Minority Leader Reed. No typo.

Dan solves another problem.

Personally, though, I think if you combine Kos's recent arguments about why to not drop Daschle until after 2004 and my recent comments about why Kerry won't be President (hint: cause his campaign was, is, and will be horrible), I think JFK is the clear choice for the next Senate Minority Leader. He's a strong Democrat. He's got military cred. He's a DC insider. On the few cases where he's really turned on his party, it's been for good reasons, like rooting out bipartisan scandals.

TBogg has the story.

You have to at least admire the Kerry campaign's hopefulness. They are now switching strategies again (via Political Wire) to focus on Iowa and New Hampshire after announcing the candidacy in South Carolina as part of a late summer decision to try to build a southern wall that would stem the bleeding from a loss in New Hampshire. Jesse at The Conch figured out what went wrong with the SC strategy: basically Kerry's numbers in SC wouldn't be enough to stop the bleeding from a papercut, much less the shotgun wound to the abdomen that Kerry is looking at if he loses New Hampshire.

So, now his plan is to bump into second in Iowa by spending a hell-of-a-lot of money, which he can do because he opted out of public funding. The problem he faces though is that he is still in third, he still faces a very committed core of Dean volunteers, he doesn't have labor backing, he has publicly committed to voluntarily staying within the state caps, and Edwards is looking to take him out of third.

Now, I'm not saying that John Kerry can't take second in Iowa. I'm saying that the Kerry Campaign has shown a pretty consistent inability to accomplish anything and that there is no need for anyone to hold their breath. About the only thing that the Kerry operation is any good at is getting quoted in stories like this one in the Washington Post convincing people that they're still competitive, which I'm sure they then use to augment fundraising. If only Kerry's campaign was half as good at talking to voters as it is at talking to the media.

[As part of my continuing campaign to provide content to you without writing anything specifically for the blog, I'm posting this essay that I wrote partially in response to Schwarzenegger's election.]

American voters are six-year-olds. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want ponies, but not normal ponies – ponies that can fly. They want cars, but not normal cars – cars that are also robots and when they are robots, the headlights are eyes, but when they are cars, the headlights are guns. They want everything at all times and constantly accessible. They want it now. They want it cheap.

Body and Soul highlights a good idea:

Avedon Carol notes that the anniversary of Bush v. Gore happens to fall a day after the National Institute of Standards holds a symposium on voting machines, making one of those days -- December 11 or 12 -- a perfect opportunity to fill the blogosphere with posts about electronic voting.

Also, from Democrats.com:

Operation Enduring Vote - Pass Voter-Verified Voting Now!

"Operation Enduring Vote is a six-week holiday push to pass HR 2239. Sponsored Rush Holt (D-NJ), HR 2239 would guarantee that all voters have a chance to confirm the accuracy of their ballots before they are cast on the electronic voting machines, and also requires that electronic voting machines permanently record our votes on secure, printed ballots. While HR 2239 has strong support, with 82 co-sponsors, including 3 recent Republican signers, the bill is opposed by Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), Chair of House Committee on Administration, and the bill has little chance of receiving a vote unless we act now. But Congress will recess for the Holidays in early December and reconvene in early January, so time is critical. One of the best ways to influence Congress is to show up en masse at every public forum they have during the Thanksgiving and Winter holidays and let them know just how important HR 2239 is to their constituents."

The other night, I was playing around with the idea of Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. as an '04 running mate. I knew very little about the guy and had never seen him speak, until last night.

The only video I could find was a talk Jackson gave to students at Montgomery Blair High School in Maryland, as part of a C-SPAN series called Students and Leaders.

I was totally blown away. You really have to watch this video.

Every recent Democratic POTUS has won the general election by losing the white, male vote and winning the votes of women and people of color. Jackson, Jr. isn't from the South, which is a notch against him, and he's quite young.

Still, it's amazing how many times Jackson touches on the themes of the Dean campaign (the speech was given back in May, when Dean was an asterisk in every poll)... does anyone know of anything that would make him a less-than-stellar VP candidate?

UPDATE: Understanding Jackson's draw means revisiting (ironically) Rev. Jesse Jackson's "David and Goliath" speech of 1984, which he updated for the Take Back America conference earlier this year:

Al Gore lost New Hampshire by 7,200 votes. We can win. He lost Ohio, Nevada and Missouri by only 3.5%. The five key states lost by a handful of votes, with thousands of progressives unregistered and thousands more not voting. We lost the governor's race in South Carolina by 40,000 votes, 40,000 blacks unregistered. We lost the Senate vote in Georgia by 50,000 votes, 600,000 blacks unregistered. The once Democratic solid South has become the totally Republican solid South. We need to bridge that rift between the white and black Southerners. Beyond matters of race divide. Beyond matters of fears that divide.

It also means recognizing the role that America's youth (who would surely respond positively to a Jackson VP candidacy) will play in 2004.

One of the most interesting points that Trippi made at the Grassroots Summit came after he was asked how Dean would appeal to the Midwest's NASCAR dads. He answered the question, but also argued that the critical swing vote in '04 wouldn't be NASCAR dads or security moms - it would be the youth. Moreover, he said, if the Dems lose the large and affluent generation now coming of age, the Party really would be lost in the wilderness for years and years to come.

WaPo greases up You Know Who's Turkey trot:

And now, in a single day, Mr. Bush may have managed to supplant what has become the single most problematic image of him in this war: The picture of him swaggering across an aircraft carrier in front of banner reading "Mission Accomplished."

That image, which already has shown up in an advertisement by Mr. Kerry attacking the president, now seems likely to be overtaken by the picture of Mr. Bush, his eyes glistening with tears, addressing cheering troops on Thanksgiving Day. It was a moment fraught with imagery that was certainly a central subject of discussion at Thanksgiving tables.

Also...

Even aides to Democratic presidential candidates expressed grudging admiration for the political skills of this White House.

"Those guys can do some pretty smart stuff sometimes," a senior adviser to one of the Democrats said.

Vital insight.

An advisor I spoke to earlier echoed the sentiment: "Yeah, they've got a lot of cool ideas and other things. It's totally sweeeeet!"

Every so often, the ravings out of the Funny Farm sound vaguely sensical...

"Howard Dean wants the white trash vote," wrote Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer in recent mockery of the Vermonter. "That's clearly what [Dean] meant when he said he wanted the votes of 'guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.'"

After Dean was savaged by Al Sharpton, who called the Confederate flag an "American swastika," Krauthammer was rhapsodic. His humiliation serves Dean right, Krauthammer chortled. He should never have pandered to Southern "yahoos" and "rebel-yelling racist redneck(s)."

What is it in the wiring of these neocons that they so loathe white Southerners who cherish the monuments, men and memories of the Lost Cause?

Pat Buchanan raises an interesting question...why DO those shrewd, ever-expedient neocons show such contempt for their flock of God-fearing Busheep?

"No talking to the troops before the rally.

"No talking to the troops during the rally.

"No talking to the troops after the rally."

-- Orders given to journalists attending Bush's photo op at Fort Carlson

"The draft will likely be reinstated."

-- Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Plans for Hypersonic Jets that Can Bomb Anywhere in Two Hours

"Northrop Grumman Corporation will help the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Air Force develop a concept for a high-speed, unmanned aircraft and related 'glide weapons' that could deliver conventional, non-nuclear weapons from the U.S. to anywhere on the globe in about two hours. This hypersonic cruise weapon system would allow the U.S. to conduct effective, time-critical strike missions on a global basis without relying on overseas military bases... The vision for FALCON is to develop, by 2025, a reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle that could take off from a conventional military runway and strike targets 9,000 nautical miles away in less than two hours. Flying at speeds up to eight times the speed of sound (Mach 8), the hypersonic cruise vehicle would carry a 12,000-pound payload comprising several unpowered, maneuverable, hypersonic glide vehicles called common aero vehicles; cruise missiles; small diameter bombs or other munitions."

And, for something a bit more opinionated...

While America Looks the Other Way, Bush Pentagon Plans to Orbit the Monstrous X-37 Space Bomber

Cheryl Seal reports, "On 11/17 'Space News International' revealed that NASA [in cahoots with the Pentagon] is reviving the X-37 space 'plane,' which it will now send into orbit for 270 days. This trial period was 'originally set by the US Air Force as a way to begin proving the feasibility of orbiting Earth with camera- and bomb-laden space planes for months at a time' and as part of 'a proposed space warfare strategy of global strike' that has been pushed hard since Bush took office. This scheme, a colossally arrogant, power-drunk bid for total global dominance, will create a fleet of unpiloted space planes that will circle the planet with bombs and spy cameras. These monsters would carry smaller 'reenetry vehicles' that carry up to 10 500-pound bombs each. 'Targets would be struck quickly nearly anywhere around the globe without having to position aircraft to forward positions,' reports SNI."

ZNet has posted our very own Kevin Danaher interview...so welcome, welcome, any new NG readers... :)

Apologies to the rest of you for not posting about the Dean Grassroots Summit, as I said I would. I've been trying to fight off a nasty flu/headcold the past couple of days... I should have something up soon, but a few points in the meantime:

One, if you're interested in what Trippi [for you ZNet readers, that's Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's campaign manager] said at the summit, then be sure to check out Christopher Lydon's excellent new interview with Trippi here. A lot of Trippi's Sunday speech is repeated during this interview (almost verbatim, in several instances) and, as usual, he's got plenty of interesting, provocative things on his mind.

Two (also for you ZNet readers), I thought I'd mention a piece that I wrote called The Progressive Case for Dean. I'm a Green at heart, but, for a variety of reasons, I'm also an avid Howard Dean supporter (I found out today that I'm joined by the estimable Paul Hawken! - Update:... and William Greider!). The article sketches out my justifications. Enjoy!

Orlando Sentinel (via Political Wire):

In Florida, a new Mason-Dixon poll shows that "if the election were held today," likely Florida voters would give Bush "a 20-percentage-point lead over a Democratic rival," the Orlando Sentinel reports.

Gag me with a chad...

It's been a while since I've commented on the Presidential race. But I wanted to put in my $.02. Most folks here know that Ezra jumped ship because even though he loves the Dean campaign, he thinks Clark will be a better President.

That may be true, but it doesn't matter.

As an organizer, the Dean campaign is inspiring beyond words, because it is about organizing. It really has very little to do with Dean. He's the lead spokesperson for the organization. The campaign itself is run by organizers who aren't focusing on media or polling. They're focused on connecting with people.

If the Dean campaign wins, it will change forever the way campaigns are run and it will move us away from the media model of campaigning. Few things could be more welcome.

Now, am I sure that it is going to work? No. It is quite possible that media-based campaigns are simply more effective.

But I hope that organizing is still better and more important and has just been unwisely neglected of late. This campaign is making it look like that is true.

[Ed. note: This is a paper for an intro to journalism class I'm taking. The topic had to be media related, so I went with Rupert Murdoch, the fox himself. It's not my finest writing, but I figure I've put enough other crap on this website that no one would complain about this. I generally don't consider myself a media critic. Oh, except for this little project. But we all do what we can.]

I spent Sunday at the Dean for America Grassroots Summit at UCLA... Trippi lived up to his reputation as a wonderful speaker, and had plenty of interesting things to say. I'll have a full report up later tonight...

You can bet Dean HQ is celebrating, though, with these Iowa numbers... and a hat-tip to Kos for useful info on the methodology used for this particular poll...

BuzzFlash joins the Down With Daschle movement, calling him "perhaps the worst Democratic Minority 'Leader' in modern history."

Kevin Danaher is a founding director of Global Exchange, an international human rights group based in San Francisco. His new book is "Insurrection: Citizen Challenges to Corporate Power," co-authored with Jason Mark (Routledge, 2003).

Pitney: Before we discuss the draft that came out of the FTAA meetings, let's touch on the reaction to the protests that accompanied the meetings. The Miami City Council attempted to pass an ordinance that "would ban masks, puppets, padded clothing, bandanas or signs on sticks...; the rules would end when talks do," according to the Wall Street Journal. At the protests, you had peaceful, law-abiding citizens who were attacked with rubber bullets, tear gas, stun guns, and concussion grenades. The behavior of the Miami police was condemned by various groups, including the National Lawyers Guild. You also had the arrest and detention of credentialed journalists, including Democracy Now! producer Ana Nogueira, apparently because they had not pre-registered as "embeds" with the local police. What is the significance of this reaction to the protests?

Danaher: The bumpersticker analysis is, "Empire Destroys Democracy." Because whether you're talking about the invasion of Iraq to protect access to oil, or you're talking about the FTAA and WTO writing a constitution for the global economy that subordinates life to commerce - life values to money values - you can't allow democracy.

Democracy means diversity. It means everybody having a seat at the table, not just white, male, millionaire corporate lawyers. That's who's making these rules, is white, male, millionaire corporate lawyers. But they've got a problem (as we saw at the WTO meetings in Cancun) because there are whole countries, like Brazil and Argentina, etc., where there are interests other than those of corporations and banks, other than those of white, male millionaire corporate lawyers that want a say, that want to be heard.

Think about monocropping, because that's what they're doing, right? If you have only white, male, millionaire corporate lawyers making policy, that's a monocrop. How does a monocrop work? A monocrop works when you're using toxic chemicals to kill everything but the corn, or everything but the wheat, or everything but the soy, or whatever the monocrop is that you're doing. Well, with the policy-making equivalent of that, you have to violently suppress those other diverse voices that want to have a say in the rulemaking.

Essentially, the two questions are, who is sitting at the table making the rules? Who gets to participate in the discussion, devising the rules?

And two, what are the values? Are they money values or life values? Money values are values of corporations - particularly the big ones, because they dominate - and life values are human rights and the environment.

What if we go out and say to the public, "Which is sacred, life or commerce?" Most people know that life is sacred and commerce is an activity, like sports, religion, entertainment. It's an essential activity, but it's just an activity. It's not sacred. It's not holy, as life is.

What they're saying is that we should subordinate life - human rights and the environment - to commerce - money values. And what we're saying is, no, you subordinate commerce to life. And, in fact, that's happening. I work in the green economy/fair trade movement and there's this thing about the triple bottom line - you have to balance your financial profit-making with social responsibility and environmental sustainability, and only when they're in balance can you say you're a successful enterprise. That model of economics is growing rapidly.

The other model, that subordinates life to commerce, is dying. Right, look at the scandals of Enron and the corporations, Bush having to steal the presidency, having to lie to invade Iraq (if Iraq's major export were brocolli instead of oil, would there be any war? Of course not), the scandal in the mutual fund industry. Now there's a scandal in the foreign currency trading industry. And it's all the same - they're lying and cheating in order to make more money.

Pitney: You mention white, male, millionaire corporate lawyers. The Washington Post reported that "corporate lobbyists...fumed at the outcome" of the FTAA meetings in Miami. "The delight of activists," the Post reported, "was matched by the gloom among U.S. business representatives." Walden Bello (of Focus on the Global South) described the event as a victory for the Global Justice movement. What is your assessment?

Here.

Indeed.

Red Meat is incredible.

In a poll that found that Montanans generally like their elected officials (except for, surprise, Judy), there was one finding that caught me off guard:

Should pregnant women be sent to prison? Yes, 76.8 percent; no, 11.7 percent; and 11.5 percent undecided.

I didn't know my state was this pro-punishment.

Update

More interesting info in the full poll. In the national issues section, Bush's reelect numbers in Montana are 46-42-11 against an unnamed Democrat. These numbers, frankly, are unbelievable. Montana is competitive?

If that number is accurate...and nothing else in this poll indicates that it is just a massive screw-up...the Dems are in good shape in the mountain west. We'd love to only lose by four points at the top of the ticket.

The Battle in Iowa, from NewsHour with Jim Lehrer...

David Rothkopf has a spooky piece in the Post:

Imagine it is Election Day 2004. As you walk toward your local polling place, you can't help but notice how different this day is from past first Tuesdays in November. A Humvee bearing the markings of your local National Guard unit is stationed outside, as are guardsmen carrying assault rifles. Would-be voters glance at parked cars and passersby with palpable unease and suspicion.

A string of suicide bombings, which began on the day of the first presidential debate, has transformed the country, both on the streets and in the campaign. Of all the issues that have dominated the candidates' stump speeches, the only one that seems to matter is terrorism. The nation has been living at threat-level red for a month. The loudest voice on the campaign trail lately has been that of a terrorist leader hiding in a cave on the other side of the world. Two U.S. armored divisions are making their way toward the border of a Middle Eastern country that until quite recently we had considered a friend. This vote, it seems, will turn on a single issue: Which of the two candidates can make us safer?

Of course, the scenario I just described is speculative. We can't know whether terrorists will strike during the coming presidential campaign, the first since the beginning of the war on terrorism. Nor can we know how or where an attack may come. The terrorist bombings in Istanbul over the past week, which have taken 50 lives, make it all the more easy to imagine something similar happening here yet again. And history suggests that striking during major elections is an effective tool for terrorist groups. And it suggests that the way in which we respond will determine whether we are capable of winning this war.

An op-ed by Jesse Jackson, Jr. defends Dean (and his Southern strategy)...

Check out the American-made flechette shells used by the Israeli military forces in the Occupied Territories...

The very first NotGeniuses interview will be posted tonight or tomorrow. It's with the co-founder of Global Exchange, Kevin Danaher, who shares his insights about the FTAA meetings and the resulting draft. Danaher also talks about his new book, a history of the struggle between corporations and citizens in the 200 years since Thomas Jefferson warned that Americans "must crush at its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations."

The admirable Walden Bello's hopeful analysis of the new FTAA draft, United States Retreats from its Demands at FTAA Negotiations, is online:

The big news on Wednesday, however, was the scrapping of the original FTAA draft. "The US wanted a binding comprehensive agreement with disciplines all the way through," said one official delegate from a Latin American country who has participated in the negotiations. "The draft ministerial declaration coming out of the Trade Negotiations Committee clearly is a retreat from that."

Instead, the draft proposes a "flexible" process where governments can decide to exclude some areas from FTAA negotiations for liberalization even as other governments negotiate liberalization in these areas. As the declaration unambiguously states, "Ministers recognize that countries may assume different levels of commitments... In addition, negotiations should allow for countries that so choose, within the FTAA, to agree to additional obligations and benefits."

This will allow Brazil and the other members of the Mercosur trade area to withdraw from negotiations on investment, intellectual property, government procurement, services, investment, competition policy, and other areas they do not wish to subject to mandatory liberalization. At the same time, it will allow the US to continue its policies of massive subsidization of its agriculture by not joining negotiations on agriculture. The result is what pundits have called "FTAA lite" or "FTAA a la carte."

Essentially, the ministerial declaration is the one tabled by Brazil at the Trade Negotiating Committee meeting in San Salvador last July. As the Latin American negotiator put it, "Brazil was saying, look, 2003 is different from 1994, when Clinton launched the FTAA negotiations. Free trade policies has brought about bad results throughout Latin America. People have ousted neoliberal governments. There was no way the US was going to get the comprehensive free trade agreement it wanted today."

WashPost seems to confirm the positive news, reporting that lobbyists "fumed" at the plan:

Anti-free trade activists have proclaimed at least a partial victory. Corporate lobbyists have fumed at the outcome, and U.S. government officials have been fending off charges that they are signing on to a minimal accord just to keep the FTAA talks from collapsing.

"For the U.S., this is a hollow agreement," exulted David Waskow, trade policy coordinator for Friends of the Earth, which has opposed many trade pacts on the grounds that they protect foreign firms at the expense of environmental standards.

"The agenda of a comprehensive, across-the-board agreement has been rebuffed."

The delight of activists like Waskow was matched by the gloom among U.S. business representatives, who said they were not abandoning hope but would insist on a much more far-reaching FTAA than the one outlined in the declaration Thursday.

"The administration knows a low-quality agreement is not one the business community will accept," said Scott Otteman, director for international trade policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.

Kos has a good piece on the importance of Tom Daschle stepping down - after he gets reelected in 2004 - and turning the Senate helm over to a blue-state Dem.

Tom Engelhardt shares his quotes of the day:

The quotes of the day come from our man in Baghdad, the inimitable, irrefutable, continent-hopping, Washington-visiting, combat-boot wearing, counter-terrorism doyen of the occupied Green Zone, L. Paul ("in for the long haul") Bremer:

"It can't be fun to be occupied." (Herbert Docena, Will the real collaborators please stand up?, Asia Times)

"We'll have a bill of rights. We'll recognise equality for all citizens. We'll recognise an independent judiciary. We'll talk about a federal government." (Leonard Doyle and Stephen Castle, US agrees to international control of its troops in Iraq, the Independent)

Audio of Amy Goodman's wild (in a good way) twelve-minute speech is up at MediaReform.net...

And more on the looming foreign threat: The Trojan Bra that launched a trade war

The Times served up a steaming heap of Friedman today... I can't help but comment:

"We're in the U.K., our closest ally in the Iraq war - a country where Mr. Bush still has many supporters, but also a legion of detractors. But if this is how some of our best friends are talking, imagine how difficult it is going to be to win over America's more ambivalent allies - to widen support for the rebuilding of Iraq. To be sure, some people simply will never be winnable because they hate America above all else. (That may explain why you don't see any protesters here carrying signs saying, "Death to bin Laden," "Saddam: How many Iraqis did you kill today?" or "Mr. Bush: Thanks for believing in Arab democracy.")

Getting smeared as "anti-American" because you oppose Washington's foreign policy is standard stuff, even from the chief diplomatic correspondent of the Newspaper of Record. But, honestly, what the hell is Friedman suggesting here? That British citizens don't loathe bin Laden? That they were blind to Saddam Hussein's killings?

And "Mr. Bush: Thanks for believing in Arab democracy"? ... {Nico rubs his temples} ... Thanks for believing in Arab democracy?! ... oh, it gets worse...

"Tom Malinowski, from Human Rights Watch, perfectly described Mr. Bush's core problem: When you look at the muted reaction to the president's important speech on the need for democracy in the Arab world, you see that "President Bush has moral clarity, but no moral authority." He has a vision - without influence among the partners needed to get it moving. His is a beautifully carved table - with only one leg."

I read Malinowski's statement as, 'Bush's rhetorical flourishes suggest that he has all the right aims, but his actions prove otherwise.' The statement certainly does not suggest to me anything like Friedman's interpretation - that Malinowski thinks Bush wants to do the right thing but doesn't have the international support. Malinowski may very well believe that - I sincerely doubt it, considering his role with HRW - but it's not clear either way from that particular quote.

Either way, Friedman's argument runs completely against the reality of the power disparities between the United States and its client Arab states. American presidents have brushed off the cobwebs and dragged out the "beautifully carved table" - i.e., the "We support democracy in the Middle East. Oh, that the world would straighten up and join us in this noble cause" speech - for the past half-century.

Friedman must have missed that Antiques Roadshow when the rest of the world found out the table wasn't worth two drops of sputum.

The National Jewish Democratic Council has picked up on the story that Atrios and TPM brought to light the other day...

Republican Web Site Airs Vile Anti-Semitism

“GOPUSA” Internet Site Suddenly Deletes Column Calling George Soros “Descendant of Shylock”

[...]

“Suddenly deleting such vile anti-Semitism from this Republican site – with no explanation, and no apology – simply won’t cut it. Virulent anti-Semitism causes very real damage, and GOPUSA must acknowledge this,” said National Jewish Democratic Council Executive Director Ira N. Forman. “While nothing can make up for originally providing a forum for this screed, a first step must be for GOPUSA to issue an apology. GOPUSA must also explain how this could possibly happen in an organization that bills itself as the megaphone for the conservative Republican movement – and how this could happen in an organization that is supported by major GOP representatives and leaders at all levels, including the White House, the Bush-Cheney campaign, the Senate and the House. GOPUSA must – at an absolute minimum – sever its relationship with this obviously unacceptable author.

“We say it so often now that it has become utterly cliché, but in the face of the supposed all-out Republican effort to attract Jewish voters, I will say it once more: If this is the Republican idea of Jewish outreach, then I’d hate to see what antagonism looks like,” Forman added.

March Organizers Claim 200,000

Demonstrators Force Powell to Cancel Event - (he was going to receive the Marshall Award for improving transatlantic ties... Mmmm, sweet sweet irony)

Here's a time lapse video of Trafalgar Square...

Things are heating up in Miami, as well: FTAAimc.org for updates...

This thread's for you...

...do feel free to comment on my first few days here, and please also mention if you know of any good reviews/summaries of the book on Dean by journalists from Vermont...

MaxSpeak has taken a long, hard look at foreign bras.

One wonders whether Dean and the others will be struggling with foreign bras during the election cycle. Luckily, Americans are remarkably pliable on the issue - whichever candidate comes forward with a full and firm policy can expect to enjoy a dramatic bounce in popular support...

The Bush administration, already under attack for its steel tariffs, added to worries that it will take additional trade protection measures ahead of next year's elections by saying it will impose temporary quotas against a surge of bras . . . made in China. -- Wall Street Journal, 11/19/03

The threat of foreign bras has finally been grasped by this Administration, although at some risk of creating a cleavage among conservatives committed to free trade. A feel for this issue is important in holding up America's vital economic interests and preventing sagging employment growth, or even a domestic bust in textile manufactures. Fortunately, efforts in this area are being pushed up. A special bipartisan commission co-chaired by President Bill Clinton and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will be formed to keep abreast of the problem. Senator Santorum has asked to participate, the better to pursue his interest in making sure that every bitch is suitably furnished with a bra made in America.

Coordinating energy policy with trade policy, the Congress has provided for tax incentives that will benefit the Hooters' Restaurant in Shreveport, LA.

Dick Morris thinks the pillars of Dean's campaign may be crumbling:

Dean faces the prospect of having to wage his campaign based on two elements of not-so-ancient history: the recession and the deaths in Iraq. If Bush can keep the economy growing and creating jobs even as he pulls troops out of Iraq and secures those that remain by limiting their mission, he can achieve political immunity the likes of which incumbent presidents can only dream.

It is always the right of the incumbent to remove his vulnerability by solving the nation's problems in time for his re-election. Presidents that look beleaguered in the year before elections can stage big comebacks (see Clinton 1995-96), with a bit of real progress on the issues. If Bush builds a dynamic economy, is withdrawing from Iraq piece by piece and passes Medicare coverage for prescription drugs on top of it all, he'll be a two-term president.

See the 'If' at the beginning of the last sentence? Yeah, you see it right there, next to the 'Bush'...

Now THAT - that is one big fucking 'If.'

Still, it may not be big enough for the Dean campaign - hence, the push to rekindle public furor over Enron/corporate recklessness/deregulation. (What do you think?)

Only one candidate has responded thus far. The AP is now running a piece with Clark's criticisms of the "re-regulation" plans:

The retired Army general, in the harshest assessment of a rival to date, said Dean's plan to re-regulate U.S. businesses is a major departure from Clinton, who strongly backed deregulation of energy and telecommunications markets.

"The results in the '90s spoke for themselves," Clark said at a brief news conference in which he referred to Clinton by name six times. "Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again."

Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate [maybe "re-regulate" will stick] business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.

Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, "Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch."

Huh... tough statements from two campaigns which so many folks want to see united come November...

Maybe passions are just running a bit wild this week:

Dean speaks of anxiety, Clark tears up as emotions rule political world

Other stuff to check out:

Slate reads Howard Dean's book so you don't have to.

Dean Airs Iowa Ad Attacking Gephardt on War

Democratic Candidates Criticize AARP

Newsday's Pols Showing True Colors For Primary

GOPUSA features Gephardt Says Dean Dumped Spending Limits to Beat Him, Not Bush

And...well, this one was curious...

Neo-Whig Candidate Challenges Howard Dean to “Step Outside”

WaPo:

Dean Calls For New Controls on Business; Democrat Seeks 'Re-Regulation'

HOUSTON, Nov. 18 -- After years of government deregulation of energy markets, telecommunications, the airlines and other major industries, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is proposing a significant reversal: a comprehensive "re-regulation" of U.S. businesses.

The former Vermont governor said he would reverse the trend toward deregulation pursued by recent presidents -- including, in some respects, Bill Clinton -- to help restore faith in scandal-plagued U.S. corporations and better protect U.S. workers.

In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his "re-regulation" campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out "re-regulating" the telecommunications industry, too.

He also said a Dean administration would require new workers' standards, a much broader right to unionize and new "transparency" requirements for corporations that go beyond the recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley law.

"In order to make capitalism work for ordinary human beings, you have to have regulation," Dean said. "Right now, workers are getting screwed." [...]

Dean has excited core Democratic voters with a relentless assault on corporations and the rich, and he is moving quickly to stake a position as the candidate with the boldest plans for tempering the influence and power of U.S. businesses. If the economy continues to rebound, Democratic strategists say, Dean's proposal may offer a way for the party to frame the debate over jobs, income and fairness.

Man, does this piece give me the warm and fuzzies - the only unfortunate part is that Dean's (presumably) off-hand description of his policy proposals - "re-regulation" - probably isn't the best way to have his position framed.

Ah, I'll quit my bitchin'. GO DEAN!

(Off to a lunch meeting - more on this later)

WHERE'S THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS?:

Today is the 140th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address – the most famous and powerful tribute ever given to fallen U.S. soldiers in American history. And while America commemorates that speech, questions persist about why the current Administration continues its effort to downplay the casualties in Iraq. Since the war started, President Bush has attended a total of 36 fundraisers for his political campaign – and not one funeral for fallen soldiers in Iraq. Author John B. Roberts, who served in the Reagan Administration, writes in the NYT, "Skipping memorial services makes the president look weak. It creates the impression that he values his own political standing above the lost lives of servicemen and women." He adds that the tactic leaves a bad impression because "so many of our professional soldiers come from the middle and lower classes of American society, and not the president's own privileged social class. With an election approaching, presenting the picture of a president who has time for fundraisers but not for military funerals would be an egregious mistake."

Also...

The Toronto Star reports:

"Americans have never seen any of the 359 bodies returning from Iraq. Nor do they see the wounded cramming the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington or soldiers who say they are being treated inhumanely awaiting medical treatment at Fort Stewart, Ga. In order to continue to sell an increasingly unpopular Iraqi invasion to the American people, Bush's administration sweeps the messy parts of war - the grieving families, the flag-draped coffins, the soldiers who have lost limbs - into a far corner of the nation's attic. No television cameras are allowed at Dover. Bush does not attend the funerals of soldiers who gave their lives in his war on terrorism... Today's military doesn't even use the words 'body bags' - a term in common usage during the Vietnam War, when 58,000 Americans died. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon began calling them 'human remains pouches' and it now refers to them as 'transfer tubes.' "

I've long been able to say, without hesitation, that the Democrats.com daily newsletter was the best on the net... now, well... I think there's a tie.

The Progress Report is just too damn good.

Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on the flag comment:

McKinney also then touched upon the recent controversy over remarks made by Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean to the Des Moines Register in which he told a reporter that he wanted to "be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."

"Howard Dean is right," McKinney said. "I live with the confederate flag and the controversy. The Democratic party has to find a winning message in the South. And how do you find a democratic message … when people are still being lynched?"

"We've got to appeal to the people of our country to move it forward," she said.

In concluding remarks, McKinney told the class that, "I tried my best to bring black people and white people together. And I did."

Dear President Bush,

I'm sure you'll be having a nice little tea party with your fellow war criminal, Tony Blair. Please wash the cucumber sandwiches down with a glass of blood, with my compliments.

Harold Pinter
Playwright

Hehehe...

With the MA Supreme Court decision, the new poll from Pew Research is getting lots of coverage:

Opposition to gay marriage has increased since the summer and a narrow majority of Americans also oppose allowing gays and lesbians to enter legal agreements that fall short of marriage. Moreover, despite the overall rise in tolerance toward gays since the 1980s, many Americans remain highly critical of homosexuals ­ and religious belief is a major factor in these attitudes.

A 55% majority believes it is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, and that view is much more prevalent among those who have a high level of religious commitment (76%). About half of all Americans have an unfavorable opinion of gay men (50%) and lesbians (48%), but highly religious people are much more likely to hold negative views.

I really don't find these results to be all that discouraging. Gay Americans, barring any major setbacks, will soon be able to legally wed - that is just huge.

Major social leaps forward like this are typically accompanied by a big belch of societal antipathy. Grumpy but otherwise uninterested folks register opposition for a short while - they never really gave the issue a thought before the hulabaloo, and they probably won't after the media frenzy dies down.

Given that we've never really had a national debate on this issue - and that if we DO have one in the next year, the LGBT activist community is organized and savvy (and wealthy) enough to go a long way toward shifting the terms of the discussion out of the hands of the religious right - I'd say 55% ain't too bad.

Should this a 'Bring it on!' moment for the Dems? I think so... but Adam Nagourney's NYTimes analysis of the effects of the decision on POTUS race suggests that most of Our Candidates don't...

Hmmm...

The U.S. military's code name for a crackdown on resistance in Iraq was also used by the Nazis for an aborted operation to damage the Soviet power grid during World War II.

"Operation Iron Hammer" this week launched the 1st Armored Division's 3rd Brigade into the roughest parts of Baghdad to ferret out the attackers who have killed scores of U.S. troops since Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was ousted in April.

A Pentagon official said the name was chosen because of the "Old Ironsides" nickname of the 1st Armored Division. He was unaware of any connection to any Nazi operation.

"Eisenhammer," the German for "iron hammer," was a Luftwaffe code name for a plan to destroy Soviet generating plants in the Moscow and Gorky areas in 1943, according to Universal Lexikon on the www.infobitte.de Web site.

I come from a family of loud, argumentative, "informed" (TM Fox News Channel) conservatives - my KinCons, if you will.

I recognize that occassionally forwarding them news reports probably won't have a major effect on their political leanings... (I really am content to never have to come home and find them goosestepping.)

There are always a handful of stories with such mindblowing examples of greed, corruption, or deceit that I know even they're likely to get the chills - it gives me great joy to fire them an email with the links.

Naturally, I want to share that joy with you. A few from this past week:

Coal Company Buys an ENTIRE TOWN in Ohio

Bush's Cover-Up of the Pre-September 11 Intel Reports (Why isn't this getting any press? Lord, it makes me sick to my stomach to even read about it...)

He's a Dictator, He's Got Oil, and (Surprise!) He's W's New Pal

Any more to share?

...at least that's how the editors of the local opinion page describe the sentiment of the column of mine they published today... {yeck, Day Two and I'm already shilling - oh well, I return the favor for Dean in the column}

The Rothenberg report rates Schweitzer as being not only the Democrats' most likely gubernatorial candidate to pick up a seat held by Republicans, but as the only candidate nationally who is likely to cause a Governor seat to change political alignment.

I've been saying to people that they should keep an eye on this seat for a while and it looks like I may have been more correct than I knew.

Yes, The Guardian reports, dreams do come true:

Anti-war protesters claimed victory last night after the Metropolitan police backed down and agreed to allow a march up Whitehall and past Downing Street to demonstrate against George Bush's visit to the UK.

The police had initially refused to allow the march - which the Stop the War Coalition hopes will be attended by more than 100,000 protesters - Scotland Yard announced its increasing the number of officers from the 5,000 to 14,000.

Meanwhile, back in the Land of the Free, folks gearing up for the protests at this week's FTAA meetings in Miami aren't getting nearly the same support.

The Miami City Council attempted to pass an ordinance that "would ban masks, puppets, padded clothing, bandanas or signs on sticks as the city braces for protests at mid-November talks for a Free Trade Area of the Americas; the rules would end when talks do," according to the WSJ.

The end result wasn't quite as strict - although the Florida ACLU still had plenty to say.

Do we really need Storm Troopers to battle Corn Girl and some mud-people?

Free Agent Ezra Klein thinks that the GOP is being a little dishonest about the energy bill. He also points out that most Americans, when they learn the content of the bill, oppose it.

Me? I'm just grateful that they are actively blocking protections of the Rocky Mountain Front. I have no problem drilling in some of the most beautiful areas in the lower 48, provided I am allowed to drill in Pete Domenici's home and office.

Can I get a deal Pete?

The New York Times reports on a new initiative by liberal clergy leaders to counteract the message of religious conservatives who have spent many years connecting religious and conservative in the minds of Americans.

Two thoughts:

1. This is a money quote:

   Tony Perkins, a former Louisiana state representative who is president of the Family Research Council, said such an approach could be counterproductive when dealing with churches.

   "Trying to take a purely political message into church communities has not been very successful for either ideological side," said Mr. Perkins, a Republican whose group usually supports Republican initiatives.

In many ways, I really think this is too bad. The organization seems to be a (c)3 and will be far removed from politics, but churches shouldn't necessarily be setting up nationwide interdenominational organizations that exist purely to spread the word of religion as conservative or liberal. It's tough to blame the Clergy Leadership Council, this new organization, for simply entering a game that has been going on a while, but could someone explain to me why religion even needs to enter the macropolitical level?

I understand the need for religion to inform the values of individuals, but politics should be a step removed. Politics is the practice of bringing together people of similar values who want to achieve similar ends. Hence, working well, it seems to me a two-step process: Religion->Values->Politics. These organizations take a short cut. It's a short cut that is divisive, loaded, and dangerous to church and state. Man's law and God's law are unlikely to always agree, if for no other reason then the fact that Man's law changes often and God's law, assumedly, does not. Trying to merge the two results in the warping of both.

Update

Nevermind. This committee isn't a 501(c)3. It's a 527.

Sickening.

I just got back from a Schweitzer function and I was pleasantly surprised by a few things:

1. He knows his policy. His speech to the partisans, while still full of plenty of good jokes, is really thorough on policy. Granted, he has to do this since this is the main line of attack against him from the Republicans. Beyond that, though, I definitely like his message. He's a no-holds-barred moderate Democrat. He has solid liberal values, but he's not talking crazy.
   
2. He's mobilizing people. He has raised more money from more donors than any other Governor candidate in history for this point in the campaign. And the checkbooks are still coming out. People are going to give to his campaign repeatedly.
   
3. He is amazingly good with people. I'm not a huge fan of the brown nosing side of politics and he left me feeling like I had a personal connection with him. That's not something many people running for elected office have done.
   

At this pace, consider it done.

Sometime next week I'll post an interview with Mark Juergensmeyer. Among other things, Juergensmeyer is the author of "Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence".

Anyone have any burning questions to ask?

Here are some blurbs about the book, if you're not familiar with Mark's work:

'Half of the world's thirty most dangerous terrorist groups claim religion as their motivation. How can the word of God sanction acts of terror against human beings? How can violence become a sacred duty? These are the questions at the heart of Mark Juergensmeyer's calm, lucid, insightful and compassionate book. What sets it apart is Juergensmeyer's dedicated attempt to talk to former terrorists and work his way into their state of mind. His book shines light on the dark places from which terror springs.' -- Michael Ignatieff, author of The Warrior's Honour: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience

'This dark, enthralling book not only documents the global rise of religious terrorism but seeks to understand the "odd attraction of religion and violence." Juergensmeyer bases his study on scholarly sources, media accounts and personal interviews with convicted terrorists. He exercises caution with the term "terrorist," preferring to emphasize the large religious community of supporters who make violent acts possible rather than the relatively small number who carry them out. Juergensmeyer identifies certain "cultures of violence" via case studies along the spectrum of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism. Such religious communities often perceive themselves and their way of life as under attack. In Japan, for example, a new branch of "socially prophetic" Buddhists released toxic sarin gas in the Tokyo subway system in 1995, shattering their own nonviolent ethic and harming thousands because they had adopted millenarian prophecies about an imminent end to the world. Juergensmeyer is a powerful, skillful writer whose deeply empathic interviewing techniques allow readers to enter the minds of some of the late 20th century's most feared religious terrorists. Yet he is also a sensitive scholar who aptly dissects religious terrorism as a sociological phenomenon.' -- Reed Business Info

Anyhow, the next step is yours...

Fun sites for a Monday afternoon:

Stop the Energy Bill

People v. Ashcroft

Also, it's always noteworthy when high-level military/intel officials get so alarmed by the War-Will-Bring-Us-Peace-niks that they speak out in unison - like this:

Four former directors of Israel's Shin Bet security service have given unprecedented warnings that the prime minister, Ariel Sharon, is leading the country to catastrophe by failing to pursue peace with the Palestinians.

The criticisms, which follow a warning by the army chief of staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon, a fortnight ago that the government's harsh treatment of Palestinian civilians was "strengthening terrorist organisations", provide further evidence that confidence in Mr Sharon is crumbling in the security establishment.

The former Shin Bet chiefs - Yaakov Perry, Ami Ayalon, Avraham Shalom and Carmi Gilon - made their criticisms in an interview with the Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth.

"We are heading downhill towards near-catastrophe," Mr Perry said. "If we go on living by the sword, we will continue to wallow in the mud and destroy ourselves."

Seriously.

Ahhh... {yawning, arms outstretched} ...what a wonderful morning to join a blog!

And yet, my blathering, self-indulgent introductory post must wait. I'm off to see Nobel Laureate Rigoberta Menchu speak - an e-ticket event anytime, but particularly after the recent elections.

First, though, some travel tips for You Know Who...

George, listen. I know "the vision thing" is strong in your clan. I know you can stare failure in the face unblink...er, well, with a significant reduction of your twitchy blinks. I know your Texan gusto allows you to actually embrace failure, give failure a tour of your ranch, chop wood with failure-in-chaps.

But hey, when a simple transnational photo-op turns into a "trip from hell," you know it's time to change course - literally.

So, I'm here to offer a detour - and, might I say, WHAT a detour!

Three words, George: International Lunar Conference.

Today marks both a beginning and an end here at NotGeniuses.com. It is the beginning of Nico Pitney's tenure here and the end of mine. Yup, I'm no longer going to be a Not Genius (now, what does that make me?). During my time at this site I have watched it grow from nothing more than an idea to a well read blog boasting over 30,000 visits a month. It has been a space for my political ravings, real-world activism (Flood the Zone, baby!), and countless wide ranging conversations. We have been mentioned in the American Prospect and linked to by multiple campaigns. I am immensely proud of all that has happened here and all that it has become -- NG is more than a spot for bloggers to blog, it has become a political community of sorts, and in doing so it has fulfilled my fondest hopes for it. More than that, it has served as a vehicle for me to hear new ideas, make new friends, and argue more points than I can even remember. I am immensely grateful.

Nevertheless, the time has come for me to move -- a number of things make this the right decision for all involved, none of them are very important. My new blog home will be Pandagon and I hope that you will all come by and participate over there. Not Geniuses will retain Matt Singer, Joe Rospars (on hiatus), and a new NG -- one Nico Pitney. Nico is an immensely talented writer and will be a great addition here, so give him a warm welcome. Thanks go out to Joe Rospars for all he's done for the site, Matt Singer for his friendship, and all you readers who have made the site so successful.

So to recap:
1) I'm leaving
2) Nico is coming
3) Come to Pandagon
4) Thanks for everything

Sincerely,
Ezra Klein
eklein@ucsc.edu (Feel free to E-mail me and keep in touch)

Understandably, since one major change involves Ezra, he's building the suspense.

But there will be some other changes, and there's one that we won't make you wait for.

I'm much-belatedly declaring an official hiatus from the site. Things have been moving really fast since I left Stockholm for Burlington, Vermont, and some amazing things have happened. One of them is that I got hired as a professional writer and editor for the first time in my life -- something I never thought possible. Also amazing is that part of that job entails writing on a presidential campaign blog.

In the last ten weeks there has been a lot of analysis I haven't been able to publish here, and there have been a lot of stories I haven't been able to tell. Hopefully when this is all over I'll be able to remember enough to write a bit of it down here.

But for now, it's pretty much a choice for me between being part of the campaign and writing about the campaign. I like writing about campaigns. And hopefully working on this particular campaign will make me a smarter writer about future campaigns. So, aside from a few administrative posts from time to time, or a link without comment now and then to some article or speech, consider me on hiatus.

Tomorrow, we'll be livening up the site and starting to provide more content more frequently. That reinvigoration, along with this final clarity about my status and the changes Ezra's teasing, will hopefully put to rest any uncertainty or unease that's been lingering out in the Not Geniusesverse in the past several weeks.

The site will still pretty much look the same, and be dishing up even more of the typo-riddled often-obnoxious political analysis we've been proud to provide since the beginning (and which I've been missing playing my role in, despite my efforts to occasionally up the snark factor at Blog for America a click or two).

Thanks for reading.

Oh, and just for fun, go check out the official John Kerry blog, which lists us -- yes, Not Geniuses: the site with the Dean for President sidebar (replete with contribute link) that's featured a Clark endorsement from one of its writers. Good for them.

I just finished rereading Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. It is a novel of hermeticism and esotericism -- of Parmenidean Dynamics, as the main characters joke at one point. In addition to containing some awesome lines (one along the lines of penises being nothing more than phallic symbols), the book manages to convey about 12,000 messages.

Tomorrow will see major changes here at Not Geniuses -- so please check back in the morning for the full scoop on the future of this site and its writers.

UNH has a new poll out in New Hampshire. Dean is leading with 38 points and a 22 point spread over Kerry. Only 27 percent are undecided. That's not big news.

More interesting, in the full report, are the numbers on voter's second choices and where candidates may have taken votes from others.

Looking at the Clark numbers, it looks pretty clear that Dean would be in significantly better shape if Clark hadn't entered. 14% of Clark supporters say they backed Dean originally and a full 50% of Clark supporters say Dean is their second choice. That support would be enough to drive Dean over the 40% mark.

Perhaps more amazing, though, is that Dean has essentially maintained momentum even with this shift in support away from him.

The poll also has Clark's vote cut in half since October (from 10 to 5) even though his favorability has stayed constant (at net positive 24%). Now, the question may be why did he drop IA, but stay in NH?

Okay, I don't say this often, but this Lilek's column is pretty spot on:

Show Michael Moore a man in jeans holding a rake and a man in a suit with a briefcase, and he will not only automatically side with the guy who has the rake, he will assume that the briefcase contains plans to move the rake factory to Mexico, as well as documents that prove the company knew that its rakes gave people painful splinters at a rate 150% above EU standards.

What a self-righteous blowhard.

Want to see two groups talk right past each other? Well, then check out Cornel West and Michael Lerner mix it up with (NRO Columnist) Clifford May. It's kinda funny. One group thinks we should evaluate how our policies affect Israel and suggests that our current ones are not to her benefit while the other is very adamant that Ehud Barak proposed a great deal in the late 90's.

Meanwhile, our national intellect sits in a corner, crying and unloved.

Paul Weywrich and Randall Robinson (two of the most ideologically opposite people you could ever think of) want to abolish the Commision on Presidential Debates. I'd not thought about it much, but the case they make is clear and convincing. Debates should be more than a bipartisan news conference and they should be responsive to the wants of America, rather than the wishes of the two parties. As of now, they fail on both tasks.

He's the John Grisham blogosphere, a guilty pleasure. He's occasionally fun to read, but if you think you'll get anything worthwhile out of it, you're either lying to yourself or stupid.

Case in point.

'Nuff said.

I am, for the first time, very, very worried about what's going on in Iraq. Before I was upset -- after all, a guerrilla war is a terrible thing and streams of dead soldiers are heart breaking, but, I had expected some sort of counter-insurgency and so was caught unsurprised. My beef with Bush was that he hadn't prepared Americans for what was coming next, not that something different should have come.

But now the political arm of the White House appears to be taking over. We're speeding up their elections and reducing our troops -- and they don't even have a Constitution. In essence, we are running away from Iraq. This is the worst possible thing to do. The only way we could fulfill Bush's rhetoric about Iraq and make it a real imminent threat is to show that if you just kill enough Americans over a period of time, we will concede defeat. There is no action we could take short of invading Saudi Arabia that would give the terrorists as much hope and motivation as to show that their low-grade, conventional weapons based insurgency had defeated the might US Army.

And if it works to get us Iraq, expect to see a lot more terrorist attacks the world over -- for if America shows it isn't strong, American will never again be safe.

(Via: Pandagon) This is one of the sickest fantasies I've ever seen. And for it to come from a self-professed Christian and for him to suggest that it could be done in the name of Jesus Christ -- it's utterly appalling and gives a beautiful religion a bad name.

Just turned on the Senate's 39 hour whinefest over the Judicial Nominees. I was saddened to see that Jesse's characterization of it was pretty spot on. I caught Jeff Sessions up there -- he is a distasteful man with bad posture and worse stage presence. And he was just feeding Orrin hatch stupid questions about the Democrat, it reminded me of nothing so much as a vaudeville act with Sessions as the dummy. Kim Du Toit would be furious.

Got something to say?

Slate reviews John Kerry's new ads and perfectly captures exactly whyit doesn't work:

[It} is a well-made, effective ad with one big problem. If you're looking for someone whose authentic military costume and impeccable national security credentials put him in a good position to challenge Bush on Iraq, Kerry's a reasonable choice. But Gen. Wesley Clark is a much better one.

Ezra has a good idea in calling for the forming of a group that will unite after the primaries to start fighting Bush. As is pointed out in comments, the organization does exist. It is called the Democratic Party.

But the Democratic Party isn't doing everything it should be to build a solid volunteer database that can be turned over to the eventual nominee. Their E-Patriots idea was a good one and it has raised significant money for them, but why not do a volunteer drive?

They can simply change E-Patriots from being nothing but fundraising but to having two components:
-When you follow an E-Patriot link, you register to be a volunteer for the Democratic nominee.
-After that, you may choose to also contribute to the fund to oppose Bush.

The link graphic, with the Uncle Sam character, would include a daily updated number of volunteers and dollars raised to beat Bush next year.

The two biggest problems with the DNC's online outreach so far has been that they haven't released totals except for to individual linkers and that they focus solely on money.

It's time for that change.

I've been writing an article on Bush's long term effects on campaign finance reform and was just overtaken, once again, by how much I want him out of office. And it got me thinking. I don't much like Dean (shocking, I know), but if he wins the Primary, I will E-mail his campaign that morning and offer to drop out of school, sleep on the floor for the next year, and do everything I can to make his candidacy successful. And I mean everything. My preference for Clark never overshadows the essential fact that Dean is infinitely better than Bush -- and if he wins the Primary, the success of his candidacy is critical.

Mine is, I'm certain, a common sentiment. And it seems to me that it'd be good to codify it -- I'd like to create some sort of Unity organization. Just a volunteer list, or a group, or something made up of political partisans who are for various candidates (including Dean) but are determined to take Bush out of office. I worry that this hard fought primary will engender bitterness upon its end, particularly if it becomes a Dean-Gephardt (new politics vs. traditional politics) battle. I want to form a group that can help smooth over the transition so people don't have to walk with their tails between their legs alone and thus our foot soldiers just slink back into the TV room...

What do you guys think?

Last night, Bill First put a poll on his website asking (in a deliberately framed fashion) whether or not Senators should simply vote "yes" or "no" on judicial nominees (no filibusters). But, he started losing. So he restarted the poll. Then he lost that. So he reworded the question without changing resetting the numbers so the sentiment that had been winning (pro-filibuster) was now losing because now people's votes meant something different. This guy is heading up one of our most important Democratic institutions? I don't know about you, but it makes me uneasy.

Shorter Blog For Bush: Dean supporters like to see American troops die.

And they accuse us of the vile rhetoric?

Update: They ask us to:

Imagine, for one second, President Howard Dean.
Imagine, for one second, President Wesley Clark.
Imagine, for one second, President John Kerry.
Imagine, for one second, President Joe Lieberman.

Make no mistake about it; America needs George W. Bush to be reelected in 2004.

This post by Kos on how the Union endorsements came about really does show the virtue of Howard Dean. Whatever else you (I) think of him he has really run for President with a "Rocky"-esque attitude. He got those endorsements because he deserved them and he's currently the frotnrunner because he's earned it.

Do I think he's the best candidate? Nope.

Do I think he's the hardest working? There is no doubt -- he has run for President with the determination and single-mindedness one should bring to running for President.

Kos is following Salon.com's and establishing a version of his blog with ads and an ad-free version for subscribers.

Yet another amateur goes pro.

At least he's still independent.

An New York Times article on how the brain works tells us that:

[Scientists] do think they have solved one longstanding mystery, though. Most neuroscientists are convinced the mind is in no way separate from the brain. In the brain they have found a physical basis for all our thoughts, aspirations, language, sense of consciousness, moral beliefs and everything else that makes us human. All of this arises from interactions among billions of ordinary cells. Neuroscience finds no duality, no finger of God animating the human mind.

The larger problem seems to lie in free will. If everything we do is merely a consequence of electrical charges and chemical changes in our brain, where does mechanical action stop and free will begin? As we know, people react differently to circumstances when they are depressed -- depression often relies on brain chemistry -- so to what extent does that change our control over our own actions?

All that seems to be proven here is that God is not playing with us like puppets...at least not using our brain chemicals. Some argue that God is orchestrating events to see what we'll do, others say we were created and then set free to roam and exercise our free will. One way or the other, this seems to be not a commentary on God but rather a commentary on what makes us human -- namely, free will, or the illusion thereof.

It is, in large part, crap like this that makes me support Clark. Apparently Gillespie wants to run against the Democrats on the theme that:

The bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole were treated as criminal matters instead of the terrorist acts they were. After Sept. 11, President Bush made clear that we will no longer simply respond to terrorist acts, but will confront gathering threats before they become certain tragedies."

Let us put aside how repugnant that notion is for one minute and imagine how well that will work against Clark. The easy counteroffer is that while Bush was futzing around, Clark was fighting in, and commanding, wars. Who knows better how to deal with violent threats and who do you trust more to deal with this one? The guy who believed faulty intelligence, or the one who has written two books on how to fight wars and terrorism? I feel confident in the likely outcome to that equation.

In general, such an approach seems quite weak to me. It's one thing to paint Bush as effective on national security, but to paint the Democrats as weak will lead to some problems for the Republicans. Those problems, in order, are the CIA, Clinton, and the Reagan crew.

Well, Safire is talking out his ass. In his world, three things are going on in the Democratic primary:

• Dean is McGovern, cuasing the Democratic establishment to get scared and;

• The Clintonistas rally around Clark, pushing him into the race as a vehicle for Hillary to hop onboard but he's not doing well enough so;

• The Kennedy establishment is resurrecting John Kerry's campaign as the ultimate "Stop Dean" candidacy.

Does this sound insane to any of you?

Sean lets us know the real story behind that girl's insipid question from the Rock the Vote debate. It was fed to her by a producer and she broke ranks because she was tired of being made fun of. Interesting (and somewhat karmic) stuff, but that, to me, is not the real question here.

The real question, the one that has me up at night, was raised by Kevin Drum:

CNN planted a question and this was the best they could do?

(Via: Political Wire) John Kerry's position on flag burning:

"If I saw someone burning the flag, I'd punch them in the mouth because I love the flag, but the Constitution that I fought for preserves the right of free expression."

Seems that John Edwards has retained Hugh Shelton as a campaign advisor. As you may or may not remember, Shelton is the General who fired Clark and said that he did so because of issues with Clark's "character and integrity". So, Edwards is going to go after Clark with all he's got, yesterday, Norman Schwarzkpopf (Stormin' Norman) was on TV attacking Clark and repeating the vague Shelton attack.

This is the test, we'll see if the General can survive the Generals.

My controversial post on Dean is getting a bit unwieldy so I'm going to put my final thoughts in this thread, and people can do with them as they will. Enjoy.

Mickey Kaus hates Paul Krugman.

Honestly, and we thought Don Luskin was a stalker.

What is old Mickey doing?

Well, he's dragging out Krugman quotes claiming that he looks ridiculous. Example? Well, first he finds one from Krugman calling tax cuts counter-cyclical and says that this is a ridiculous idea.

The problem? Krugman effectively says that the reason why Krugman was saying the tax cuts wouldn't work was because the government thinking about implementing them - the Scottish government - didn't have the necessary tools (called borrowing) necessary to smooth out the pro-cyclical nature of tax cuts:

"From the experience of the US, I would say the costs outweigh the benefits. You might think tax cuts give an opportunity to the economy, but they actually turn out to be pro-cyclical" - boosting growth in an upturn rather than in a slump.

Even with broader tax powers, Krugman said, Scotland "wouldn’t be able to borrow money to smooth out the cycle in the way that national governments can. So you would find you can’t avoid pro-cyclical policies. You end up aggravating the problem."

He concluded: "Unless you can come up with much cleverer [government] institutions [to manage the fiscal policy], and persuade the bond markets to finance you, it won’t work."

But the main reason for doubting that America is back on a path of strong, sustainable growth is that it has failed to purge the excesses of its previous boom. It is, to say the least, odd that at the beginning of an economic recovery many indicators—low saving, rampant household borrowing, record house-building and uncomfortably high stockmarket p/e ratios to name but a few—have more the look of a cycle that is drawing to a close.

Compared to past job loss, the new jobs are good news; compared to past recoveries, the job growth is historically weak and anemic. If October’s level of job growth were to continue through all of next year, it would still amount to the worst third year of a recovery since 1958.

But the government cannot carry on handing out such largesse for ever. America's deteriorating fiscal finances rule out further big net tax cuts (see article). Long-term interest rates have also risen, and as a result mortgage refinancing has fallen by around 80% from its peak. In September real consumer spending dipped by 0.6%. If job lay-offs continue, consumers may also tighten their belts.

Business investment is picking up, but ample spare capacity will continue to discourage new spending. In September, manufacturing output was running at only 73% of capacity, well below the average of 81% over the past half century. In any case, business investment is too small a share of the economy to keep it aloft in the absence of robust consumer spending.

But the main reason for doubting that America is back on a path of strong, sustainable growth is that it has failed to purge the excesses of its previous boom. It is, to say the least, odd that at the beginning of an economic recovery many indicators—low saving, rampant household borrowing, record house-building and uncomfortably high stockmarket p/e ratios to name but a few—have more the look of a cycle that is drawing to a close.

For awhile now I've thought of Clark/Edwards as the best ticket. All the goodness of Clark, plus Edwards' eloquence and likability. But tonight, I was thinking about Clark/Gephardt. Dick brings in the Midwest and the Unions -- which is a lot more concrete than what Edwards brings to the table. Plus, he knows the ins and outs of the establishment. It seems really strong to me. What do you guys think?

This, quite simply, does not look good for John Kerry:

In a conference call Sunday night, Kerry enraged much of his staff by mispronouncing the name of a top staff member at least once, and could be heard eating as he broke the news of Jordan's firing, which he called a "one-day story." Stung by his attitude, several aides said they were considering quitting the campaign.

Two senior campaign officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Jordan was informed of Kerry's decision by the senator and former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, a top adviser to the campaign.

Things just look bad for him.

There's a new book out on Howard Dean, this one a reader compiled by a group of reporters who have been covering Dean for a long time. Looks nice, though I've yet to hear anything on its save that it exists. It did, however, help me realize something.

The reason I don't support Howard Dean is Howard Dean.

It's not his policies, which are well thought-out and comprehensive (and I'm excited for his upcoming Higher Education plan), it's certainly not his campaign, which is ground breaking. No, it's him. I just don't like him. I've met Dean a number of times and was never very impressed by how he treated me or others in the office. When Joe Trippi is more personable than you, there's a problem.

The key to my dislike of Dean is the sort of intelligence he displays. His campaign might be about beginning the great national dialogue, but his rhetoric and style of speech are about running roughshod over opposing arguments. He is neither intellectually precise (like Hart) nor solicitous of other's opinions (like Clinton). Rather, he talks as if he owns the truth and is utterly unable to admit he was wrong, a trait we've seen multiple times, but most glaringly during the Rock the Vote debate.

Dean, to me, is a mediocre candidate with an extraordinary campaign. His positions gave him traction in a "right time, right place" sort of way, but his personal actions and real convictions don't really merit the support he has attracted.

Jopsh over at Remain Calm has a great conversation up between Jesus Christ and Bill O'Reilly. Go read it, it's nice to sometimes remind ourselves how the Right actually feels about the Bible and the words of Jesus. We might not speak in terms of God, but we tax on the terms of Christ.

A new Wired article has a sneak peek into the Clark campaigns upcoming web strategy. Read it and you'll see what has me excited about their grassroots strategy -- they're doing some amazing things over there. This quote is key -- we're going to see a lot of competition between the Dean campaign and the Clark campaign for online dominance:

"The Dean campaign has a lot of momentum and they're utilizing it well, but they are missing the key aspect of online community, which is a sense of ownership to a group or affiliation -- geographic or special-interest -- providing a little bit of ownership of the campaign to every person who wants it, and providing a robust set of communities online that allow people to talk and plan events and do grassroots campaigning," [Cameron] said...

At the heart of the Clark Community Network is a system of personal and group blogs. Upon signing up with the network, users get a personal blog with a forclark.com URL. They can also enroll in several online communities, each with a blog of its own. Someone might, for example, choose to participate in the Alaskan blog, the veterans blog and the physicians blog.

Users can submit their personal posts to the community blogs. Other users then rate the submissions on a one-to-five scale, and highly rated submissions can float up to the official Clark blog .

It's about time they started doing their jobs:

The Supreme Court will hear its first case arising from the government's anti-terrorism campaign following the Sept. 11 attacks, agreeing Monday to consider whether foreigners held at a U.S. Navy base in Cuba should have access to American courts.

Political Wire has two interesting items today.

First, Wesley Clark pissed off the unions by not alerting them before he pulled out of Iowa. I have to feel bad for General Clark on this one, as it was reported at the time that a staffer leaked that decision to the press before Clark had signed off on it. I'm wondering if that staffer is taking a little heat right now.

In other news, Howard Dean is the only one of the major six candidates to campaign in Washington, DC. I think this was always a smart decision on Dean's part. It clearly isn't hurting him that much in New Hampshire or Iowa, where, offended as people might be in theory, they are unlikely to punish a Presidential candidate for campaigning for the Presidency. In addition, he's both proving to the world that he can win votes from significant minority populations, while also providing a way for him to learn those skills for later in the campaign. The primary is largely a giant straw-poll, it is the caucuses that matter, but Dean is going to get votes. I'm also willing to bet that some powerful people in the civil rights movement will remember this decision by the other campaigns.

Al Gore spoke about civil liberties on Sunday:

I want to challenge the Bush Administration’s implicit assumption that we have to give up many of our traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists.

Because it is simply not true.

In fact, in my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama Bin Laden. [...]

In both cases, the administration has fostered false impressions and misled the nation with superficial, emotional and manipulative presentations that are not worthy of American Democracy. [...]

Where Civil Liberties are concerned, they have taken us much farther down the road toward an intrusive, “Big Brother”-style government -- toward the dangers prophesized by George Orwell in his book “1984” -- than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America.

And they have done it primarily by heightening and exploiting public anxieties and apprehensions. Rather than leading with a call to courage, this Administration has chosen to lead us by inciting fear.

Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for Governor with Warren Buffet, a moderate reform capitalist, as an economic advisor. Now he's appointing Stephen Moore of the tax cuts at all costs Cato Institute and President of the rabid Club for Growth to the audit committee.

An anonymous email tip let me know about this and also highlighted that, in addition to Moore's relatively radical ideas that tax cuts are penultimate solution to all economic problems, he may have some other problematic beliefs. For instance, a Club for Growth donor is reportedly upset with Moore for firing an employee for being gay.

I've got a busy day ahead of me, so no posting. Use this open thread to attach different agendas to me, tell each other how great Dean is, and generally have a good time.

In the interviews with candidates over at MT Politics.net, Ken Miller is having his first response posted tonight, dealing with higher education. He already sent a copy of his response out by email and, frankly, his ideas on higher education are disappointing at best.

His two ideas for higher education? Transferable credits (credits from colleges of technology apply to four year schools) and vouchers.

Vouchers?

That's his higher ed plan.

As for the transferable credits, one reason why COT credits don't always transfer to the four-year programs is differences in accreditation. It's important to have degrees coming out of our colleges mean something.

Obviously, higher ed is only one issue out of many, but Miller is doing a pretty good job of showing he doesn't understand the issues.

Finally, someone who stands up to the Media's bullshit:

Army private Jessica Lynch, the badly injured U.S. prisoner of war who was rescued from a hospital during the Iraq war, said in her first interview that she is not the Rambo-style hero she has been portrayed as by American media and the military.

Lynch, 20, told ABC network reporter Diane Sawyer in an interview to be aired on "Primetime" next Tuesday, the same day as her authorized biography is published, that she never fired a shot when ambushed.

"My weapon did jam and I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I don't look at myself as a hero...

In an advance, partial copy of the ABC interview, Lynch said she was hurt that other people had "made up stories" about her fiercely fighting her Iraqi captors.

"I'm not about to take credit for something that I didn't do... It hurt in a way that people would make up stories that they had no truth about. Only I would have been able to know that because the other four people on my vehicle aren't here to tell that story."

If I were going to write a book on diplomatic relations under George Bush, I would title it:

Don't worry, Barbados is with you

Make sure to read Matt's holy-shit-this-is-really-important post -- if Dean gets both SEIU and AFCSME on the same day, he's pretty much won the Primary.

This is how you criticize the war while supporting the troops:

Clark visited the family of the third soldier from Orangeburg-Wilkinson High School to die in Iraq before presenting his Iraq proposal to a predominantly black crowd of 300 at South Carolina State University.

The former four-star general said he knew the community was hurting and what it means to sacrifice a life for our country.

"We are all grateful for his service and we should honor it today," Clark said of 22-year-old Army Spc. Darius Jennings, who was killed Sunday when a CH-47 Chinook helicopter was shot down in the deadliest single strike against U.S. forces since the war began.

"It wasn't a political thing. It was personal," Jennings' mother Harriet Johnson said of Clark's visit to her home.

Johnson has been critical of the war in Iraq since her son's death, and has called on President Bush to visit her family, saying it's "something he should do for each and every family that had a fallen soldier."

Kos is reporting that SEIU is holding off on an endorsement of Dean at the request of AFSCME (Kos isn't alone in reporting this), because AFSCME wants a piece of the action.

Now, as Kos points out, there is simply no reason for SEIU to agree to hold off for 6 days on their announcement unless AFSCME is gonna hitch a ride on their train. Stern gets his candidate. AFSCME gets to retain its image as a kingmaker.

And Gephardt is in trouble.

AFSCME is huge in Iowa. The SEIU is huge in New Hampshire. Both are huge nationally. Commenters at Kos's site are wondering why two labor endorsements for Dean are a big deal when Gephardt's earlier endorsements were not a big deal.

It's a big deal because Dean is on the path to building an amazing campaign - one that is combining Independent Grassroots with the House of Labor, K Street Insiders with Main Street Americans.

As Kos said, until it's done, nothing is final. AFSCME could bail. But if they vote and decide to endorse Dean, the ability of other campaigns to stop him decreases significantly. Money and manpower. Dean's got 'em. Clark better find 'em if he wants a chance.

Josh Marshall gets it right:

As I listened to hullabaloo unfold, however, something else occurred to me. Dean's stubbornness and arrogance can be a big liability for him. When he got asked about the comment at the Rock The Vote debate there was a really straightforward way to answer ...

A) I stand by the point I was trying to make. B) If the way I phrased it offended you, I'm really sorry about that. C) You know, you speak a lot on the campaign trail. And sometimes you don't phrase something just the right way. But I'll try to be more careful about how I choose my words.

End of story. That would have been it, though his opponents would certainly have tried to milk it a bit longer. No big production of an apology would have been necessary.

But he couldn't bring himself to do it. And it was the headline out of the debate. And the headline yesterday with the semi-apology. And today when I brought up the CNN page the story about the full apology is practically breaking news.

This type of rhetoric makes me deeply nervous:

President Bush today portrayed the war in Iraq as the latest front in the "global democratic revolution" led by the United States. The revolution under former president Ronald Reagan freed the people of Soviet-dominated Europe, he declared, and is destined now to liberate the Middle East as well.

Jesse saw the new Matrix movie and he was not impressed.

About a week ago, Trent Lott said:

Honestly, it’s a little tougher than I thought it was going to be...If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens. You’re dealing with insane suicide bombers who are killing our people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking them out.

The advice 'bomb them back to the Stone Age' may show that the speaker is already there himself, but it could, if followed, force all of us to join him.

This is based on nothing more than a hunch. But does anyone else feel that had Paul Wellstone not died, he would have entered the Presidential race? And does anyone further think that the peculiar disposition of the Democratic electorate this time around would have made them spectacularly receptive to his candidacy? Somehow, I often find myself thinking of the Minnesota Populist, and how sad it is that the candidate attempting to take his mantle is Dennis Kucinich. It seems to me that the world really needs a Paul Wellstone these days...

Actually -- He had MS (I just remembered) so he probably wouldn't have run for President. Regardless, I still miss him and it breaks my heart that he is no longer around to put the face of a statesman upon the progressive movement.

It looks to me like there's a scandal brewing:

As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal.

Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections.

Mr. Obeidi told Mr. Hage that Iraq would make deals to avoid war, including helping in the Mideast peace process. "He said, if this is about oil, we will talk about U.S. oil concessions," Mr. Hage recalled. "If it is about the peace process, then we can talk. If this is about weapons of mass destruction, let the Americans send over their people. There are no weapons of mass destruction."

Mr. Obeidi said the "Americans could send 2,000 F.B.I. agents to look wherever they wanted," Mr. Hage recalled.

He said that when he told Mr. Obeidi that the United States seemed adamant that Saddam Hussein give up power, Mr. Obeidi bristled, saying that would be capitulation. But later, Mr. Hage recounted, Mr. Obeidi said Iraq could agree to hold elections within the next two years.

This is pretty heartwarming:

National Public Radio will announce today the largest donation in its history, a cash bequest from the will of the late philanthropist Joan Kroc of about $200 million.

The bequest from the widow of the founder of the McDonald's fast-food chain both shocked and delighted people at NPR's headquarters in Washington yesterday. It amounts to almost twice NPR's annual operating budget.

Couldn't have said it better myself. From The Note:

[T]he national implications of Tuesday's election results (As one Twister-playing Googling monkey said, "Red states — red; blue states — blue.")

Sorry for the lack of updates today, my internet has been on the fritz.

Political Wire points us at a Marist Poll showing Bush trailing in his reelect numbers, with 44% saying they'll vote against him and only 38% saying they'll vote for.

Democrats are still trailing behind Bush by between 5% and 19%,with Dick Gephardt at 5% behind and Clark at 19% behind. This is an odd reading -- the majority of polls have shown Clark the closest to beating Bush in these head to head match-ups, for him to be 19% behind is definitely unexpected. Whether this means something or it's just a fluke will have to be seen as other polls come out, but it's a strange reading worth exploring further.

Update - Kos agrees, this poll is weird.

You're the Dean campaign. You no longer want to do Federal Matching Funds because you can raise more money than the Government can give you. However, there's a catch. You've already said you'd accept the funds...what do you do?

The answer? Ask your supporters to make the decision and send them an E-mail leading them to your choice. I got this E-mail from the Dean Camapign a few minutes ago (italics mine):

This was, by far, the most fun of any of the debates. It was just a really entertaining evening, a terrific, informal, format, and it netted some really interesting happenings. Big stories coming out of it will be the Dean-Sharpton-Edwards brawl and Clark coming out again the embargo on Cuba.

Round Up:

Braun: Wonderful, wonderful job. I truly hope that she has a future in politics. She just radiates eloquence and warmth.

Clark: Great job. Kept out of the chaos, gave a few fantastic answers -- particularly on gays in the military. He also looked really cool, which always helps. His best debate performance thus far -- the man literally oozes sincerity. He also came out against the embargo on Cuba -- interesting move.

Dean: Bad night for Dean. He was thrown onto the defensive with vicious attacks, and his mood was defensive for the rest of the debate. he gave a good answer the last time around, but that was after 4 attacks by Sharpton and Edwards, and the damage was done.

Edwards: Some very good answers, very tough attacks on Dean. Looked good, did some pandering, stood up for the South and had a generally good night.

Gephardt - Not there, it was a snub.

Kerry: By far his best debate. He did great and had some very funny one liners.

Kucinich: Had a great answer on wanting to change the world, but other than that, he just looked bad tonight -- he just didn't feel like a player.

Lieberman: Good job tonight. He stayed off the attack and had good responses, best I've seen from Lieberman lately.

Sharpton: Was vicious against Dean. He just seemed angry tonight -- almost as if he just realized he had no shot.

From the transcript of Clark's wireside chat, this question and answer struck me as funny. Clark is from a slightly different mold than most of us:

Brian Loken - Mitchell, SD - Your military experience has served you well, so you'd be much more prepared than others to answer this question What three things would you take with you on a deserted island?

17:15:55 A: General Clark - Brian, well, if this is about survivor, my adviuce is, don't do it. It is a lot less fun than it looks...But seriously, always keep communications, and water...if you have that, then you can manage almost anything...Maybe a knife would be the third thing.

I want to make a few quick comments on the Confederate Flag controversy, since it seems to be coming up a lot. I agree with what Demwatch said. I think Dean was using some insensitive rhetoric to illustrate an entirely valid point. He did something politically stupid and he's paying the price for it, he should have used a less charged analogy (Demwatch suggests gun-racks, which I think is a good idea) but I don't think the underlying sentiment was wrong.

That the other candidates jumped on him is not, in itself, surprising. Was it smart? Yes, actually. They're all taking positions right now (particularly Dean on taxes) that won't help them in the General, that's why we have the center run. But on this, considering the states they're competing in, they're well served to get out to Dean's left on this issue. The Confederate Flag is a symbol of hate and prejudice to Blacks, as well it should be. Just because embracing it will help us in the South doesn't mean we should do so, or even tolerate it -- this is a pretty good issue to draw the line on. And for now, all these candidates need to win with Democrats and so they're outflanking Dean on wedge issues, like this one. I don't think for a moment Dean likes the Confederate Flag, but politically, he just allowed himself to be painted as pro-flag. He's got to be more careful about this stuff for Rove will have far less compunction and far more money with which to hit him on every misstep.

Update: Matt's post below is right. We need to make it clear that we don't think all Southerners have Confederate Flags in their pick-ups, and that clarification needs to come from both Dean and his attackers. We shouldn't woo those with the Confederate Flag, but we should woo the South, and the two are not the same.

Clay Risen of the TNR Primary nails the real problem with Dean's recent comments regarding the confederate flag, which is his stereotype of Southern Whites as people who hang that flag.

The thing is that it isn't just Southerners who fly that flag. One of the guys I worked with in Billings, MT used to fly the Confederate Flag, insisting that it wasn't racist, but rather his statement for state's rights. Now, personally, I think that there might be better ways to call attention to support for state's rights. Perhaps hanging the stars and stripes (which, despite standing for a nation, all represent states) would be a better, if more subtle, way. Personally, I'd rather be mistaken for pro-federal that pro-confederate.

That's just me.

Regardless, the real problem here is that the sanctimoniousness of Democrats, as Ezra highlighted, about all that we supposedly did to usher in a world of civil rights (by passing bills that never would have passed without Republican votes), keeps us from reaching out to people who should be voting with us.

MaxSpeak has more.

Matt's got a particularly good post up on how the Democrats "really" lost the South, it's nice and enlightening during Zell's book tour.

I would say, however, that the moral upper hand Dems feel because they lost the South due to the Civil Rights Act has really stood in the way of us getting it back. The South is not such a different world that only Republicans can win -- it merely demands a very strong party that can articulate why we are better for Southerner than Republicans are. As it is, our party hasn't been concentrating on doing that, and thus the status quo remains unchanged.

Zell can talk all he wants about his blueprint for winning (turn Republican) and we can ignore him (we're Democrats), but there are things we need to do. We have a deep, abiding respect for Unions -- they vote our way, and we genuinely support them. We need to be the exact same way on the Military. Even if we don't support this or that war, we need to frame it in terms of the best ways to use our incredible men and women, we can't show a contempt for force or military solutions.

I have to say that Wes Clark's candidacy gives me hope for the South. Edwards, Clinton, and Carter might give short term benefits, but they don't articulate the sort of enduring message that the Party needs for electoral gains in the South, they merely articulate what they need for gains in the South. Not a criticism, just an observation. I think Clark's candidacy, the candidacy of a General in a party often seen as anti-war, will engender some long term change for the better.

We really do need to return to muscular multilateralism and be united on that. As it is, the fringe (like Kucinich) are able to keep defining our party as anti-war no matter where the middle, or the majority, lie. And in this age of symbolic politics, I fear that only running a military man can actually redefine our foreign policy stance in the mind of the avergae voter -- Dean might have the rhetoric right, but it is too easy to screw with the image of a Governor from a liberal state who has run against the Iraq war. Further, Dean can't be too strong on muscular multilateralism because he really does depend on support from liberals, Clark isn't bound by the same constraints.

The NY Times posed a few questions to Chomsky, and some of the answers he gave are pretty interesting.

How would you explain your large ambition?

I am driven by many things. I know what some of them are. The misery that people suffer and the misery for which I share responsibility. That is agonizing. We live in a free society, and privilege confers responsibility.

If you feel so guilty, how can you justify living a bourgeois life and driving a nice car?

If I gave away my car, I would feel even more guilty. When I go to visit peasants in southern Colombia, they don't want me to give up my car. They want me to help them. Suppose I gave up material things -- my computer, my car and so on -- and went to live on a hill in Montana where I grew my own food. Would that help anyone? No.

Chomsky's last comment was, uh, unexpected:

Have you considered leaving the United States permanently?

No. This is the best country in the world.

Kevin Drum is now firmly in Wesley Clark's camp. The Clark campaign is going to do some interesting things in the next two weeks, particularly as relate to fostering the grassroots, and I'm very excited to see them all happen. Since I'm now reassured that they are going to pay attention to the grassroots and, at the least, continue what Dean has started, Clark has my full (rather than tenuous) support.

However, just to reassure you all, I still think Dean is a great candidate and will proudly support him if he wins the nomination. I just think Clark is a better candidate.

From the New York Times front page:

Secret High-Level Talks on Mideast Peace Resume.

Just don't, y'know, tell anyone.

I love television. This documentary is getting a prime-time slot:

On Monday night, ABC will air a documentary that offers an alternative view of Christianity inspired by Dan Brown's best-selling mystery novel The Da Vinci Code. The film, titled Jesus, Mary and Da Vinci, is certain to make some people uncomfortable since it examines the idea that Jesus didn't live a celibate life, as Christian history has always maintained...

This film wonders if such a story, put forth as fiction in Brown's book, might actually have fact behind it. As it happens, it doesn't.

They're a little late for Halloween, but go check out the Mystery of the Missing Marine. Brought to you by the Bush Administration.

This post by Nick Confessore is pretty scary. In short, the Bush Administration has been quitely starting up draft boards around the country. Is it likely that we'll have a draft? Due to the political consequences of one, no. But the larger problem, which Nick hints at, is that due to the Bush Administration's actions (particularly alienating our allies) we might need one, particularly if we get embroiled in any other conflicts.

Congrats to Kos, who has got himself a baby. On a side note, that baby is over 8 pounds -- that is a huge baby. And considering neither Kos nor his wife are big people...it seems kinda strange.

Looks to me like Edwards is trying to rise above the political in order to show the differences between him and the others -- they're politicians, I'm a good guy who has gotten far in life:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said his rivals have allowed the race for the 2004 nomination to become personal and have let the focus slip from reclaiming the White House.

"I think it's perfectly fine for candidates to point out differences they have on policy positions," the North Carolina senator said. "I think when it gets personal, it's much less useful. Some of the things I've read sound fairly personal."...

"I think it's important to keep our eye on the goal, which is to beat George Bush and to make our case about what he's doing wrong, and, very importantly, to present our positive, uplifting message and vision to the country[.]"

I'm feeling a strange sort of satisfaction over the flap on the "Mission Accomplished" banner. You know, the banner that was over the President during his flight suit photo-op, and the banner that the President now says was put up by the soldiers and not his Administration.

The reason I like it is that when that photo-op happened, it was hailed as proof of George W. Bush's invincibility. Democrats were freaking out. And someone, in some article, said that if all a Republican had to do to scare us was dress up like a soldier, than our problems were internal. They were right. Bush wasn't invincible, and now that ultimate bit of arrogance, that photo-op characterizing Bush as a triumphant warrior, is biting him in the ass. It's a good lesson, not only for the Democrats, who need to worry about themselves and stop tripping out whenever Bush has a decent media event, but for Bush himself -- don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

Watched Zell Miller on Meet the Press today. Not only is he a Republican, but he is a bitter, angry man. It comes through in every comment he makes -- he feels betrayed, marginalized, he doesn't like his party and they don't like him. And so you know what? He doesn't want to be in our stupid club anyway.

What do you think?

From David Frum's blog:

Continuing its long tradition of welcoming talented immigrants, National Review has just landed my brilliant compatriot, Mark Steyn.

These two posts by Jesse (1, 2) are absolute must reads.

The first perfectly showcases how desperate the Right is getting over Iraq. The Democratic criticisms are working, not because our points have changed, but because events have proved us right. So what do the good folks over at The Corner do? Why, they quote marines calling us traitors and demanding that the Democratic candidates are shot. Yup, that'll show those Baathists how much we care about protecting dissent.

The second post is important in that it's brilliant -- check it out.

No organization comes under as much fire from the modern left as does the IMF. The criticisms are, in large part, valid -- even Joseph Stiglitz, their former chief economist, has turned against their current policies. The Left, however, often goes too far in their anger. Compare Dennis Kucinich's proposal, pullingl out of (and thus dissolving) the IMF, and Dick Gephardt's, pushing through a proposal mandating an international variable minimum wage. The IMF may be somewhat broken, but it is an immensely valuable insititution simply due to its potential for good. The IMF seems to be aware of this criticism, and are making moves towards reform. Check this out, from the latest issue of Foreign Policy:

[T]he IMF recently threw its critics a curveball by naming the University of Chicago's Raghuram Rajan as its new chief economist...

The 40-year-old Rajan, who has a doctorate from [MIT], is a noteworthy choice on several counts. A native of India, he is the first non-Westerner to fill this influential post. The experience he brings to the fund is similarly pathbreaking: Rajan specializes in banking and finance, an unusual pedigree for an IMF chief economist (a macroeconomics background is the norm).

But what makes his appointment especially interesting is his coauthorship (with economist Luigi Zingales) of Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists: Unleashing the Power of Financial Markets to Create Wealth and Spread Opportunity (New York Crown Publishing 2003), which argues that big business and other elites are subverting capitalismby rigging the rules to enrich themselves.

One week ago, on October 21st, Alan Colmes new book was released. Red, White and Liberal hit stores, making nary a sound. In light of the impact books by Al Franken, Molly Ivins, Joe Conason, and Michael Moore have made in recent weeks, Alan must be feeling pretty bad that his manifesto has been entirely overlooked.

Alan, what does this tell you about how you're regarded by your own kind?

Found in my E-mail:

Hello,

This program worked for me. If you hate Spam like I do, you owe it to your self to
try this program, and forward this email to all of your friends which also hate Spam
or as many people possible. Together lets help clear the Internet of Spam!

No posting today, I need a day off. Enjoy your Saturday!