According to The Wall Street journal Howard Dean spent $10 million in Iowa and have $5 million left in the bank. Add that to the bombshell that Joe Trippi is falling on his sword and we know what today's Dean news cycle will be about. On the other hand, John Kerry's campaign shakeup marked the start of his comeback.

It sounds like Trippi will still be available later if Dean manages to turn it around. My 2 cents is that this is a good move on Dean's part. He needs some relief pitching if he hopes to come from behind. He can't afford to let any more runs score against him. The most imprtant thing he has to do is to come up with some killer TV ads to match the ones that helped Kerry win Iowa. The next primaries are wholesale, not retail.

Dean is being written off prematurely. Remember, Democrats choose delegates by proportional representation, so Dean is not far behind Kerry at all. A few wins in some big states coupled with a set of solid second place finishes in smaller states will go a long way. Don't beleive the pundits who wrtie him off -- not even me.

According to Matt Drudge the cable news ratings look like this:

CABLE NEWS WARS
MON, JAN 26, 2004

FOXNEWS OREILLY [RATING] 2.1
FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1.6
CNN LARRY KING 1.3
FOXNEWS GRETA 1.0
FOXNEWS BRIT HUME 1.1
FOX NEWS SHEP SMITH 1.0
CNN PAULA ZAHN 0.8
CNN AARON BROWN 0.7
CNBC DENNIS MILLER 0.6
MSNBC HARDBALL 0.4
MSNBC NORVILLE 0.3
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 0.3
MSNBC OLBERMANN 0.3

Dennis Miller is doing OK, especially considering the network he is on. But better yet, Keith Olberman is holding up the rear. Maybe his show should be called "Countdown to Cancellation."

I'm going to give Dennis Miller a chance to get his new show together but I must say that the premiere started off very slowly. You'd think that leading off with a 'Governator' interview would be great but it wasn't. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dennis Miller are obviously friends, and the interview came off as a big suck-up. The news segment in the middle was kinda tired -- it is the same bit he's done since Saturday Night Live ("that's the news and I'm out of here"). And it is a mistake not to have a studio audience. Miller feeds off of the energy of people watching him and even adjusts his timing to it.

On the other hand, the panel segment was promising. It had some of the feel of Politically Incorrect back when Bill Maher was still funny. Miller had David Horowitz, Naomi Wolf and David Frum as his guests. The discussion wasn't just the usual right/left talking points -- they made some new ones.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed...

More letters today. This one from Howard Dean is SO interesting on so many levels that I'll let it speak for itself:

Dear Martin,

We are making an incredible comeback here in New Hampshire. With Judy at my side, we're meeting with voters every day -- on the telephone, on the streets, and in town hall meetings.

We?re talking about the issues -- like health care, our children?s education, and taking Washington back from the special interests.

We've closed the gap in the public polls, but we need the resources for a strong showing in New Hampshire tomorrow.

There are less than 24 hours before the first votes are cast. Can you send a contribution to our campaign today?

http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute

Turning out voters in New Hampshire and beyond requires tremendous organizational strength -- an expensive proposition. Here's what we need the money for:

$286 pays for airing our biographical TV advertisement
$126 rents a van to take Dean-committed voters to the polls
$89 pays for food and lodging for volunteers
$59 pays for 500 flyers
$38 pays for 400 reminder calls to undecided voters

We need contributions at all levels -- today.

We need the resources to use in New Hampshire and in the coming primaries. The race for New Hampshire and beyond is being measured in hours:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute

Thank you for everything you do.

Howard

What do you think of that?

OMG, they are STILL playing the "I have a scream" speech. Even I'm starting to feel sorry for Howard Dean. How many times do we have to see this thing? Maybe the anti-anti-Dean backlash is starting.

Given how close the Iowa race turned out to be I should be careful about predicting what will happen in New Hampshire but.... I do think that the race will soon narrowe down to three candidates: John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean. With the 24/7 news cycle Dean will recover from "the scream." Once it goes down to three candidates the debates will become much more interesting.

Did you catch General Wesley Clark's pathetic effort on Meet the Press? Clark started out in a hole and just kept digging. I've read that Clark is a Rhodes Scholar and is supposed to be a really sharp guy... but it doesn't come across. He doesn't even sound smart to me. And people denigrate Bush? Heh.

I'm sure that he's bright but he probably sounds smarter when he isn't reciting sound bites. He hasn't mastered the art of reciting sound bites without sounding a false note. I've asked this question a number of times and I'll keep asking it. What the heck do people see in Clark? Is it just his resume?

Check out the transcript that I linked above. There is a section where Russert keeps pressing Clark to defend his inexplicable defense of Michael Moore calling George W. Bush a deserter. I find it astounding. Clark is just not ready for prime time.

So the Lady of the Lake is in town for a visit. I had dinner with her and two of her terrific friends tonight. We live in a world with so many wonderous amusements and distractions that it is easy to forget the simple pleasures of good friends and great conversation. I finally came 'out' to her. (Relax, kids, I came 'out' as a blogger -- she already knew that I was a right winger.) How can people talk for four hours and be unable to explain what they talked about. Happens to everyone I guess.

Talk swung around to 9-11... I confessed that a day doesn't go by when I'm not conscious of 9-11.... so I shared my recent elevator story. It got dark for a bit...until LotL turned up the light... reminded me of Speck a bit, actually.

It isn't that the Beatles were wrong, exactly, but you need more than love. You need hope.

As we left Jerry's we stood out front and took some group pictures (sorry -- I gave my digital camera to the kids -- don't have anything to post). A guy comes up to us and offers to take pictures of the four of us. It was only a point and shoot, but he had a way about him so I asked:

Martin: "Are you a fashion photographer?"
Him: [gives me a long look] "Yes.......with Playboy."
Martin: "That's great... and we didn't even have to get naked!"

British MP Jeny Tonge, a Liberal Democrat (hey, that's what they're called) representing Richmond Parkshould really do a better job of keeping the news section of her website up to date. I found a couple of newsworthy items that the MP has missed.

Dr. Tonge, the Liberal Democrat's point person on children's issues, spoke at a meeting of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. You would think that she had something to say about how the Palestinians encourage their kids to blow themselves up, and indeed she did:

"This particular brand of terrorism, the suicide bomber, is truly born out of desperation. "

"Many many people criticise, many many people say it is just another form of terrorism, but I can understand and I am a fairly emotional person and I am a mother and a grand mother, I think if I had to live in that situation, and I say this advisedly, I might just consider becoming one myself. And that is a terrible thing to say."

Ah yes. Perhaps if the Liberal Democrats take power she could implement a similar program in the UK.

And then there's this news item that the MP has also failed to include on her site as of yet:

Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy said he had now asked her to stand down as the party's spokeswoman for children.

"Her recent remarks about suicide bombers are completely unacceptable," Mr Kennedy said in a statement.

"They are not compatible with Liberal Democrat party policies and principles."

"There can be no justification, under any circumstances for taking innocent lives through terrorism."

"I am sorry to lose Dr Tonge from the frontbench team."

"She will continue to represent her constituency on the backbenches of the House of Commons."

I know how hard it can be to keep up a website with links to the latest news. Happy to help.

I find much fault with Howard Dean, but unlike many other folks, I admire the aproach that he and his wife have taken to the campaign. She is an accomplished person in her own right with (obviously) little interest in politics. Why should she have to drop her life to follow her husband around the campaign trail?

Relationships are funny. I know that I rarely date women who share my politics. If I ever ran for office (which I never, ever, ever would) I doubt that even my oldest daughter would vote for me, let alone a theoretical spouse. (Speck just might vote for me. She's supportive that way. Plus, she would try to get a Miata out of the deal. Plus, it's a secret ballot.). Why should love and politics have anything to do with one another? Don't take this as a dig toward traditional political wives and husbands. I admire Laura Bush as well. The point is that politicians should be judged on their own merits, not on their families.

Anyhow. That said....I saw Diane Sawyer's interview with Judy and Howard Dean. Sawyer asked a bunch of tough questions that both Deans handled well. Judy Dean seems like a real sweety pie. She is adorable, just as her husband says. he's lucky to have her. She kind of reminds me of many Jewish girls I know, she had a Stern girl aura. (For the cognoscenti, I don't mean in the em-ar-es sense, I'm talking about her shy demeanor).

Howard Dean must have something going for him if Judy Dean was willing to marry him. As 'W' might say, he married above himself. Good for him.

Every time I watch a debate I wonder if this will be the debate where I see Dennis Kucinich answer a single question without making me think that the guy is a complete idiot. The guy is batting a thousand. He sounds like a loon on every topic.

Although... tonight Al Sharpton was even worse. At least Kucinich remembers how he voted on every issue and what the legislation said. Did you hear Sharpton answer Peter Jenning's question on who he'd appoint to replace Alan Greenspan? You could tell that Rev. Al didn;t know what the Fed was and what a Fed Chairman did. Sharpton sounded like a kid making up an answer to a question in a history test. Or maybe like Emily Littela (Gilda Radner) on Saturday Night Live. Democrats are stupid for allowing him to share their stage.

Sharpton diminishes everyone by sharing their stage. Kucinich may be a fool, but at least he understands the questions.

Wes Clark: "I am delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore."

Indeed? Later on someone asked him why when Michael Moore called Bush a "deserter" he didn't rebuke him, and would he like to disavow that comment? He said that Moore was entitled to that opinion, and that there were many people who agreed with Moore. Yikes.

Clark looked like a dolt to me. But we've long established that I'm not a Clark fan. I don't see the appeal. I wonder how the Moore/deserter thing will play with primary voters.

John Kerry did well. One commentator said that right now with everyone afraid to go negative it was like a car race running under a yellow flag -- everyone keeps their positions. Well, if that's what happens, Kerry wins

Joe Lieberman had some strong moments, especially on Iraq. Too bad he forgot that he is running for the Democratic nomination where such a clear headed defense of the Iraq war loses you votes. he should have pretended that he was anti-war like Kerry did (pretend, I mean).

John Edwards must be a great lawyer. He totally, completely and absolutely fucked up his answer on the Defense of Marriage Act. He stated his position -- the definition of marriage should be left to the states. Then he said that this is why he was against the DMA, ignorning (or not knowing) that his position is exactly what the DMA put into law. Britt Hume, to his credit, followed up with a question that corrected him and called him on it. Edwards just plowed ahead as if he was right. It was an amazing sight for the 3% of the people (bloggers) watching who caught it. But Edwards probably did OK tonight.

I hear that Dr. Dean's wife did well with Diane Sawyer. It hasn't aired yet on the left coast... Dean has to hope that many new Hampshire voters were watching.

I understand from Blogs4bush that RNC chair Ed Gillespie has started up a blog. Call me naive but it seems like Gillespie is writing the entries himself, at least so far. The voice is distinctive and consistent with the man I see on the political talk show circuit.

All issues aside, I'm much more comfortable with Ed Gillespie as the voice of the "party line" than with Terry McAulliffe. But what do I know -- I'm a biased right-winger! Check it out and decide for yourself.

This election is so much more "haymish" than the last one, don't you think?

Based on what I've seen in the past two weeks John Edwards is the candidate who has the best chance of beating George W. Bush in November. Yes, John Kerry surprised me. The near political-death experience helped him grow as a person. And getting rid of Chris Lehane sure helped. But November won't be about resume.

The most underestimated asset that 'W' has is his likeability. John Edwards is just as likeable. I'm not crazy about lawyers generally and trial lawyers specifically, but I find myself liking Edwards despite myself. I can see why Christopher Hitchens wrote so glowingly about him. Don't get me wrong, I still think 'W' would beat him too. Edwards voted for Iraq but against the reconstruction money. That will prove to be a mistake. But Edwards is not the liberal that Kerry is, and his inexperience will not hurt him as much as the wrong kind of experience would hurt Kerry or Dean.

In any event, Iowa has sure shaken things up in a good way for the Democrats now matter what happens. Although the nomination fight will go on for a while and force everyone to spend a great deal of money, it will now assure Dems that whoever wins, even Dean, will be a stronger candidate. And even though the nominee may wind up broke while Bush spends money tearing him done, the 527 money (think Soros) will be tearing Bush down too.

Look for the tenor of the Democratic debates to change. They'll be far more serious now. With only (!) seven candidates there will be more time for each person to talk. There is also much more at stake. For example, in tomorrow's debate in New Hampshire Lieberman and Dean both know that they need to shine. Lieberman actually needs a miracle so look for him to come out swinging.

I love this guy! He just doesn't shy away from a fight. How shall we fight terror? Is it a war or a law enforcement problem?

I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime - a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of Sept. 11, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they
got.

What about Iraq? Should we do as the Democrats ask and internationalize Iraq?

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq.

Aren't our goals in the Mideast too ambitious and naive?

We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.

What about our motives? What kind of example does the doctrine of pre-emption set?

America is a nation with a mission - and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace - a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great Republic will lead the cause of freedom.

I see a reaction shot on Rummy. He looks like he's thinking what I'm thinking -- God, I LOVE this guy.

I can see Howard Dean's veins bulging right now...

OMG -- Hardball had my girl Campbell on as an analyst. OMG, OMG, OMG.... Totally unfair. But trust MSNBC's horrible instincts... they're putting Pat Buchanan on next...I can safely channel surf.

John Kerry and John Edwards are having a good night so far. I assume that you've read the Mickey Kaus thumbnail sketch of the 4 stage Iowa voting process. All the TV pundits are making it sound like the stage 1 results (the exit poll) translates to a win for Kerry already. There's a whole bunch of "caucus process" still ahead. and by the time you read this Dean may have won the actual delegate count. Or Edwards will have. Or Kerry will actually win, as the buzz is right now.

However it turns out it looks like Dick Gephardt is done, and maybe his political career is over. I suppose he could be secretary of labor for a Democratic president, or maybe he could run for the senate. But he's done. He's broke, and if he can't win it here he can't win it anywhere. Whoops... Campbell is back. You know...she's smart, but her political commentary -- eh.

If you've read any of my stuff you know that I disagree with John Kerry on just about everything. Not only that, but I thought he was a gonner, and deservedly so. I don't take back anything I've ever said...but....

Watch out for people who have had big setbacks. If they rebound they will come out of it stronger. The John Kerry that I saw on This Week, and whose speeches I've seen the past two weeks, and whose advertisements I've watched...is a different John Kerry. He has grown. He sound MUCXh more genuine. Losing has been very good for him. James Taranto needs to cut out his haughty, French looking, who by the way... shtick. That meme is now as just as likely to blind Republicans to Kerry the way that the Bush is evil/Bush is a moron meme blinds the Dems.

MSNBC is switching to Keith Olberman now. Man are they stupid. As I've said before, I would change channels whenever I'd see arrogant Keith show up to give sports scores. I'm not gonna watch him do anything more important. Not even for Campbell.

My first inkling that Gephardt was expecting to lose? When I read this over my morning coffee:

And when a reporter asked him what he planned to do if he did not win the Iowa caucuses, a question he typically refuses to answer, Mr. Gephardt startled the journalists around him by responding. "I'll have a good life," Mr. Gephardt said. "I have a great family."

I miss Punditwatch. A day before the Iowa Caucuses my inbox is filling up with appeals from the candidates, their famly, and their supporters. The candidates themselves are on all the Sunday programs touting their messages. It would be nice to have a little summary of what was going on, wouldn't it?

Well, since you asked so nicely....

John Edwards was on Face the Nation this morning trying to keep the big mo rolling:

Schieffer: "Well Senator I hope that i don't embarrass you when I hold up this Des Moines Register [Big Headline -- Kerry, Edwards Surge]...Howard Dean who was supposed to have had this invincible lead, it runs out that his lead has slipped, John Edwards and John Kerry have surged..."

Edwards: [points to paper] "Could you hold that up again?"

Bob Schieffer is not quite Larry King, but he was pretty puffy with Edwards. Amy Walter of the "Cook Political Report" was a bit tougher ("if you don't finish 1st or 2nd here in Iowa can your campaign sustain the momentum") but Schieffer asked most of the questions ("Do you think we should go back to the moon?"). Schieffer finished up the broadcast with a commentary sucking upto Iowans, wishing that every state had such involved citizens. They must actually have viewers in Iowa...

Bottom Line: It was better than a campaign commerical for Edwards -- he hit on almost all of his talking points while staying upbeat and positive.

This Week led off with a clip of Peter Jennings interviewing Howard Dean on the ABC bus yesterday. Jennings looked tired and bored. The clip started off with Jennings' jaw resting on his hand (!):

Jennings: How important to have President Carter's support and what kind of support have you got?

Dean: I think he's certainly not going to do a formal endrosement but Jimmy Carter and I have got to know each other well, he was the first person to get me into politics. I worked in his 1980 campaign, licking envelopes and making phone calls just like all these kids are doing for me. So it means alot to me, he's somebody that I admire enormously, I wouldn't be in politics if it weren't for Jimmy Carter.

Back in the studio the Georges -- Stephanopoulos and Will -- interviewed John Kerry:

Stephanopoulos: Joining George Will and me is Senator John Kerry, the new frontrunner in Iowa.
Kerry (slightly pained look): Oh, don't do that to me.
Stephanopoulos: Well, it's just true. A new Des Moines Register poll does have you ahead... A month ago you're third and falling..you come back here in January..I was talking to a friend of yours last nigh and he called you Seabiscuit. What happened?
Kerry: That's for Iowa voters to decide. This race ends Monday night and not today and I'm out there looking for every vote.

Stephanopoulos and Will asked a number of questions to get Kerry off his talking points but he would not be dissuaded. After a long speech in response to a George Will question on the economy George Stephanopoulos tried to refocus the interview:

Kerry: [...] that's what we need today in America.
Stephanopoulos: That's the case that you have to make against president Bush but first we still got a date here in Iowa in the Democratice primaries.
Kerry: No -- that's the case, George, that I'm making every day in this race. I'm not talking about my opponents, I'm talking about the target. The target is George Bush. And Democrats want the most effective candidate to run against and beat George Bush. I'm that candidate.
Stephanopoulos: well, except..
Kerry: Because I'm the only candidate who combines national security experience and the domestic struggle that keeps faith with the values of our party.

It was the best This Week interview I've seen in a long time. George Will is actually a good interviewer. In the Sam and Cokie days they stopped letting him ask questions. I'm glad they've let him out. He and Stephanopoulos did a good job of asking questions, but John Kerry did an even better job of staying on message.

Bottom Line: The Dean clip combined with the Carter "quasi-endorsement" should help, but Kerry was the real star of the show. He's a far better candidate than the "left-for-dead" Kerry. Looks like he dropped Chris Lehane just in time.

I don't think that Chris Wallace was all that tough on Fox News Sunday today, but Joe Trippi looked like a beaten man. Trippin ssupposedly hates doing Sunday shows because he thinks that he isn't goos at the format. He should trust his instincts:

Wallace: Let's talk about perceptions. After months of Dewan being the front-runner, partially annointed, largely annointed by us, but also in all the polls, after all the magazine covers... why wouldn't a defeat tommorow be a serious setback to him, if he doesn't finish first?
Trippi: Uh, that because that's broadcast politics. I mean that's just the way that the press covers things. We're a campaign that really is different. This campaign is about power. It's about who owns our government and who runs it.
Wallace: Yeah but elections are about who finishes first and second.
Trippi: That's right. Er-uh, but we're er, we're not gonna stop fightin' change the place just because we don't get a finish that the press is happy with.

All the candidates and campaign staff looks tired, including Trippi:

Wallace: How much sleep have you gotten in the last 48 hours?
Trippi:Almost none. After the last year I've gotten almost none.
Wallace: But literally in the last 48 hours?
Trippi: Oh, probably 2.
Wallace:Really?
Trippi: Yeah.
Wallace: And how many diet beverages have you consumed?
Trippi:mmm 3 or 4 dozen probably.
Wallace: Well, you may get an endorsement deal out of this.

Wallace had a parade of campaign managers, with Mary Beth Cahill and Steve Murphy dropping in after Trippi. Once Wallace finshed with them he had a chat Iowa guru David Yepsen from the Des Moines Register who reminded us that these polls are interesting, but that in Iowa the organization is still the key:

Yepsen: Even though these polls are showing Kerry and Edwards surging, Edwards just doesn't have the prgainzation that the other candidates do. Kerry has got a pretty good organization, he's got awfully good people working for him, but I still have to..you asked me for my gut? My gut tells me that Howard Dean has got alot of highly motivated activist supporters out there who are commited to him, and he'll produce them.
Wallace: So if you had to put a quarter on it you think Dean's going to win?
Yepsen: (smiling) Now why would you do that to me? (face gets serious) The answer is yeah.

I'm with Yepsen. I think Dean is going to win too.

Busy, spinning Sunday, isn't it? I'll try to get to Meet the Press later...

Later: Dick Gephardt faces a make or break caucus tomorrow, so by luck of the draw or brilliant strategy he wound up on Meet the Press today. Tim Russert started out to try and pin down if Gephardt would quit if he lost in Iowa. Gephardt stuck to his guns and insisted that he would win Iowa. Russert then changed the topic to Howard Dean and grilled Gephardt on his differences with Dean.

Not for nothing is Russert's show #1 -- he's the toughest interview on Sunday mornings by far. After discussing Dean Russert worked Gephardt over on terrorism, and some statements Gephardt made linking poverty to racism:

Russert: ...that caught my attention, about trade and terrorism. "Trade is part of the answer to terrorism. ...There are 3.5 billion people in the world today who live on less than a dollar a day. Then we wonder why people are deciding to become terrorists. We got all the money, they're going to come get us."

Osama bin Laden was the son of a wealthy construction owner. The hijackers, middle-class Saudis. Aren't you rationalizing behavior? Aren't you, in that comment, a bit naive that the people who are terrorizing the United States are doing it because of poverty? Where can you cite that terrorists who struck at the United States were poor people?

Gephardt: Poverty is not the sole cause of terrorism. I never have believed that. But it is fertile ground on which advocates of terrorism can get converts to their cause. Let me give you an example. We have madrass schools in Pakistan that are paid for, in part, by the Saudis and Saudi family money. Those schools take in kids as boarders. The reason parents send their kids to those boarding schools is they can't feed them. They are poor. They are not surviving. And so the children wind up in basically schools of terrorism, schools of radical Islamic thought that advocates jihad and advocates terrorism, so...

Russert: Is that because of trade with Pakistan? How does that work?

Gephardt: No, look, here's what I'm saying. Look, trade is not the only answer to the problem of poverty but it's one of the building blocks to get the world out of--there are 3.5 billion people in the world who live on less than a dollar a day. That's a problem, and we need to use trade as a way to begin to get these standards up.

Look, in a country like Mexico or China, the workers have no power in the political system. And if you don't use access to our market as a lever to put pressure on, to get change in their society, you're never going to change conditions. Manufacturing wages in Mexico today are 35 percent less than before NAFTA because the people have no power.

Russert: But Osama and the hijackers of September 11 were well off financially. They just don't like us. They disagree with our culture, with our values and they want to kill us.

Gephardt: Oh, I understand that and I always believe we must deal with the people that are out there, committed terrorists, that are trying to do harm to the United States. That's self-defense. You have to do that. But at the same time, the president needs to lead a world effort to get at the root causes of terrorism. Part of it's poverty. Part of it's a lack of good governance. Part of it is, frankly, the Saudis and the use of some of their money to terrorist organizations and to organizations that are training people to be terrorists. This president never talks to us about this. He took out the part of the 9/11 report that referred to the role the Saudis have had in this. He's not going to do this. Now, there's no easy answer to it, but we sure need to start by discussing it with the American people and then the world and coming up with strategies to try to help move it into a safer direction.

Finally, Russert ended up asking Gephardt about some goofy statements he made about using executive orders to reverse supreme court decisions that he didn't like. Gephardt deflected the question nicely but admitted that you can't do that "most of the time."

Bottom Line: As tough as Russert is, it allowed Gephardt to show his mettle. As the Democrats leader in the house Gephardt has done countless Sunday shows. He is experienced and unflappable. Today he performed extremely well on the toughest but most widely watched political show. He did what he had to do.

Dick Gephardt is running an ad proclaiming that he crusaded against NAFTA while "Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman all supported NAFTA." In a rational world this ad would be a disaster for Gephardt and a bonfor the people he names. This being a Democratic priimary, everyone but Lieberman is scrambling away. Howard Dean pretends that he never supported it. But Gephardt says that he was opposed to free trade before it was fashionable.

THIS IS MADNESS!

When Gephardt calls for 'fair trade, not free trade,' this is nothing new. Gephardt has been a protectionist all his career. But that the rest of the Democrats would concede the point is amazing! We're not just talking about crackpots like Dennis Kucinich. Suppposed moderates like Howard Dean and John Edwards are running away from free trade.

Democrats should be bashing Bush for his shameless steel tariff pander, a 'no-brainer' issue if there ever was one. Bill Clinton deserves high praise for his free trade initiatives. Isn't it funny that the current crop of Dems keeps trying to lay claim to theClinton legacy while repudiating the very policies that Clinton stood for?

Last year QoF had a homework assignment on trade that she asked for my help with. Her teacher gave her one of those "two sides to every story" assignment. Poor QoF....she had to hear my ranting and ravings... but bottom line there's really nothing much to discuss. If you have a basic understanding of economics it really is simple. Free Trade=Good; Protectionism=Bad; The term "fair trade" is meaningless.

But don't listen to me. Remember Nicholas Kristof, the naive liberal columnist for the New York Times that I used to ridicule on a regular basis? He gets it:

I'd like to invite Richard Gephardt and the other Democratic candidates to come here to Cambodia and discuss trade policy with scavengers like Nhep Chanda, who spends her days rooting through filth in the city dump.

One of the most unfortunate trends in the Democratic presidential race has been the way nearly all of the candidates, including Howard Dean, the front-runner, have been flirting with anti-trade positions by putting the emphasis on labor, environmental and human rights standards in international agreements.

[...]

Perhaps the candidates are simply pandering to unions, or bashing President Bush. But my guess is that they sincerely believe that such trade policies would help poor people abroad -- and that's why they should all traipse through a Cambodian garbage dump to see how economically naïve these schemes would be.

Nhep Chanda is a 17-year-old girl who is one of hundreds of Cambodians who toil all day, every day, picking through the dump for plastic bags, metal cans and bits of food. The stench clogs the nostrils, and parts of the dump are burning, producing acrid smoke that blinds the eyes.

The scavengers are chased by swarms of flies and biting insects, their hands are caked with filth, and those who are barefoot cut their feet on glass. Some are small children.

Nhep Chanda averages 75 cents a day for her efforts. For her, the idea of being exploited in a garment factory -- working only six days a week, inside instead of in the broiling sun, for up to $2 a day -- is a dream.

"I'd like to work in a factory, but I don't have any ID card, and you need one to show that you're old enough," she said wistfully.

Kristof narrates a slideshow entitled realities of labor that is a must see for candidates that don't have the intelligence to follow complex policy discussions (I'm talking to you, Kucinich). Kristof talks in a nice soothing voice, and he's a bleeding heart liberal so if both he and George Will are together on this can we just stipulate that free trade is the way to go?

If you'd like to see the case for free trade in more detail, here are some basic links:

CATO Free Trade FAQs
The Case for Free Trade, by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman
Paul Samuelson Economics Text
DLC on Free Trade

Katrina vanden Heuvel doesn't think much of President Bush's idea of establishing a colony on the moon. Fair enough, but unlike Gregg Easterbrook, who uses actual arguments to make his point, Nation editor vanden Heuvel takes the "Bush is a moron" low road:

So, we're destroying our own way of life on earth but Bush wants to establish a permanent base on the moon as a prelude to sending humans to Mars?

Isn't this just another sign, as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reports in Ron Suskind's new book, The Price of Loyalty, that we have a space cadet as President? And don't these neocons have enough bases ringing the earth? Or is their desire for world domination so unquenchable that they're using this new initiative, as some believe, as a stealth program to speed up the militarization of space? And, not to be too visionless, but at a time of record budget deficits and massive tax cuts for the rich, where's the money going to come from for these adventures in outer space?

Glass houses, Katrina. Someone without two brain cells to rub together is hardly in a position to call someone else stupid. In KVH-Land, Libya giving up WMD's had nothing to do with Bush's Iraq policy and Dennis Kucinich is a serious presidential candidate.

While I often disagree with Will SaletanI think that he's insightful as hell. If I've underestimated Howard Dean, Saletan is the guy to convince me. He's written another great article on Dean. My favorite bit:

I've seen Dean appear with people who were taller or more accomplished or for some other reason were supposed to be above him. I've never seen him cowed. A month ago, he went to Harlem to receive Al Gore's endorsement. Gore is six inches taller than Dean, served for eight years as vice president of the United States, represented Dean's party in the 2000 presidential election, and won a plurality of the popular vote. Yet from the way the two men interacted, Dean was clearly the alpha male. You can't teach that.

Dean has many of Bill Clinton's best attributes. He's a veteran executive and a natural innovator. He knows his way around the policy debates but also knows how to cut through nuances to get to the point. That's one reason why he can do a lot better in the South and Midwest than many of my colleagues imagine. Perhaps, like me, at some point you've watched a Dukakis or a Walter Mondale talking in the South and shouted at your TV set, "No, you idiot, just say this!" Dean is a guy who can figure out what this is. He talks about run-down schools and disappearing jobs. "You've been voting for Republicans for 30 years," he tells Southern whites. "What do you have to show for it?" Dean doesn't know the region the way Clinton or John Edwards does, but he's got the instincts to comprehend and penetrate cultural barriers. You can't teach that.

So what's the catch? To begin with, Dean can be a bit too confident. He can be--how do I put this delicately?--a jerk. Dean's fans call this candor. Every time he insults somebody, the aides who clean up after him insist that voters prefer a plain-spoken candidate to one who tells people what they want to hear. But candor is a procedural virtue. If what Dean candidly expresses is arrogance, the candor doesn't make up for the arrogance. Dean's biography suggests he's been very confident for a very long time. Can he learn enough humility in nine months to get elected? I don't know.

And then there's this:

I can't stress this enough to Democrats who opposed the Iraq war. Terrorists killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. The first thing Americans want to know from a prospective president is how he's going to protect them from such enemies. If you don't answer that question, nobody will care that Bush exaggerated Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or Iraq's connections to al-Qaida. The only difference voters are going to see is that one party is serious about getting those bastards, and one party isn't. What they need to hear more from Dean is the kind of thing he said a week ago about Osama Bin Laden: "We would shoot to kill." Can Dean learn to talk more like that? I don't know.

Saletan is probably as far left as I am right but he writes as if he lives in the real world. He can easily distinguish between what he'd like to have happen and what he thinks is going to happen.

Canada is already benefiting from Jean Chrétien's retirement. Just the fact that Paul Martin is now the Prime Minister has already improved relations between the US and Canada:

President Bush, seeking to mend relations with America's northern neighbor, said Tuesday that Canada will be eligible for a second round of U.S.-financed reconstruction contracts in Iraq that the administration valued at about $4.5 billion.

In a breakfast meeting with new Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, Bush said he had told Martin of the shift in policy. Martin "understands the stakes" in rebuilding a free and peaceful Iraq, Bush said.

It was Bush's second fence-mending session in two days. On Monday, Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox put aside two years of differences and said they see eye-to-eye about a new U.S. proposal to grant legal status to millions of undocumented workers in the United States, many of them Mexicans.

The United States had angered many allies last month by banning firms in countries that had opposed the Iraq war from bidding on Iraqi reconstruction projects. French, German and Russian leaders had protested to Bush, and Canada threatened to stop sending aid to Baghdad.

The White House declined to say whether other countries that had opposed the war would be eligible for the second round of contracts. "For those countries that want to join our efforts in Iraq, circumstances can change," said Sean McCormack, a National Security Council spokesman.

He said the second round of contracts, about $4.5 billion, would be part of the $18.6 billion that Congress has approved. The United States has already awarded $1.8 billion in contracts.

Martin, eager to patch up the cross-border relationship, said he was pleased by the new U.S. stance toward Canada, and the lucrative contracts that could come Canada's way.

"It does show that working together, we can arrive at a reasonable solution," Martin told reporters after the breakfast.

If Iowa were having a primary instead of a caucus I'd now be predicting that John Edwards will surge to a surprising third place, knocking out a tumbling John Kerry. But since the Iowa contest is a caucus in order for a campaign to do well it must field a strong and preferably experienced field organization in the state.

Howard Dean's folks have been having meetups in the same locations that the caucuses will meet for a long time now. Do you think Deaniacs will know where to go?Dick Gephardt won Iowa in 1988 and has the backing of unions that know how to turn out voters for the caucus. But you knew that...

That leaves Edwards battling John Kerry for third. But if you'll set the "way-back machine" to when the dinosaurs roamed and John Kerry was the front-runner you'll see that the biggest reason that he was so highly touted was that he had assembled the best field organization of anyone in the early going. Kerry had signed up all the pros. Even with all the problems that Kerry has had he'll have a much easier time translating a 3 point surge in voter sentiment into a 3 point uptick in votes. Edwards is less likely to be able to do that.

So if Edwards does finish third his surge is real and it'll be a sign that his campaign really is hitting its stride.