a fraud all his macho cowboy talk about bin Laden right after the attacks was, eh?). You can also be sure that if Clark were President, he would have commanded American troops to spare no risk to take out bin Laden at Tora Bora back in late 2001.

Otherwiswe, if Dean is the nominee, we're severely disadvantaged. I can't see how national security isn't gonna be a catastrophic weakness for him in the general election. Right now, he's looking an awful lot like a flame-throwing minor league pitcher who can simply toss it by minor league hitters, but when he gets to the majors, his fastball is crushed and he has no other pitches to rely upon.  
December 22, 2003
I'm out of town, but will return the day after Christmas to write about Howard Dean's stupidity and other topics.
December 15, 2003
Saddam Hussein, it's safe to say, is one of the worst scumbags in modern history. So his absolutely humiliating capture is a very good thing for us, and a great thing for the Iraqis. Now the real question is: how will this affect the resistance? Or, as this unnamed senior intelligence official in Iraq poses it, "Have we actually cut the head of the snake, or is he just an idiot hiding in a hole?"
December 14, 2003
The Breaking News on CNN right now, at 2:15 am PST, is that Saddam Hussein probably has been captured. I hope that's right.
December 10, 2003
"The Gore Endorsement:" a Q & A with myself.

How did Al Gore look while endorsing Howard Dean yesterday?
He looked like a man just returned from a weekend bender with Rush Limbaugh.

Is this endorsement important?
Very, I think, for several reasons, but I'll just list my top 4:
1. Gore has universal name recognition, and he's still very popular among Democrats, many of whom think he won the last election and should be President of the United States. In almost every primary state, the "undecided" category leads the field. Many of the late deciders are people who don't follow politics that closely – I've seen polls that show a signifigant percentage of registered voters who are undecided still can't even identify a single Democratic candidate – but, thanks to Al Gore, which candidate are they most likely to read and think just a little bit about this week? For weeks now, those people are more likely to have been hearing about Dean, but now more than ever.
2. Look at where the Dean campaign staged the endorsement: Harlem. Gore is an overwhelmingly popular and trusted figure among African-Americans. He got about 90% of the African-American vote over George W. "Bob Jones" Bush in 2000. Dean's appeal to African-Americans is questionable, but last week he got endorsements from African-American congressmen Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Bobby Scott, and now Gore. Former Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile has been saying nice things about Dean now for awhile, too, and she and her ample organizational powers seem to be heading in that direction as well.
3. It's another indication that the Dean campaign invariably outsmarts and outhustles the others. Some news stories indicate that Dean simply called Gore a lot more than the others. He kissed the ring so he'd get one back himself. And look at the timing of this thing – Dean starts to get criticized for refusing to unseal his records as Vermont Governor, and Gore's announcement erases that as a news story. Just a little while ago, Dean gets into that Confederate flag flap, and the SEIU and AFSCME come in with their endorsements to make that old news. I don't know exactly who's responsible for coordinating these things – my guess would be a meeting of the minds between Dean himself and his campaign manager/genius Joe Trippi – but whoever it is has demonstrated an admirable preparation for taking on the Bush campaign.
4. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Always. Always.

Why did Gore endorse Dean?
There's all kind of theories on this, and I think most of the Gore psychoanalysis is pretty silly. So I just pretty much take him at his word – he said he wanted to endorse early and have a powerful voice in it, he thinks the movement behind Dean makes him the most electable, he'd like his party to anoint Dean early so Dean's stronger in the general election, and they both love the internet.

Does Dean have this thing wrapped up?
Dean is doing a couple of signifigant things right now, and he's showing success at both: 1) he's courting established figures like Gore and some congress people (whom he's shrewdly offering money via his cyber-fundraising engine) and 2) he's spending his own money to build a brand identity for himself in all the states. This makes it awfully difficult for the others to compete with him, because they all have to concentrate on the early primary states, and even if one of them pulls off an upset somewhere, it could be only a minor setback for Dean. Look at the way McCain trounced Bush in New Hampshire and Michigan in 2000, but basically he'd already lost because he was outfunded and outorganized in every state.

Wes Clark, I think, still has the best shot to become defined as the longshot alternative (his 4th quarter fundraising totals and N.H. #s are the keys), but it's a longshot. If the Dean campaign continues to be as shrewd as they've been throughout the race, Dean will have the thing won by doing well in South Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Delaware on February 3 of next year, which happens to be my wonderful sister Beth's birthday.

Happy birthday, Beth!
December 8, 2003
John Kerry's catching some flak for what he said last week in a Rolling Stone interview:
Q: Did you feel you were blindsided by Dean's success?

A: Well, not blindsided. I mean, when I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, "I'm against everything"? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did.
New York Post reporter/Republican shill Deborah Orin is outraged, just outraged, that Kerry would use the word "fuck" in an interview. Her lead sentence is a prime example of the kind of fair and balanced coverage for which Rupert Murdoch's media outlets can be relied on:
Struggling 2004 Democratic wannabe John Kerry fires an X-rated attack at President Bush over Iraq and uses the f-word - highly unusual language for a presidential contender - in a stunning new interview with Rolling Stone magazine.
Fuck Deborah Orin.

First off, Kerry's use of the word "fuck" could actually be in a PG13 movie, and I don't buy any rejection of it on "prim and proper" grounds. Secondly, remember that the guy he's criticizing famously called NY Times reporter Adam Clymer a "major league asshole" in 2000, which the public didn't seem to care about too much (although Bush was actually smiling and waving to a Labor Day crowd as he said it). Thirdly, Kerry's statement that he didn't "expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did" is true, and probably something about half of Bush's own cabinet has said behind closed doors. How could he have foreseen that George Bush would have gone forward with a post-war "plan" that put hundreds of thousands of idle, incomeless men with a bunch of guns on the streets by disbanding the Iraqi Army, or absolutely failed to seal off the Iraqi borders from foreign hostiles, or bombed out every single ministry building (including the education and health ministries) in Baghdad EXCEPT for the oil ministry, or left museums and hospitals and even hundreds of CIA-identified weapons depots totally unprotected, or didn't have any system in place to get water to those whom previously had to rely on the Iraqi regime for it, or the tons of other things you could list that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Cheney and ultimately Bush fucked up beyond belief.

What Kerry said is one of the most honest and straightforward things any candidate has said so far. God bless him.

Also, this won't get nearly as much attention, but Kerry has some interesting things to say about the so-called "war on drugs" in the same interview:
Q: You have talked in the past of smoking pot when you returned from Vietnam. What do you think of the way the pot laws are prosecuted today?

A: We have never had a legitimate War on Drugs in the United States, ever, and we won't until we have treatment on demand for addiction and until you have full drug education in our schools. The mandatory-minimum-sentencing structure of our country is funneling people into jail who have no business being there.

Q: And every year, the number of people arrested for marijuana offenses goes up.

A: I've met plenty of people in my lifetime who've used marijuana and who I would not qualify as serious addicts -- who use about the same amount as some people drink beer or wine or have a cocktail. I don't get too excited by any of that.

Q: Would you favor decriminalization?

A: No, not quite. What we did in the prosecutor's office was have a sort of unspoken approach to marijuana that was almost effectively decriminalization. We just didn't bother with small-time use. It doesn't rise to the level of nuisance, even. And what we were after was people dealing with heroin and destroying lives, and people who were killing people. That's where you need to focus.
Candidates become a lot more compelling when they have nothing to lose, don't they?
December 5, 2003
Here's a nice trick. Do a Google search for the words "miserable failure."

Pretty funny, eh? It turns out some enterprising anti-Bush bloggers are responsible.

Thanks to politicalwire.com, which is a great source for daily up-to-the-minute daily political news, for the tip.

December 5, 2003 link
Poor John Kerry. News for him out of New Hampshire is getting worse and worse. He's been a loyal Democrat for decades – even made Richard Nixon's "enemies list" as a 27 year-old back in the early 70s – and he's been getting positively trounced by Howard Dean in the polls. Dean tied him in knots on his war resolution vote, completely outgunned him in organization with the help of his cyber-genius campaign manager Joe Trippi, and now the fat lady is singing extremely loudly. Kerry's even down 9% to Dean in his home state of Massachussetts! That's unfixable.

Most people see Kerry as something of an automaton, and I suppose he's proved in this race how much he lacks the common touch, but it's sad because I have no doubt that the guy's whole life has been dedicated to serving what he really believes is a high public calling, and he's always fought for the right things (he's been a much more committed progressive throughout his career than Dean, or any other serious candidate running, for that matter).

And now the latest 2 polls from N.H. bring another possibly impending disaster for Kerry: he's now in a statistical tie for 2nd place with Wesley Clark. Clark's gone up about 5 points in both polls and Kerry's gone down a few points in both polls. The trend definitely looks good for Clark, who's just begun advertising there.

This could be the start of a remarkable development in the race. If Clark can take 2nd in N.H., he becomes the only alternative to Dean very early in the primary process. Already, there's speculation that Dean isn't going to match his 3rd quarter $15 million fundraising total this quarter, and further word that Clark may actually pass $12 million. If their numbers are that close, or in the unlikely event that Clark shocks the political world by outraising Dean, it will change everything. Reliable numbers should leak out sometime around New Year's Day, and if it's accurate we're probably looking at a Clark-Dean race from the outset, which is far preferable to a bigger field. We'll end up with a better prepared nominee with a higher stature for next fall.
December 2, 2003
Boy, do I miss Bill Clinton. We've gone from one of the most intellectually engaged Presidents in our history to perhaps the most intellectually disengaged. Whatever else you want to say about him, Billy Jeff is hands down the smartest politician of my life time, and I'll probably be able to say that the day I die, too. He's got a great interview in the November issue of The American Prospect, and I'll excerpt just a few highlights.

on the 2000 campaign:
... to say that compared to President Bush and their backgrounds in public life, that Gore was dishonest was ludicrous. But they got away with it.
    And if you look at these tax cuts, they got a good return on their investment. I mean, people say, "Gosh, how did Bush raise $200 million, $300 million?" I say it's peanuts compared to the tax cuts he gave. It's not even a tithe, you know? Not even 1 percent!
on the post 9/11 political climate:
... I think that we as a country, including the press and the political opposition, were profoundly traumatized by what happened on [September 11], and we were angered and we wanted to be united. And we were collectively prepared to check our critical judgment in a deep freeze somewhere for a short period of time.
    And in that period, they actually had a chance to effect their realignment. But instead, they chose to use the moment to try to consolidate their power, to extend the secrecy of government and to move the country way, way to the right. And there was a slow but building reaction to it. ... And no democracy can go without debate for very long. So it was inevitable that one by one, the American people would go back to the deep freeze and get their brains back and start thinking, and that's basically what's happening now.
on the 2002 Georgia Senate race, in which a draft dodger (Saxby Chambliss) aired commercials questioning the patriotism of his opponent, war hero Max Cleland:
    But you know, Max Cleland, the idea that his patriotism could be questioned after he left three limbs in Vietnam, and questioned by a man who had a deferment like I did... you know, it's just unbelievable to me. [Then] the Bush people took a compromise on the public-employee issue as soon as the election was over. It was just a scam. One of the great scams of modern American history, the way they did the homeland security bill.
    But we shouldn't whine about that. Their job is to beat us. Our job is to beat them. If they come at us with a deal we think is a scam, we ought to be smart enough to expose it. So I'm not mad at them. That's their job.
on Republican class warfare and how to respond to it:
    Now what we should say is that they, not we, have brought class warfare back to America. You know, every time I complain about these tax cuts some conservative says I'm practicing class warfare. I am not. I pay these taxes. And I live in New York state and Westchester County, so I think I probably pay as high [of] rates as anybody in America. And I should. Nobody makes me live in this country. America has been good to me. And I think for somebody to give me a tax cut and then turn around and say, "We've gotta have $87 billion spent in Iraq, but we're gonna kick 300,000 kids out of after-school programs, 84,000 kids out of student loans... 25,000 uniformed police off the street? We're gonna kick a coupla thousand police off the street in New York City who put their lives on the line on September the 11th, and they're gonna give me a tax cut?" That's class warfare! And I think we ought to say that!
    And the other thing I think is, we can smile when we say that. I don't want our side ever to treat the Republicans with the sort of personal animosity and contempt with which Hillary and I and Al were treated. I don't like that, I don't believe that, I don't think that's necessary. But we got to argue. And we got to fight hard. Otherwise they'll run right over us like they did in 2002.
on Bush administration political vulnerabilities:
    I think the economy is a target of opportunity. I think the fact that most of the world doesn't trust us anymore is a target of opportunity. I think the assault on the environment is a target of opportunity. I think giving me a tax cut and then [trying to take] overtime away from 8 million workers is a target of opportunity... We're gonna spend $87 billion in Iraq. We're gonna give the 400 wealthiest Americans an average tax cut of $8-and-a-half million. And they tried to get rid of the children's health insurance program. That's 5 million kids' health insurance.
    Man, if we can't sell that, we ought to get in another line of work! Either that or I don't live in the country I think I live in.
Perhaps my favorite part of the American Prospect piece was an anecdote interviewer Michael Tomasky told in his prologue. Just before the interview, Clinton told Sylvia Plachy, the photographer who shot Clinton for the article and the mother of actor Adrien Brody, that he'd enjoyed The Pianist (for which Brody won an Oscar), but he also loved the very obscure, low-budget 1999 straight-to-Cinemax indie Oxygen, in which Brody played a serial killer. Contrast that with our current President, who on the campaign trail in 2000 acknowledged that he had never heard of Friends, one of the longest running and most popular shows in t.v. history.
December 1, 2003
"We are NOT winning the war on terror. We are not winning the war on terror," Wesley Clark emphatically declared Sunday morning on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. I can't remember anybody else putting it so starkly. In fact, the Democratic Presidential candidates have been hammering away at this administration's Iraq debacles for months, but they've been a lot more sheepish when using the words "war on terror." It's a risky proposition, but Clark's increasingly bold statements seem designed to both broaden the national security debate and distinguish himself as tougher than the rest (especially tougher than G.W., "I'm the only candidate who can stand toe-to-toe with the President on national security"). He also did it in last week's debate when he lambasted the RNC commercial which outrageously stated that some were "attacking the President for attacking the terrorists." Clark's response: "I'm not attacking the President because he's attacking terrorists – I'm attacking him because he ISN'T attacking terrorists."

This is the exact right Democratic message from exactly the right messenger – a General, a Rhodes Scholar, a reluctant but experienced warrior. There's a lot of evidence that this President's decisions have made this country and this world less secure, not more, and if we don't have a nominee who can credibly make that case – and I seriously doubt Howard Dean's ability to convince people of his national security bonafides – we're gonna lose our shirts next November.

On Face the Nation yesterday morning, historian Robert Dallek mentioned that the U.S. had a favorability rating in Indonesia of about 75% before the march to war, and right now it's at about 15%. Whoa. Maybe Bush should send Karl Rove over there to turn those numbers back around.
November 29, 2003
Two and a half hours. That's how long President Bush visited with American troops in Iraq on Thanksgiving Day. It's truly good for the commander-in-chief to let our troops know in person that the American people care about them, but 2 1/2 hours is precious little time to spend with them, and certainly not nearly enough time to glean anything new about the situation on the ground in Iraq (unlike Hillary Clinton and Senator Jack Reed, who are currently surveying Baghdad and were in Afghanistan yesterday, Bush didn't travel beyond a tightly-secured airport complex), and therefore to me reeks a little bit of another Karl Rove-engineered photo-op. It's brilliant political theater that will probably boost his popularity ratings, which really grates on those of us who would much rather see more meaningful showings from the President, like perhaps attending the funeral of a slain American soldier (he hasn't been to a single one) or lifting the ban on media coverage of our dead soldiers returning from Iraq.

Last week on Charlie Rose, Charlie asked Gore Vidal a very pointed question: "What do you love about America today?" Vidal first tried to evade by snapping, "It's in the book." But Charlie pressed him on it, and he made it clear that he doesn't find a single redeemable value in America today. I don't know exactly where you draw the line between critical and jadedly anti-American, but there can be no doubt that Vidal crossed that line some time ago.  
November 25, 2003
General Wesley Clark moved forward in yesterday afternoon's MSNBC debate in Iowa. As Bill Clinton's fond of saying, campaigns are just drawn-out job interviews, and Clark consistently made the most compelling case in the most passionate voice as to why the job should be his. Almost all his answers were outstanding, but I'll cite just a couple prime examples:
BROKAW: General Clark, let me ask you a question about a specific issue that's come up in the last couple of days or so. 

The Republicans are now running an ad in Iowa in which they say the Democrats are attacking the president for attacking terrorists. And you're saying, collectively, this is politicizing this issue in a way that the president had promised that he would not. 

At the same time the Republicans will respond, out of a Senate Intelligence Committee we saw a draft of the memo saying, "We can capitalize on their failure from an intelligence point of view to deal with the American people in an honest way."

Where does the truth lie in all of this?

CLARK: Well, I think the truth is this: The president has politicized the war on terror. 

This country pulled together. It expected honest, straight, direct leadership. The president said we'd get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. He pulled the greatest bait-and-switch operation in American retail history. At the very time we should have been getting Osama bin Laden, he was preparing to attack Iraq and Saddam Hussein. We don't have Osama bin Laden. That's the basic politicization: They wanted to go after Iraq.

Now, as far as that ad is concerned, Tom, I think it's an outrage. People in a democracy have a duty to hold the government accountable. And we will hold this government accountable for failing to protect us and go after Osama bin Laden the right way. 

And as for me, I'm not attacking the president because he's attacking terrorists – I'm attacking him because he ISN'T attacking terrorists. And that's the problem with this administration.

(APPLAUSE)

They wanted to attack states, not terrorists. Until we get the right policies in place, we're not going to make the American people safer. 

And we're not safer with half our Army and $150 billion and Americans dying every day in Iraq. That is not the centerpiece of the war on terror.
Right there – that's a winning message for us in 2004. Even if Howard Dean used the same words, he wouldn't have the authority to use them. General Clark does. And in his closing statement, Clark takes the fight – indirectly but clearly – to Dean by concisely articulating the rationale for his electability above all others, especially foreign policy virgin Howard:
CLARK: Well, Tom, tonight we're in Iowa. But the real debate is not here. It's going to be a year from now with George W. Bush and we can already see the outlines of this debate. 

It's going to be about the war on terror, foreign policy and who can keep America safe. And we see the ads trying to strip us of our patriotism and our ability to hold our president accountable for the mistakes he's made. 

Now, we know that we're not safer today and we know he's made mistakes. But we also see those ads. 

And so I think the real question is before this party: Who is the person best able to answer the questions America will ask? Who can stand toe to toe with George Bush and argue foreign policy and security policy and the values that we, as Americans, believe in? 

I'm the only person on the stage who's led major forces in an alliance in war. And I'm the only person here who's negotiated or helped to negotiate an agreement to end a war. 

I am the candidate who can stand with George W. Bush and win this election.
Damn right.

On a side note, in another one of his answers, Clark mentioned that Clinton really shouldn't be blamed for a lack of response to Al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in 2000, which took the lives of 17 American servicemen, because it took some time to figure out exactly what happened and by then his term was practically finished. At first, I thought that Clark screwed up the timeline, because I thought there was plenty of time left in Clinton's term when the Cole was attacked, and Republicans certainly criticize Clinton's inaction any chance they get. But Clark's absolutely right: the USS Cole was bombed on October 12, 2000, just a few weeks before Bush's "election." These details are crucial, and really make it more confounding that Condoleeza Rice seemingly didn't listen to Sandy Berger, the outgoing Clinton National Security Advisor, when he told her that Al Qaeda should be priority #1.
November 24, 2003
G.W. would pull out this clever line when asked about the mass protests in London last week:
The tradition of free speech exercised with enthusiasm is alive and well here in London... They now have that right in Baghdad as well.
The Iraqis don't even have a constitution yet, so how does he know what their rights are? He claims he doesn't read newspapers or watch tv news and instead gets all news from his advisors (which is sadly believable), and only such an uninformed mind would be surprised by what Reuters reported on November 11:
American soldiers handcuffed and firmly wrapped masking tape around an Iraqi man's mouth after they arrested him for speaking out against occupation troops. Asked why the man had been arrested and put into the back of a Humvee vehicle on Tahrir Square, the commanding officer told Reuters at the scene, "This man has been detained for making anti-coalition statements." He refused to say what the man said.
November 20, 2003
Today's news coverage is a perfect example of why it's so important to support PBS, and why public funding for its programs are vital to U.S. citizens' educational interests. At least 27 people have been killed and 400 injured in a terrorist bombing in Istanbul – a very meaningful attack with far-reaching consequences for the U.S. – and 99% of the "Breaking News" coverage on the market-driven CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC is about Michael Jackson (November is a sweeps month, but I don't think programming in non-sweeps months would be much different). The only television station where I could educate myself on Turkey today was the BBC, and the only radio stations were NPR affiliates (and maybe Pacifica, but I failed to check). And thank God for the internet, of course. When t.v. channels are multiplying and becoming increasingly specialized, it's terribly sad that it's such a painstaking ordeal to find real news amidst all the Jacko crap.

Is there really anything new, surprising, or newsworthy about Jacko's arrest? Thesmokinggun.com has had the 1993 complaint against M.J. on their website for years. How long can these poor television anchors invent new ways to describe images revealing the basic forward progress of a car and a plane, and when are we going to stop burdening them with that responsibility?

Morally, the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision giving the go-ahead to gay marriage is an absolute triumph for human rights. Politically, it's an inopportune time for us to fight for such progress.

National polls of the last couple years show that a signifigant majority of people are against gay marriage. When you change the word marriage to civil unions, fewer are against that, and when you change civil unions to general support for same-sex partners receiving legal benefits similar to those of married couples, fewer people have a problem with that. Therefore, the best political route to gay marriage is to first build upon incremental successes that businesses and states have had in extending benefits to same-sex partners, secondly go to full out civil unions, thirdly take down the constitutionally weak "Defense of Marriage Act" passed in 1996 by a shameful, homoerotic Congress, and lastly ease into gay marriage.

Progress always has its own clock, however, and the state of Massachusetts has made gay marriage the only gay issue at a time when Republicans will make it a successful wedge issue and few Democrats will be able to fight back without taking a political hit for it. I've already written off every Southern state with the possible exceptions of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida in the 2004 Presidential election, but the issue of gay marriage really hurts the Democratic candidate in most other states, too, especially those in the crucial industrial Midwest, almost all of which we must win.

So those like me who support gay marriage really have to stand on principle here and accept the consequences. My first response to those against gay marriage is fairly simple: fuck you. Why should two same-sex people who love each other and want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives not be afforded the same right as the rest of us? It's a simple human rights issue. It's not a religious issue, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court made perfectly clear that churches aren't under any obligation whatsoever to marry anyone they don't want to. And all the other arguments I've heard from the anti-gay marriage crowd are equally false. For some reason, I've heard several opponents bring up that if gay marriage goes forward then people will start to marry animals and stuff, which is kind of hilarious. And then there's the multi-person argument, which is also pretty ridiculous, because society has a clear economic interest against multi-person marriage that courts would instantly recognize.

This is really about homophobia, and progressives have to start using the homophobic fears of gay marriage opponents against them. Many anti-gay marriage bullies like to use the word "unnatural" a lot to describe gays, who've been around since the beginning of time. As a heterosexual, I point out to them how unnatural it is for a self-proclaimed heterosexual to care about who gays choose to love. Gay bashers are often self-loathingly gay themselves, and in my mind any anti-gay marriage zealot's sexuality is an open question. I listen to them claim they're straight and  refuse to believe them. Real heterosexuals aren't threatened by gay marriage.

The good news in this whole thing is that a majority of people under thirty are pro-gay marriage. Despite the best efforts of Ronald Reagan, both George Bushes, Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, and a whole bunch of other Republican reactionaries, this country continues to see some social progress, and each generation of gays has a little easier time coming out of the closet. So to most young people, gays aren't some evil abstraction, but real people with real human dignity.

So progressive Democrats may take a big short-term political hit on the issue of gay marriage, but whether it's years or decades from now, we'll have it. Justice will be done. 

How big a phony is Arnold Schwarzenegger? This is a guy whose whole campaign was based on him being immune to special interests – he didn't need any special interest money because he had his own money.  Now, he's quite public about his special interest panhandling. He's actually paying back all his personal loans to his campaign by raising money from special interests. I can't believe the press lets him get away with it. Unbelievable. 

November 17, 2003
Wesley Clark was very impressive on Meet the Press yesterday morning. One of my big questions about Clark is whether he can keep under wraps his intelligent man's outrage when assholes like Tim Russert throw gotcha questions and trumped-up allegations his way, and he aced that test today. He took Russert's best shots, and dismantled many of the anti-Clark arguments calmly but completely. His fabled discipline is definitely starting to serve him well in his campaign appearances, because just a couple months ago there's no doubt he would have come off a lot more defensive, perhaps even Dean-like on some questions. But the calm, honest, knowledgable, articulate, earnest Wes was on good display.

This Washington Post article details some of Clark's media offensive this week, and reveals his campaign's expectation to raise more than $12 million this quarter, which is awesome (remember, Dean's $14.8 3rd quarter total was earth-shattering, and campaign's like to underestimate their totals, so I could see Clark doing just about what Dean did last time). It also highlights the urgency felt by Clark campaign officials to right the ship, and I see signs they're doing it. The new commercials that began airing in New Hampshire this week look terrific.

Unfortunately, Peter Boyer's New Yorker piece on Clark in last week's issue is mostly a bunch of bullshit. Fred Kaplan's Slate rebuttal does a pretty good job of exposing it. Bottom line: how much can you criticize Clark – who consistently ran across tightropes between career politicians from several countries and career military men from several countries – when he led an entirely successful international war that saved hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians with zero Allied casualties? Boyer's evaluation on Clark's performance is so one-sided and at odds with what I understand from other things I've read (including in books by David Halberstam, Richard Holbrooke, and Dana Priest) that it makes you wonder if he's got a political agenda. In any case, his article is inexcusably shallow and unprofessional.  

One of the best ideas of this campaign is Dick Gephardt's call for an international minimum wage:
Gephardt's plan would work this way. Prodded by the World Trade Organization and the United Nations International Labor Organization, each country would set a minimum wage, based on its level of development and ability to support that living standard. Under his scheme, being a member of the WTO and enjoying the benefits of further trade liberalization would ultimately be contingent on a nation's willingness to adopt the international minimum wage, or IMW.
Last week on Charlie Rose, there was a guy from the World Bank who mentioned that 2 billion people in the world earn under $2 a day. That's astonishing. Not only do we Americans have a moral responsibility to do something about it, but I think it's a long-term national security and health issue for us, too. Any real "War on Terrorism," I think, must propose direct solutions to deal with poverty and ignorance – with his focus solely on military might solving the world's problems, G.W. missed an opportunity after 9/11 to popularize such solutions. But Gephardt provides one here.
November 13, 2003
As expected yesterday, Howard Dean corralled endorsements from two of the largest and most active unions, SEIU and AFSCME. It's hard to overestimate their importance, and they help immediately in 3 obvious ways:
1. These two unions combined give Dean an extra 3 million campaign foot soldiers – particularly in the early battleground states of Iowa and New Hampshire – and a bunch of money to go along with them.
2. Dean has shown questionable appeal outside NPR/Starbucks/yuppie/college-educated Democrats, and these endorsements are simultaneously a nod from both non-college educated, blue collar workers and two pillars of the Democratic Establishment. Also, SEIU is a particularly racially diverse union, and their endorsement really helps dispel the notion that Dean holds little appeal to African-Americans.
3. The inside story of how the Dean campaign won these unions' support once again reminds the media and everyone else that they're by far the most well-organized, passionate, shrewdest campaign out there. They've gone from running a small, clever, insurgent campaign to a certifiable national juggernaut. Check out this The New Republic story on Dean's genius campaign manager, Joe Trippi (I use the term genius sparingly – mostly only for individuals who create some kind of revolutionary change, and this guy qualifies – it's not at all a stretch to say he's completely reinvented modern campaigning). 

Stu Rothenberg, who's about as clear-eyed and impartial a political scientist as you could find, has already declared Dean the presumptive nominee. In today's Roll Call, he writes:
At some point during the next two or three months, the Democratic presidential contest is more likely than not to turn into a two-man race between former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and someone else, probably Rep. Richard Gephardt. But don’t be fooled. The Democratic race is over.

Dean has wrapped up the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. Well, almost.
Wow.

This is unsettling to those of us who have serious doubts about Dean's chances in the general election. Unfortunately, I think his campaign will prove much stronger as an organization than he will as a candidate. 

But do I think he has a chance of being elected? Without a doubt. It's definitely possible. He's a very smart guy, and a very shrewd politician. And I believe that his campaign will actually be able to raise enough money to be very competitive with Bush in the general, and organized in ways that we've never seen before. I also think if he gets the nomination that Clark will probably be his Vice Presidential pick, and this would help to shield him from some of the foreign policy concerns.

Still, Dean's probably my fourth choice, behind Clark, Edwards, and Kerry. You can certainly make an argument for Gephardt, but I'm so bored by him I can hardly write a sentence about him without falling asleep. If only Clark or Kerry or Edwards had their own Joe Trippi, and at least a little of the fieriness that's attracted so many folks to Dean.

Arnold Schwarzenegger and George W. Bush share an astonishing ability to work and vacation at the same time.

Bush has taken so many months off that his staff popularized the term "working vacation." Now, despite telling reporters for days that Schwarzenegger has been leading transition meetings, the Schwarzenegger campaign admitted yesterday that Arnold's been in Hawaii with his family all week. 
     
I love Wes Clark, but I cringed when I read that he supported a constitutional amendment against flag-burning. It flies in the face of his frequent passionate and eloquent speeches on the democratic value of dissent. Didn't Clark and his fellow soldiers risk their lives so we could have the freedom to burn flags? Hopefully, Wes just lost his head for a moment and couldn't resist the Veterans Day pander.

On the other hand, I love that he's come out with a sensible plan to get bin Laden, and focuses on Bush's failure here. It's unbelievable, isn't it, that such a mockery of a human being (bin Laden, not Bush) is still alive? Why don't Democrats talk about this more? Even if he were killed or captured tomorrow, it'll have been way too long in coming.

John Edwards was awesome on Sunday's Meet the Press. I think he's a victim of his youthful looks in this race. I really do. His criticisms of Bush on the stump have been as blunt as Howard Dean's, but nobody notices. On June 21st, he said, "This president is a complete, unadulterated phony." And when he was asked about it by Russert, he didn't shy away from it one bit. To paraphrase, he said Bush masquerades as the common man with a common touch, but that he simply doesn't meet with ordinary Americans outside staged campaign events, and that there's nothing common about Bush's privileged upbringing. This is not only true, but goes directly to what polls show is one of Bush's biggest political weaknesses: people think he cares about corporations and the rich more than ordinary folks.

Edwards becomes more likable the more I see him – a lot of Democrats have been saying the same thing lately. Hopefully, if he's not on the ticket this year, he can take some other prominent leadership role in Democratic politics. It'd be a terrrible waste if he doesn't. 
November 10, 2003
Joe Biden – one of the Democrats most authoritative, accessible, charismatic, and dynamic foreign policy thinkers – posed an important question last week on Imus in the Morning:
If you were President of the United States and you had gotten advice as what was going to happen after Saddam fell from Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest, and all of it turned out to be wrong and you were running your business now, okay, the guys around you – all the advice they gave you for six months in a row is dead wrong – you'd probably fire them, wouldn't you?
Uh-huh.

Keep in mind, also, that Biden has been a pretty moderate voice throughout the entire Iraq debate. The more I listen to smart senators like Biden and even Republican senators Hagel, McCain, and Lugar, I get the idea that they're almost in disbelief at the depths of misunderstanding about Middle Eastern affairs in this administration, and are a little freaked out that there really wasn't a post-war plan in Iraq at all, aside from some weird hope that American soldiers would be greeted with hugs, kisses, and flowers.
November 8, 2003
Next week, I'm afraid Democrats will further hurt their chances of winning back the White House. It's clear that two very powerful unions, SEIU and AFSCME, will endorse Howard Dean. The enormous financial resources and grassroots manpower these two unions bring to the campaign signifigantly improve Dean's chance to win the nomination, which in turn would severely degrade our ability to beat George W. Bush in 2004.

Last Saturday, Dean repeated a line he's used for several months on the campaign trail: "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." It's bad enough that he would actively seek the support of those who flaunt such a divisive, anti-Lincoln symbol, but his response after he was called on it was even worse. After being hammered over this statement for 9 minutes at Tuesday's Rock the Vote forum, first by a young African-American questioner who said he was offended by the remark, and then by Al Sharpton and John Edwards, Dean was characteristically indignant, arrogant, and petulant. He made a point of refusing to apologize, and said that he'll stand by his statement, which he suggested only meant that Democrats had to appeal to poor rural whites in the South just as FDR did. In other words, in Howard Dean's world, all poor rural Southern whites = Confederate flagwavers. So he followed up an empty, blusterous statement with an ignorant stereotype.

Bringing up FDR's approach to the South is pretty smart, and is a distinguishing approach for Dean to take on the campaign trail. But using the Confederate flag to give that idea some more oomph is stupid. Not only that, but presumably Dean knows that he's not going to take any Southern states (on top of all the other reasons why Dean won't play well in the South, most voters there will despise Dean's proposal for a wholesale repeal of the Bush tax cuts, a policy stance which alone would cost him every Southern state), but he just blurts out that Confederate flag line as more evidence that he's a "straight talker."

Politicians who present themselves as straight talkers always bother me, because invariably they're full of shit. A completely candid person will never win an election. Ever. It'd be political suicide. Could you imagine somebody running for office explaining their political opinions exactly the way you would to your best friend? No way. Every successful politician signs a deal with the devil; even the most honest ones must acknowledge that they'll have to work out some artful compromises with full truths. So the least they can do is spare smart people that patronizing "straight talker" crap.

For Dean, the straight talker label will prove especially misfitting. He's a classically nimble and shifty politician who conforms his views with expediency. Even in his apology today (finally) for the Confederate flag remark, he brought up his support for affirmative action. But look at these remarks Dean made against race-based affirmative action in an April 9, 1995 CNN interview:
Dean: You know, I think we ought to look at affirmative action based not on race but on class and opportunity to participate.

Interviewer: You sound like Newt Gingrich.

Dean: People from working class families who do not have the opportunity to participate – regardless of whether they're white or black – ought to be given some kind of opportunity... but I don't think it ought to be done by race.
His affirmative action epiphany isn't unique. In just a few short years, he's completely changed his positions on medicare (it used to be "one of the worst federal programs ever" that he would cut, but now he "absolutely will not cut" it), social security (he supported raising the retirement age to 70, but now he's against it; he also suggested that the federal budget could be balanced if we cut social security, but now claims he'd never cut it), the death penalty (he was completely against it, now he's completely for it), and the assault weapons ban (he now says he supports the ban and its renewal by Congress, but a few years ago answered in an NRA questionnaire that he opposed such a ban, and also opposed any waiting period, which I think he now supports).

I don't mind some evolution in policy thinking, but Dean's presentation of himself as a straight shooter in light of all these political shifts renders him extremely vulnerable to being branded a complete phony. A straight talker he's not.

Voters will learn a lot more about him sooner or later. Let's hope, for the sake of American progress in 2004, it's sooner.             
November 3, 2003
So 16 American soldiers died yesterday, with 20 more injured, capping the worst week in Iraq for us since May 1, when Bush declared an end to major combat. Sadly, almost everybody seems to think that things will get worse before they get better.

Yesterday's fatalities were the result of a shoulder-fired missile shot some 300 yards away at an American Chinook helicopter taking G.I.'s to get some r & r.

I've heard several intelligence experts say that these shoulder-fired missiles probably represent the greatest terrorist threat to commercial flights in the U.S., since they're reportedly ubiquitous around the globe and relatively easy to use. Security experts and some in Congress suggest that it would take a couple years and about $10 billion to equip our airlines with protection against surface-to-air missiles. For a President who isn't shy to boast about how committed he is to the war on terror, and how well he's doing, why hasn't he led the initiative to insure that every passenger transport vehicle – both civilian and military – is sufficiently modernized to avoid shoulder-fired missile attacks? Isn't that $10 billion an amount the American people would gladly spend to lesson the likeliehood of such attacks?

I'd be eager to fork over my portion of the $1.4 trillion tax cut to support this and other specific initiatives which would amount to a more pragmatic approach to a war on terror, rather than this President's more theoretical, p.r.-driven war.    
October 30, 2003
Today's announcement that the economy has grown by a blistering 7.2% is, when viewed in a purely political context, a nightmare for Democrats. While the fact that we still lost 41,000 jobs is ammunition against Bush (and he will almost certainly be the first President since the Great Depression to shepherd a net less of jobs), voters tend to base their feelings on the economy over whether things are generally looking up or down, and it's hard not to glean optimism from these numbers. Ironically, we may see an election in 2004 where Bush wants to talk a little more about the economy and the Democratic nominee wants to talk a little more about Iraq and national security.
October 27, 2003
It's really a shame that New Hampshire voters can't see a one-on-one debate between John Kerry and Howard Dean. One recent poll shows Dean opening up a 23 point lead over Kerry in that state. But Kerry has some very strong arguments to wage against Dean, and if the two were allowed extended and meaningful back and forth – rather than limited little potshots here and there in these overcrowded debates – I think Kerry would take away from Dean's support.

In the few times that Kerry was allowed to hammer Dean tonight, he did so effectively. His argument against Dean's proposal to repeal all the middle class tax cuts is a political winner – a huge number of Democrats love their child tax credits and hated their marriage penalty tax. It's a classic pocketbook issue, and I hope Kerry or Wes Clark or John Edwards exposes Dean's political weakness here so Bush doesn't get a chance to.

Kerry also continued to question – as Gephardt has done to poll-rising effectiveness in Iowa – Dean's committment to the most valued Democratic entitlements. Just last week, Kerry pointed out, Dean said entitlements were on the budget-cutting table, and he wanted to know exactly which entitlements Dean was talking about (Dean didn't give an answer). This is another bread and butter issue for Democrats that has already costed Dean his slim lead in Iowa, and could help cost him his bigger lead in New Hampshire.

Now that Kerry is down in New Hampshire and fighting for life in this race, he has no choice but to attack Dean relentlessly, and I think he will. I loved his closing statement tonight, too, about his ironclad support of gun control (renamed, I suppose, "gun safety" by focus group-educated political consultants) and that Democrats must hold strong on this issue. Dean, of course, is an NRA supporter, and Kerry's on the side of a lot more Democrats here as well. In the future, he needs to tackle Dean more explicitly on it, and I think his floating it tonight is a harbinger.

Kerry also had two of the 3 best lines of the night. Of the religious warrior the Bush Administration had leading the search for bin Laden, Kerry joked, "General Boykin has confused the heck out of the White House on all this talk about the Almighty because when he talks about the Almighty, the President thinks he's talking about Cheney, Cheney thinks he's talking about Halliburton, and John Ashcroft thinks he's talking about him."

When Gwen Ifill pushed him to refute that he's aloof, and just another Northeastern liberal elitist, Kerry flashed a winning, self-deprecating charm: "Well, wait until you see my video – 'Kerry Gone Wild'."

Kerry was great tonight. He's had a lot of trouble in this campaign, but don't count him out just yet.

The other great line of the night, by the way, was from Wesley Clark, who embraced his political inexperience when Ifill pushed him on it: "You're right, Gwen. In fact, the last election I was in was for homeroom student council representative." These last few weeks, I've been waiting for Clark to showcase his political outsider status rather than shy away from it, and this line not only got one of the night's biggest laughs, but showed that Clark knows what an asset his political inexperience can be. He's gotta repeat it again and again and again, another thing the good General is learning quickly about politics.   
October 21, 2003
Any time somebody tries to tell you that racism isn't pervasive in this country, ask them why Haley Barbour, the Republican candidate for Governor of Mississippi who's currently leading in polls there, won't ask the Council of Conservative Citizens to take the picture of him proudly posing with their members off their web site. Also ask what Barbour was doing at their political fundraiser on July 19.

The Council of Conservative Citizens is a disgusting, openly racist organization. Included in their site postings are an article called "In Defense of Racism" and a link to purchase a book revealing "the TRUTH about Martin Luther King and why he doesn't deserve a national holiday in his honor." Alongside those is a picture of Barbour in the middle of a bunch of morons, one of whom wrote a book in praise of Hitler.

Haley Barbour doesn't ask them to take his picture off their site because, like many Republicans before him, he wants to continue to wink at segregationists to let them know he understands, and needs their vote. Trent Lott winked earlier this year with his praise of Strom Thurmond's segregationist policies; John Ashcroft winked in his 1998 interview with Southern Partisan magazine when he praised as "patriots" confederates Robert E. Lee, "Stonewall" Jackson, and Jefferson Davis; Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue winked when he won his 2002 election in large part on the back of his call to have a referendum on bringing the Confederate emblem back to the state capitol; the list goes on and on.

It's disheartening that we're still dealing with this crap in 2003, but I don't think we're gonna make much progress until more people stand up and refer to these winkers more pointedly as what they essentially are: racists.
October 20, 2003
It turns out that the U.S. military man in charge of tracking down Osama bin Laden believes this might indeed be a religious war. The L.A. Times on Thrusday revealed these comments from Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence in the Bush Administration:
Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told another audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this," Boykin said last year.

On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."
It's easy to envision those comments being used in an al Qaeda recruitment video. President Bush, whose own language is often steeped in evangelism, nonetheless has made statements which show he's aware of what disastrous p.r. this religious warrior language can lead to, so he should replace this guy.  

CSPAN's Road to the White House this week highlighted Wesley Clark's speech unveiling his proposal for a civilian reserve corps. During the middle of the speech, a college student behind Clark passed out. It was terribly cinematic, because he was just out of camera frame – you didn't see him, but heard the thud of his body hitting the ground, and then saw Clark react. It was almost certainly the most exciting moment in Road to the White House history.

The student ended up making a full recovery, and Clark handled the situation very gracefully.
October 15, 2003
National polls about the Democratic Presidential candidates don't mean a whole hell of a lot right now. But they do tell us something about whom the various demographics throughout the country are generally more inclined to vote for right now. Using data from a CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP poll released last week, Ruy Teixeira makes a very persuasive case why Wesley Clark is a much more electable candidate than Howard Dean, the money-king and frontrunner in Iowa and New Hampshire:
While Clark receives more support than Dean among both men and women, his margin over Dean among women is just 3 points (16 percent to 13 percent), but an impressive 12 points among men (29 percent to 17 percent). He also beats Dean in every region of the country, but especially in the south (25 percent to 8 percent). Also intriguing is how well he does among low income voters (less than $20,000), clobbering Dean by 26 percent to 5 percent. In fact, Clark bests Dean in every income group up to $75,000.  Above $75,000, Dean edges Clark, 26 percent to 25 percent.

In terms of ideology, Dean beats Clark among liberals, 24 percent to 18 percent, but Clark wins moderates by 24 percent to 11 percent and conservatives by 23 percent to 7 percent. The general picture, then, is that Clark does especially well, relative to Dean, among the very groups where Democrats have been having the most problems. That suggests to DR that the emerging Clark candidacy deserves very serious consideration indeed.

And there are other reasons, too, of course. Like Clark’s ability to raise a large amount of money in a short time period. Or his increasing success in connecting with voters on the retail level. Or that he may be able to generate considerable support from blacks, the Democratic Party’s most loyal constituency. Or, counter-intuitively, the very thing that has led to so much criticism of Clark from his Democratic rivals: he’s not a “regular” Democrat. He says he voted for Nixon and Reagan. He only recently registered as a Democrat. He’s said nice things about Republicans in the past.

The fact of the matter is that in today’s anti-establishment, pro-outsider mood–witness the destruction of Gray Davis and election of Arnold Schwarzenegger–these are probably all good things to have on a Democratic candidate’s resume. Swing voters who are dissatisfied with Bush and therefore inclined to look closely at the Democratic candidate will not be put off by Clark’s partisan heterodoxy; on the contrary, it will make it easier for them to see the Democratic candidate as an agent of change, not of the Democratic party’s establishment (as, say, Gephardt or Kerry) or of the liberal faction of the party (Dean).
Teixeira's right.

Just think, if you were Karl Rove and had $250 million to caricature either Clark or Dean, which one would you choose? It's not a close call.

Perhaps most importantly, although Clark has been criticized for a lack of specifics, he's drawn up a more specific, positive, visionary set of prescriptions for alleviating America's foreign policy ills than any other candidate, and his domestic proposals are catching up.

While Dean's premiere political talent is harnessing outrage and negativity, there's something inherently innocent and hopeful about Clark. He can calm the fears of many who are usually disinclined to vote for Democrats, something no other Democrat running can claim.  
October 13, 2003
Moveon.org has launched an amusing drive to get as many people as possible to sign an affidavit confirming that they weren't involved in leaking CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the press. In their solicitation email, they expose President Bush's disingenuousness with the following 3 quotes:

On finding Osama Bin Laden in Central Asia:
"We're going to hunt them down one at a time... it doesn't matter where they hide, as we work with our friends we will find them and bring them to justice."
--President George W. Bush, 11/22/02

On finding Saddam Hussein in the Mideast:
"We are continuing the pursuit and it's a matter of time before [Saddam ] is found and brought to justice."
--White House spokesman McClellan, 9/17/03

On finding the leaker in the close confines of the White House:
"I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. I don't have any idea."
--President George W. Bush, 10/7/03

Clearly, Bush is trying to deflect any one from thinking he could possibly have any responsibility to find the leakers, and he can't be allowed to get away with that nonsense. There's probably only about a dozen or so people who could have leaked the information, and if he wanted to, he could call in Chief of Staff Andy Card at any time and have the names of the leakers within a matter of hours. But he cries absolute powerlessness.

Whether Bush is deliberately misleading us or fooling himself is really besides the point. As our President, he's too often projected bravado when he should be measured and caution when he should be brave. Whether it's him or somebody in his administration, it seems like every day brings evidence of his empty, failed leadership. The scumbag tactics of leaking a CIA operative's name to the press is bad enough, but this orchestrated stonewalling to protect the leakers is even worse, and there's ultimately only one guy to hold responsible for that.
October 10, 2003
Now that Arnold has won decisively, I think it would be a terrible mistake for Democrats in our state to wage some vengeful recall campaign. Democrats are still extremely strong here, and all the exit poll data suggests that he won because people see him as a moderate – not a word most people in this state use to define Republicans. In fact, Arnold is so socially liberal that even if he were eligible to run on a national ticket, Republicans wouldn't stand for it.

That's why Democrats should seize the opportunity to join Senator Orrin Hatch and other Republicans to amend our Constitution so that foreign-born individuals who've been citizens for a long time can be eligible for President. Not only is it the right thing to do (why should a foreign-born American citizen who's been here longer than I've been alive be prohibited from running when I'm not?), but we have a practical motive, too: Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who was born in Canada, is a tremendously popular, rising political superstar who would make an extraordinarily attractive addition to a national ticket.

As for Arnold, he's off to a good start by naming a politically diverse slate of people to his transistion team. I just hope he doesn't change course and misrepresent the citizens of this state by using his popularity to help national right-wing Republicans like George W. Bush. You'd expect him to attend a fundraiser or two with G Dub, but Democrats should take any further right-wing help as a shot across the bow, and return fire.

You can tell that Wes Clark is leading several recent national and state polls for the Democratic nomination, because Dean, Lieberman, Kerry, and even John Edwards all tried to take him down in tonight's debate in Arizona. Clark under fire is the headline of nearly all the coverage on this debate.

While Clark certainly didn't embarrass himself, he revealed flashes of a temper that could hurt him if he doesn't learn to laugh off some of the inevitable attacks, and how to turn them on his opponents.

There's a lot to be learned about Clark in David Halberstam's book, War In A Time Of Peace: Bush, Clinton, and the Generals. Like Clinton, Clark's accustomed to being the smartest person in just about any room he could walk into, was a Rhodes Scholar and first in his class at every level, and incredibly adept at breaking down and understanding huge amounts of information in little time. He's also extraordinarily complex and enormously driven. Unlike Clinton, some would describe Clark as cold, brusque, sometimes thin-skinned, and seemingly blind at times as to how others perceive him. These aren't great qualities for a political campaigner, although when you team them with his intelligence and drive they can be terrific leadership qualities.

Here's what Halberstam writes about Clark's competitiveness:
Going back to his early years at West Point, he did not merely want to win; he had to win, and he had to win at everything. He had to be first in his class, anything else was unacceptable; he had to win a casual tennis game, which for Clark was not entirely casual. He had to win a regular morning jog with pals – it was friendly, of course, just exercise among friends – but it might as well have been a run at an Olympic event... The drive that set him apart was an irresistible impulse over which he had little control. To friends it was just Wes being Wes. Winning was a function of character.
We're going to need such drive to beat Bush, but Clark has to learn to control the impulse better – like Howard Dean, there are times when he appears perilously close to becoming completely unhinged. He got a little practice controlling himself tonight, but he's going to have to get better at it to be elected President. There's a fine line between forceful conviction and stridency.

I thought John Kerry was awesome tonight. He was totally comfortable throughout, and continues to look Presidential. He's a damn good debater, too, who seldom misses an opportunity to needle an opponent – usually Howard Dean – on something. And he had by far the best line of the debate when he said to a female stroke survivor worried about the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs: "There are two ways you could have lower prescription drug costs – one is you could hire Rush Limbaugh's housekeeper... or you could elect me President of the United States." Kerry is one of those guys reputed to get tougher as things get tougher for him. He's proving it on the campaign trail.

John Edwards also continues to be outstanding in these debates.

Gephardt again did pretty well, especially in his passionate defense of Democratic accomplishments under President Clinton. He's drawing himself as minority leader to Clinton, which is a smart strategy for these primaries.

Dean was good. He held serve, which is great for a frontrunner, and he must love seeing Clark taking a lot of fire that would otherwise be coming his way.

Nothing else too noteworthy. Once again, to no avail, I'll call on Lieberman, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosley Braun to drop out of the race. They're wasting our time.
October 7, 2003

Just a few hours from now, polls open in California. I'll be surprised if the recall doesn't succeed, and if Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't elected Governor of California.  

The young woman who bagged my groceries tonight looked at the Newsweek I had purchased with Kobe Bryant on the cover with the words "The Kobe Bryant You Don't Know" over his face, and she said, "God, can't they give Kobe a break? I mean he makes a mistake and they never want to let him forget about it." I'm almost certain her vote will be going to Schwarzenegger.

There are a million things to discuss about Schwarzenegger, and I'll address some of those things at a later date, but one thing that's been bugging me is how people continuously compare Schwarzenegger's behavior to Clinton's, and suggest that those of us who wanted to let Clinton off the hook but find the Schwarzenegger allegations pretty damning are hypocritical.  

Both men appear to have some pretty serious problems involving their penises, but beyond that the situations are much different.

First, all the Monica Lewinsky stuff didn't break until early 1998, meaning that Clinton never faced a vote after it was all public. The only controversy was whether or not his conduct surrounding that affair rose to the high crimes and misdemeanors level, not whether people should vote to re-elect him. Indeed, I think most polls taken in 1998 suggest that while over 60% of voters opposed impeachment, an even greater majority were disinclined to vote for him if he were able to run for a 3rd term. I think many people have forgotten that Clinton was being subjected to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" and "should he resign?" standard, not the seemingly more lofty "he's the man for the job" standard.

Secondly, as far as I know, 3 women (Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick) accused Clinton of non-consensual sexual advances. 5 times that many have accused Arnold, and unlike Arnold, Clinton didn't admit any of them. And there were big problems with each allegation: the Paula Jones case was thrown out of court for scant evidence; Kathleen Willey actually wrote a thank-you note to Clinton after the encounter where she claims he forced kisses on her and touched her breasts, and believe it or not no greater a Bill Clinton fan than Linda Tripp says that Willey looked positively giddy after the alleged encounter with Clinton supposedly took place; and Juanita Broaddrick had signed an affidavit swearing – just a couple years before she accused him of raping her in the 70's – that no non-consensual sex with Bill Clinton took place, and she also went to a Bill Clinton fundraiser a short time after she says the alleged incident occurred.

While Broaddrick's rape allegation was particularly disturbing, there was substantial enough doubt for me to presume Clinton's innocence and support him as a public figure throughout all of it. I didn't like a lot about Clinton that came out in 1998, however, and if there were an election that year I certainly would have searched for a Democratic alternative.   

As Bill Bradley said to the press when he was running for the Democratic nomination in 2000, "You have the right to know about my crimes, but not about my sins." Therefore, whether or not he smoked marijuana in his life was a relevant public issue, but whether or not he ever cheated on his wife wasn't. I think that's a pretty good distinction.

Using it, I think Clinton's penis problems fall in the "sin" category and Schwarzenegger's penis problems fall in the "crime" category. In fact, every single allegation which is detailed in the LA Times articles (15 women have now come forward) – some of which, I suppose, Arnold vaguely admitted to and apologized for – is an example of sexual battery in this state.

In an email to me, my sister Beth points to another aspect of Schwarzenegger's behavior that makes it more publicly insidious than Clinton's:
It seems to me that the key difference here is that Clinton loved sex and tried to entice many women into having sex with him (sometimes wrongly, or in situations where the power differential made the come-on morally dubious), but Arnold's inappropriate sexual behavior seems targeted towards women who weren't interested and therefore he wanted to put in their place. And that's what is truly scary about it: it implies that he does not like women and certainly
doesn't like women he can't control, or he will try to control them in sexual ways and make them victims.
It's a sad day when any state – much less the biggest in the union – elects a guy with a well-documented 30 year history of bullying and violating women. Even sadder is that there's nothing to suggest that Arnold won't continue such boorish criminal behavior as an officially-sanctioned public officer.          
October 2, 2003
Here's an update on the Limbaugh as drug addict story from the New York Daily News.

I hate the politics of personal destruction, but there's little I enjoy more than the politics of exposing public hypocrisy. If this stuff proves true, Rush Limbaugh's entire radio career can be dismissed as the rantings of a racist drug addict. And more importantly, as one of the biggest public frauds who's ever walked the earth. Just wait until all his quotes spewing hatred of drug addicts come to surface. Al Franken will have enough material for sequels in multi-volumes.

Justice has been served. Rush Limbaugh resigned in disgrace from his duties on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown late last night.

Hopefully, this is a wake up call to people that don't quite understand just how corrupt, stupid, and dangerous some of Limbaugh's regular speech is. I listen to his show some mornings to eavesdrop on the ignorant right, and he repeatedly makes these kinds of statements. If he had made the same comments on his radio show that he made on NFL Countdown, it would have fallen on the ears of approximately 20 million listeners who are ready to support anything that ignoramus says.

Although Limbaugh resigned, he still defends his remarks. Listen to some of the garbage he spewed on his show yesterday morning:
All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something. If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be the cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sportswriter community.
Limbaugh comes up with the kind of equation that might come from the half-formed brain of an angry, sick teenager: pissing people off = being right. Using that logic, I suppose Limbaugh could justify lots of things – 9/11, slavery, the Holocaust.  Anything. Typically worthless logic from that Cro-Magnon.

Here's a link to a bombshell L.A. Times article detailing three decades of Arnold Schwarzenegger's predatory sexual behavior. I'm sure it will be big news today and into next Tuesday's election. It's hard to imagine someone reading this and still voting for him. Then again, I'm sure his campaign team expected this, so if they can thoroughly discredit one or more of the women, or link their testimony to De