Politizine

F-ing outrageous!
How cryptic is this?: ["AP: Rumsfeld, FBI Official Kept 9-11 Items"].

Voting machine problems
Some interesting fallout from the Democratic primaries. It seems as though the "miraculous" DRE touch-tone voting machines didn't work very well in the states that have purchased them. Here are some of the headlines:
* In Florida, Gephardt beats Kerry, sort of: ["Bay County Election Problems Stir Bad Florida Memories"].
* While seniors have problems: ["Florida senior voters have trouble with electronic voting machines"].
* In California, some senators make formal complaints: ["Senators assail touch-screen voting"]. Note the subhead: "Too many problems to correct by November's election, a Democrat and a Republican say." Ouch. Not good.
* In San Diego, county election officials post their problems: ["County polling reports"]. I particularly like this entry:
Approximately 40% of the PCM devices failed to "boot-up" to the correct screen when turned on by the poll workers.

Vanity Fair also has a pretty extensive article about the DRE machine problems which I have only skimmed [it came in the mail Thursday]. But the overall tone of the piece, as well as Graydon Carter's editorial - that Republicans will steal the election in 2004 by hacking into these voting machines - is really above and beyond.
In the article, the author also elevates Bev Harris as just another courageous grandmother fighting to expose the problem. Yet, and not surprisingly, the article ignores Harris' rabid partisanship and her outrageous - and near slanderous - attacks against conservative Christians. It also revises Harris' history in investigating these problems - ignoring her conspiratorial and fraudulent attacks against paper ballots scanned by optical scanning machines. As I have shown on this blog, the allegations are baseless - since optical scanning machines have been proven time and again to be more accurate than human counts: ["Vote fraud, conspiracies, and real solutions to the elections problem"].
Harris is right about the DREs. But the article, which should have been more balanced, does a disservice to democracy by ignoring the partisanship of Harris and others.

Invigorated Democrats? Not!
And then there is this, from earlier in the week, about the low turnout for the primaries: ["Study: Turnout for Democratic primaries is among lowest ever"].

The liberal double standard
There has been a lot of anger about plans to shelter attendees to the Democratic Convention in Boston from protesters: ["Convention plan puts protesters blocks away"]. The outcry from protest groups, liberal activists and civil libertarians has been loud and vocal. So imagine my surprise when I went out to World Net Daily this morning and saw this: ["Woman Tells John Kerry She Regrets Her Abortion, Staffer Destroys Her Sign"]. Now, for the record, I am politically pro-choice. I don't think abortion in the early stages of pregnancy should be banned. But why can't this woman be allowed to protest outside a Kerry rally without being demeaned?
" ... one detractor told her he wished the abortion had killed her. His wife elbowed him in the stomach afterwards."
How divisive can the Democrats get? These types of comments will surely win over swing voters. Frankly, the liberals can't have it both ways. They can't complain about not being able to protest while assaulting someone from the other side who is protesting. We should fear no speech. This is America. Wake up, fools.
Then, there is this from Friday: ["Pro-life shirt barred as 'obscene'"]. Again, so it is OK for 14-year-olds to wear "porn star" T-shirts or disgusting heavy metal artwork tees portraying violence, rape, and murder, but not a pro-life T-shirt? Come on. It has become clear that some sort of dress code legislation - that limits offensiveness and removes the stigma of economic status and caste from the classrooms - should be considered.

Nader stuff
Here's a very good piece by The Boston Phoenix's Adam Reilly analyzing whether or not Ralph Nader's independent campaign will destroy the Green Party: ["Power broker"].
Here is a column by a guy in Seattle who is just a tad schizophrenic: ["Why I'm Working for Nader but Casting a Vote for Kerry"].
And, more complaining about his candidacy: ["A Letter to Nader: Why I’m Dumping You"] and ["Ralph Nader's Untimely Campaign in Perspective"].

Then, there is this
I forgot to post this last week: ["3-Headed Frog Found"].

Bush and Kerry: Clueless on manufacturing
OK, so, after five months of waiting, Bush finally appoints his "Manufacturing Czar." But the guy likes building plants in China ... so, he won't be the "Manufacturing Czar" after all: ["Bush Economic Team Draws Fire Over Jobs"].
Then there is Kerry, calling on help from Mickey Kantor to explain Kerry's manufacturing policy. Kantor held a conference call with reporters on March 11: ["Greenspan Warns Congress Not to Create Trade Barriers"].
Frankly, screw Greenspan. He is wrong on this issue and you can tell by the use of his words. Tariffs aren't "trade barriers." Tariffs are "taxes" on imports. There is a difference. For over 200 years, tariffs were used to punish and reward good countries. They were also used to collect revenues when there were no income taxes! Don't these people know American history? But back to Kerry and Bush.
Of course, Kantor is the same guy who negotiated NAFTA - which Kerry voted for - and helped President Clinton ram it through the Congress, leading to the loss of millions of American manufacturing jobs.
But, at least Kerry is trying make light of the situation. Get a load of the new Mickey D's logo on his Web site: ["Bush Manufacturing Policy Can't Even Create One New Manufacturing Job"].
All of this sniping by Bush and Kerry is occuring while the trade deficit continues to grow: ["Record US trade deficit in 2003"].
$541.8 billion. Think about that for a second. That's over half a trillion dollars! That is over a half a trillion dollars worth of economic wealth that was transported from our country to other countries. It is equivalent to building 4.3 million $125,000 homes around the country [housing costs being what they are, $125,000 will build a decent one bedroom condo in parts of Massachusetts and a MANSION in central Florida!].
A 10 percent tariff on the deficit alone - not all trade, just the deficit - would yield $55 billion in tax revenue. That's more than enough to fully-fund the unfunded federal mandate No Child Left Behind, special education, and other school programs being slashed at the state and local level.
When is someone going to show some leadership in this nation?

Why I love bloggers, Part who knows what ...
The Bush/Cheney Web site used to have a "Make your own sign" function. People could enter in their own slogans which would be printed above "Bush/Cheney" so supporters could personalize their own political signs: [print Bush/Cheney signs]. I am sure it was a useful tool for the campaign's fans. But, word got out - mostly via political bloggers - that people could enter just about anything into the slogan and print out hilarious takes on the Bush administration! A co-worker of mine typed in "Because world domination takes two terms!" on his and printed a few signs up for the office. We later found out that one of our more quiet co-workers was a Bush supporter but she was a good sport about it. Once it got around that people could print up "Just about anything for Bush/Cheney," the function was taken down from the site: ["Bush Site Unplugs Poster Tool"]. Now, fans can just put in "State for ..." or "Interest group for ..." Too bad. Luckily, other signs were printed up by others and saved for posterity on pdfs: ["Posters"]. Go to it!

Vote fraud in Chicago?
Eh, why is this not surprising: ["'Massive' vote fraud under investigation"].

Hey ho, let's go!
Johnny Ramone, rightwing, gun-totin' rock n' roller, retires: ["Johnny Ramone: Rebel in a rebel's world"].

Kerry sweeps the south
Gets closer to securing the delegate count:

Florida
Democrat
Kerry - 581,544 - 77.2 percent
Edwards - 75,679 - 10 percent
Sharpton - 21,025 - 2.8 percent
Dean - 20,828 - 2.8 percent
Kucinich - 17,193 - 2.3 percent
Lieberman - 14,286 - 1.9 percent
Clark - 10,224 1.4 percent
Braun - 6,788 - 0.9 percent
Gephardt - 6,021 0.8 percent

Republican
Bush - - 109 delegates
Mike Miller
Kenneth Stremsky
Bill Wyatt
Joan YaHanna Malone
Uncommitted - 3 delegates

Louisiana
Democrat
Kerry - 112,375 - 69.7 percent - 51 delegates
Edwards - 26,004 - 16.1 percent - 9 delegates
Dean - 7,930 - 4.9 percent
Clark - 7,080 - 4.4 percent
Bill McGaughey - 3,157 - 2 percent
Kucinich - 2,402 - 1.5 percent
LaRouche - 2,322 - 1.4 percent

Republican
Bush - 69,112 - 96.1 percent - 45 delegates
Wyatt - 2,806 - 3.9 percent

Mississippi
Democrat
Kerry - 58,927 - 77.9 percent - 33 delegates
Edwards - 5,562 - 7.4 percent
Sharpton - 3,865 - 5.1 percent
Dean - 1,955 - 2.6 percent
Clark - 1,884 - 2.5 percent
Uncommitted - 1,638 - 2.2 percent - 7 delegates
Kucinich - 773 - 1 percent
Lieberman - 764 - 1 percent
LaRouche - 249 - 0.3 percent
Gephardt - 29

Texas
Democrat
Kerry - 563,030 - 67 percent - 168 delegates
Edwards - 120,533 - 14.3 percent - 10 delegates
Dean - 40,038 - 4.8 percent
Sharpton - 31,169 - 3.7 percent - 2 delegates
Lieberman - 25,635 - 3 percent
Clark - 18,401 - 2.2 percent
Kucinich - 16,023 - 1.9 percent
Gephardt - 12,380 - 1.5 percent
LaRouche - 7,100 - 0.8 percent
Randy Crow - 6,468 - 0.8 percent

Republican
Bush - 635,262 - 92.5 percent - 135 delegates
Uncommitted - 51,662 - 7.5 percent

VP sweeps
With John Kerry's position as the Democratic nominee all but solidified, the focus now becomes who is the best running mate for the candidate. Kerry has named Jim Johnson, a D.C. banker and Democratic insider, to head up the search committee. A lot of names have been spinning around the Web. Below, are some of the choices, including my comments and the latest line from Campaign & Elections Magazine in [brackets]. I am also running a poll on DailyKos which will be up until the choice is made: ["RadioTony Diary"] . When Kerry chooses, I will post the results of the poll along with other information about the choice.

Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina, [4 to 1 or 20 percent chance].
Ever since Edwards posted a close second place in Iowa, the media and Democratic insiders have been gaggling over a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Voters in New Hampshire, especially the 50,000 who don't normally vote in primaries, were clearly influenced by the spin. Not only did they cast votes for Kerry, essentially crowning him as the nominee, they also used the write-in option under the vice presidential slot to cast more than 16,600 votes for Edwards. However, the spin about a Kerry/Edwards ticket essentially ended Edwards' chances. Over and over, Edwards was asked if he would accept the VP slot with Kerry. Edwards consistently said "no," at first, acting pissy but later, smiling nicely. Edwards has a slick Southern charm, similar to Bill Clinton without the sleaze. He is colorful, set a good tone and delivered a solid populist message during his campaign. Edwards is also from a Southern state that the Democrats haven't won in decades. A Kerry/Edwards ticket would be solid. But Kerry probably won't pick Edwards. The southerner will overshadow Kerry in charisma, performance, and message. Edwards is also a former trial lawyer which does have some negative connotations. Also, only a couple of times in American history have two senators been able to win the presidency and vice presidency together. Although the last time two senators together on a ticket, John Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson in 1960, the two were former challengers who joined together to beat Richard Nixon.

Rep. Dick Gephardt, Missouri, [20 to 1 or 4.8 percent chance].
Campaigns & Elections doesn't give Gephardt much of a chance but he is probably Kerry's best choice. If Kerry picks Gephardt, he should have him spend the entire seven months of the campaign barnstorming through all the Midwestern swing states. These states can go either way in elections and Kerry only needs one of them along with the Gore blue states. Gephardt gives Kerry the worker credibility he currently doesn't have. Also, as others on the Web have said, Gephardt mortally wounded Dean in Iowa by defending himself against Dean's relentless negative attacks. The negative salvos between the two wasted millions and ended the campaigns for both. Gephardt was also the loyal soldier, endorsing Kerry and campaigning in Michigan before that state's caucuses, effectively ending Dean's campaign. Missouri is a swing state the Democrats need and Gephardt could help win it. He is also friendly with Nader which could help in the final days of what is expected to be a very tight general election. On the con side, some liberal Democrats may be upset that Kerry didn't pick a running mate who was a tad more liberal than Gephardt. Also, citing the Edwards example, it isn't often that two Washington, D.C. candidates to run together.

Gov. Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania, [10 to 1 or 9.1 percent chance].
Rendell is an interesting choice. The former Mayor of Philadelphia and former head of the Democratic National Committee, he is a pro-choice political moderate in a state that sometimes swings to social conservatives. Rightwing Rick Santorum and single-bullet theorist Arlen Specter, both Republicans, are the state's senators. Pro-life Democrat Bob Casey was also the governor until he died of brain cancer. Pennsylvania is a must-win for Democrats and if they can't win this state in 2004, they will have no hope of winning the presidency. The rust belt is essentially crumbling. Millions of jobs have been lost, mostly due to bad trade deals pushed through by Clinton with the help of Kerry. So while Kerry attacks Bush for the factory job losses, he is essentially campaigning against his own voting record. So how does he counter the criticism? Well, Rendell might be a way to go although he has no public voting record on trade and a google.com search didn't yield any results.

Gov. Bill Richardson, New Mexico, [5 to 1 or 16.7 percent chance].
Richardson is another candidate the Democratic insiders are excited about. He is Hispanic, a former Congressman, and former Energy Secretary. But his choice also comes with a lot of negatives. First, New Mexico only has five Electoral College votes so it isn't a very strategic choice. While Al Gore only won the state by 370 votes, Ralph Nader isn't likely to repeat his 21,251 2000 performance, despite a very active Green Party in the state. Second, while liberals fall all over themselves to help hispanics, under the guise of diversity, hispanic voters are more motivated by social issues, swinging to the Republicans because of Catholicism. Unlike social conservatives in Boston, hispanics don't have a historic relationship with the Democrats and there is no guarantee they will swing to Kerry with Richardson. Richardson was also at the Energy Dept. during a time period when numerous nuclear secrets were leaked to American enemies, according to a Senate Intelligence Committee report in 1999. He also didn't put forward any meaningful energy legislation to hold the automobile industry to increase gas mileage in cars, promote alternative energy like solar or wind to make the country energy self-sufficient. I don't think he would be a very good choice.

Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana, [10 to 1 9.1 percent chance].
While Bayh is from a Midwestern state, Democrats rarely win in Indiana. The only reason Bayh won is because he is a legacy: the Bayh family are the Kennedys of Indiana. Bayh is a Democratic Leadership Council Democrat, the pro-business, centrist wing of the party that the base is furious with despite the fact that they are about to nominate Kerry. He is also a former governor so he does have a lot of experience although it is doubtful that Kerry would pick another senator. However, the question will be raised if Kerry can afford to have another corporate centrist on the ticket with him. This kind of move would be similar to what Gore did in 2000 when he picked conservative Democrat Joe Lieberman and voters - and cash - fled to Nader. The last thing Kerry wants is a repeat of 2000.

Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida, [10 to 1 or 9.1 percent chance] and Sen. Bob Graham, Florida, [12 to 1 7.7 percent chance].
The Florida boys. No Democrat has forgotten Florida and as many of us have said, if Gore had picked Graham in 2000, he would be the president today. The former legislator, governor and retiring senator, is a rabid campaigner, carrying a small notebook wherever he goes, writing the names of people he meets ala Clinton. While some bloggers think this is weird the process is called building a base. Graham has a huge base of support, although during his own campaign for the presidency, his sleepy yet smart style turned many people off. On the negative side, there are all those funky family land deals in South Florida that no one has really spent any time looking into. Then again, he makes Kerry look exciting and the two are friends. Again, it is doubtful that Kerry would pick another senator but he was a governor too, so who knows.
Nelson has gotten a lot of face time of late because of all the hot things going on at NASA. Nelson is a former congressman, legislator, and space shuttle astronaut. He is also a very centrist Democrat. But he has barely been in the senate three years so his chances are probably slim.

Ex-Gen. Wesley Clark, Arkansas, [12 to 1 or 7.7 percent chance].
Originally, Clark was tagged to be the VP choice of Dean. The two did powwow but they couldn't get a deal together. In the end, Clark was in way over his head in his presidential campaign, with seven different positions on the invasion of Iraq and numerous unclear or embarrassing policy positions. Abortion into the ninth month? What were you thinking Wes? However, in the New Hampshire VP vote, Clark did come in second - with over 7,600 votes.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, Ohio, [No odds listed].
Kaptur is my own personal long-shot candidate. Sure, she is in Congress right now and probably would not want to give up her seat. But she does bring worker cred like Gephardt does without the baggage that Gephardt has. Being a woman from a swing state, Ohio, is also a huge asset. Kaptur is very popular with the Perot and fair trade Naderites which Kerry needs to win but doesn't have because of his terrible voting record. She could shave voters from President Bush since by three- and four-to-one margins, the Perot voters went with Bush in 2000. She is also on the moderate to progressive side of most issues. Choosing Kaptur would be one of those surprising picks that rarely occurs in the process but should.

Long-shots
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California, [30 to 1 or 3.2 percent chance]. A terrible choice for Kerry. First, California is a safe Democratic state and if it isn't they will lose for sure. Second, Feinstein is not popular with people outside of California and she'll invigorate the Republican base.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York, [50 to 1 or 2 percent chance]. She's a three year senator and probably the most hated political woman in the country. She'll motivate the Republican base. Don't pick her.
Ex-Sen. Max Cleland, Georgia, [100 to 1 or 1 percent chance]. Cleland has been great on the stump for Kerry [no pun intended]. He is a hero and was destroyed by the Republicans two years ago. Maybe as the head of the Veterans Administration but it is doubtful he would be picked for VP.
Ex-Sen. Sam Nunn, Georgia, [100 to 1 or 1 percent chance]. Again, the Democrats need Georgia but Nunn is a conservative free trader who could alienate thousands of voters Kerry needs to win.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut, [100 to 1 or 1 percent chance]. Ditto Nunn.
Sen. Richard Durbin, Illinois, [100 to 1 or 1 percent chance]. Durbin is the archenemy of Chicago Mayor Bill Daley so he can't be all bad. Don't know much else about the guy.
Sen. Mary Landrieu, Louisiana, [100 to 1 or 1 percent chance]. Landrieu easily won reelection in 2002 during a Republican sweep year. Is moderate to centrist but is also a pro-choice woman.
Ex-Treasurer Sec. Robert Rubin, [100 to 1 or 1 percent chance]. God no! Kerry doesn't need Wall Street bankers who helped destroy our manufacturing base on the ticket with him. Rubin would be a foolish choice.
Sen. Joe Biden, Delaware, [100 to 1 or 1 percent chance]. Funky hair weave and people still remember his plagiarizing of a Neal Kinnock speech in 1987. Biden won't be chosen.
Gov. Tom Vilsack, Iowa, [100 to 1 or 1 percent chance]. Iowa is a safe Democratic state. Wife was with Kerry before the caucuses.
AG Elliott Spitzer, New York, [200 to 1 or less than 1 percent chance]. Very popular New York City pol. Spitzer supports gay marriage which will be used against the ticket. Slim chance.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln [AR], [200 to 1 or less than 1 percent chance]. Don't know.
Sen. John Breaux, Louisiana, [200 to 1 and less than 1 percent chance]. See Nunn.
Gov. Howard Dean, Vermont, [500 to 1 and less than 1 percent chance]. The Deaniacs would be thrilled but two New Englanders would be a strategic slip up.
Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader, [No odds]. Want to get rid of the threat? Nominate Ralph! Better to offer him the AG's position.
Ex-Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, Illinois, [No odds]. Braun backed Dean in the primaries after dropping out. Slim to none.

Bush and Kerry funded by same corporate interests
Here is a press release from Center for Responsive Politics showing the link in donations between Bush and Kerry. Unfortunately, the spin from the press release is that "Bush is raising funds from Kerry's top donors." But couldn't it be said that Kerry is raising funds from Bush's top donors? Or - even more accurately - Bush and Kerry funded by same corporate interests? Anyhow, here is the press release from Common Dreams:

Bush Raising Funds from Kerry's Top Donors
WASHINGTON - March 4 - President Bush begins the head-to-head battle for the White House against Sen. John Kerry with a $100 million advantage in fund raising. For that, Bush can thank his incumbent status, his network of fund-raising Pioneers and Rangers -- and several of the top contributors to the Kerry campaign.
Nearly half of Kerry's biggest financial supporters contributed more money to Bush than to Kerry himself through Jan. 30 of this year, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics' study of campaign finance reports filed this month with the Federal Election Commission.
The finding is one of many examples of Bush's fund-raising dominance, and it illustrates how much ground Kerry must make up to approach financial parity with the president. Bush raised a total of $145 million for his re-election effort in the first 13 months of the election cycle, dwarfing Kerry's $33 million.
Kerry's third-largest contributor, Citigroup, gave more than $79,000 in individual and PAC contributions to the presumptive Democratic nominee through January. Louis Susman, Citigroup's vice-chairman, is one of Kerry's biggest fund-raisers. But the financial services giant gave more than $187,000 to the Bush campaign during the same period, good enough for 12th on the president's list of top contributors.
Goldman Sachs contributed nearly $65,000 to Kerry through January, earning it the No. 6 ranking among Kerry's top givers. But the company's employees and PAC sent Bush nearly $283,000 -- more than four times the amount it gave to Kerry. Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson and managing director George Walker are Bush Pioneers who have raised at least $100,000 for the campaign.
Even MassMutual, which ranks among the biggest donors to Kerry over the past 15 years, has contributed more money to Bush than to its home-state senator in the current election cycle. The insurance conglomerate gave $69,000 to Bush through January, compared with slightly more than $50,000 to Kerry. MassMutual CEO Robert O'Connell was a Bush Pioneer in 2000.
In all, nine of Kerry's top 20 donors favor Bush with their contributions. Kerry's top contributor, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, has given nearly $106,000 to his campaign. But the nation's largest law firm has contributed an additional $65,000 to the Bush campaign.
Kerry's No. 2 contributor, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, has been far more lopsided in its giving. The trial law firm has contributed nearly $92,000 to Kerry and just $4,000 to Bush. The firm's chairman, Mike Ciresi, is one of Kerry's top fund-raisers.
Two of Kerry's top donors -- Chicago-based Clifford Law Offices and Hill, Holliday, the Boston-based ad firm -- have given no money to Bush. Bob Clifford of the Clifford Law Offices and Hill, Holliday Chairman Jack Connors are top fund-raisers for Kerry.
Half of Kerry's top contributors through January are law firms. Two-thirds of Bush's top contributors represent the financial sector. Bush's No. 1 financial supporter, with nearly $458,000 in individual and PAC contributions, is Merrill Lynch, the financial services firm that has topped the list of the president's contributors since he began fund raising last spring. Second among Bush's top donors is PricewaterhouseCoopers with nearly $430,000 in contributions.
This release, along with relevant links and a chart showing Bush fund raising among Kerry's top contributors, is available at: http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2004/PresFRJan.asp
Detailed profiles of the presidential candidates, complete with the latest fund-raising figures, are available at: http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp
###

Nader updates
Ralph Nader has been in the race for the presidency for about three weeks and already has gained two points in national polls. Before his announcement on Meet the Press on Feb. 22, FoxNews had Nader polling at 4 percent. President Bush had 43 percent in the poll and John Kerry - not yet the Democratic nominee at the time - had 42 percent.
Yesterday, however, the Associated Press reported that Nader was up to 6 percent in polls, with Bush getting 46 percent and Kerry at 45 percent: ["Poll Finds Bush, Kerry Tied in Race"].
Now, as I have said before, these national polls are meaningless in the scheme of things. The presidency will be decided on who wins the most Electoral Votes in each individual state. But the point of revealing these numbers is to show that even with all the criticism, personal attacks, and fears by the Democrats, Nader gained support. He hasn't even really started to campaign - instead, he's been hunkered down in Texas trying to get on the ballot - which makes one wonder how he gained this support. The A.P. chart, posted on Common Dreams, shows Kerry gaining and Bush sinking since January 2004. Here is an interesting part of the article at the end:
Republican Virgil Ahlberg of Apison, Tenn., said he is seriously considering a vote for Nader.
"Bush has come across as a little more aggressive and warlike than I like," he said. "I like Ralph Nader being in the race. I like his practicality and taking people to task for things they promise to do, things that aren't being addressed."
Hmm, an actual Republican thinking about voting for Nader. But that can't be true! That's a conspiracy! Only liberal Democrats vote for Nader, yuck, yuck, yuck, blah, blah, blah ...
Then, there is Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor at The Nation magazine, who just can't give up her obsession about Nader running for president. Vanden Heuvel posted a response to Nader's response to her letter asking him not to run: ["Let's End the Two-Party Duopoly"]. Normally, I wouldn't give this pissing match such play - even if I am with Nader on this argument. But it is important to realize just what is going on over at The Nation.
In the first letter, vanden Heuvel rattled off a list of policy positions by Bush that were so offensive to her that he had to be removed and she believed Nader shouldn't stand in the way of this. At the time she wrote the letter, Howard Dean was still in the race. But by the time the letter was published, Kerry was well on his way to the Democratic nomination. Of course, in her complete ignorance, vanden Heuvel sloughed off the fact that Kerry had the same - or similar - political positions as Bush!!
[Sidebar: I wrote a letter to The Nation noting the policy similarities between Bush and Kerry which went unpublished. This is the third letter I have written to The Nation attempting to either show that Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election in 2000 or that Democrats continue to be very similar to the Republicans on a slew of important issues beyond social issues. It is the third time by letters have been ignored. The complete analysis of that letter can be read here: "Let Ralph decide".]
Nader, then sent a counter-letter, which chastised The Nation for trying to silence him. The editor's note in the letter pooh-poohed his points and again begged him not to run.
However, back to vanden Heuvel's latest diatribe. In it, she lists a bunch of policy positions which could liberalize small-d democracy in America. She points to proportional representation, instant run-off voting, fusion, public financing of elections, Election Day as a holiday, same-day voter registration, etc., all good ideas. However, while she criticizes Nader for not talking about these ideas, she doesn't say one word about Kerry not supporting these ideas. She does commend Dean and Kucinich for talking about some of these ideas and does note that Nader has the policy positions on his Web site.
Note to vanden Heuvel: Once John Kerry starts supporting these ideas in the public arena instead of speedily running from his 19-year voting record, we'll take your holier than thou pontification with a grain of salt.
Nader's campaign treasurer Carl Mayer chimes in with a column on Common Dreams: ["We Need A Progressive Voice in the General Election"]. But it isn't just about progressives but also populists who might be moderate or conservative but would cast a vote for Nader in protest - like they did in 2000 in droves. I specifically like this point in his piece:
... progressives are missing the enormous energy - particularly generated by young people and political newcomers - that was poured into the Democratic primaries. The corporate-dominated Democratic party (predictably) did everything possible to snuff out the Dean led insurgency. The same corporate-dominated Party is now asking all progressives to come hat in hand, on their knees, to support the corporate-financed Kerry who simply regurgitated Dean’s message during the primaries but has already signaled his intention to run a middle-of-the-road race.
It is sad and disappointing to read that Kerry is having money woes ["Kerry Team Looks to Raise Millions Fast"] because it again points out that maybe the wrong candidate is being nominated. Plus, it isn't like Kerry can borrow another $6 million from his over-assessed mansion on Beacon Hill.
Around the Web, I have been reading a lot of 'I'll vote for Kerry but I am not giving him a dime ...' While this is good short-term - yeah, the Democrat base will probably be united around the blase nominee - it is bad long-term because Kerry might not have the funds to counter Bush's $150 million ad juggernaut. As well, Kerry opted out of the public financing system. So, he can't even rely on the $60 million he could have received in matching funds! This is looking like a serious tactical mistake on Kerry's part. On the flip side, while Teresa "Lovey" Heinz can't spend her hundreds of millions on his behalf, she can create a 527 advocacy committee and do positive Kerry ads in swing states to supplement the Kerry effort.
Others who have chimed in with similar points about the Nader candidacy in the last week include San Francisco Chronicle columnist Ira Eisenberg: ["To keep Kerry on track, run Ralph, run"] and another by Seattle Post-Intelligencer Guest Columnist George Lewandowski: ["Nader can't 'harm' democracy"] and a Globe & Mail writer covering a Kerry event in San Francisco last week: ["Will your vote be a statement, or a strategy?"]. Another Green makes the case for IRV: ["It’s the Electoral System, Stupid!"] and the editor of Harper's laments the Nader candidacy: ["Confessions of a Naderite"], while the Village Voice's James Ridgeway has a Nader interview: ["The Nader Interview"]. Lastly, some polite comments from a fellow at the Cato Institute: ["Nader, One Last Time"].

Kucinich soldiers on
Shockingly - or not so - Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich continues to be ignored by the media even though he, and the Rev. Al Sharpton, are the only candidates left standing.
To most, Sharpton has never been taken seriously despite his amusing participation in the debates, making most of them watchable. However, Kucinich still believes he is going to be the nominee and soldiers on. A google.com news search of recent articles on Kucinich yielded few. Here is one from CNN talking about the Florida primary - during spring break: ["Spring break during Florida primary"] and this from the gulf side: ["With odds slim, Kucinich focuses on his message"]. Party on Wayne, party on Garth. There is also this, from the Cleveland Morning Journal: ["Kucinich ought quit while he's still ahead"].

Banker to head up Kerry VP search
Even though he is over 900 delegates short of the presidential nomination, the mainstream press have coronated John Kerry the nominee, now that John Edwards has suspended his campaign: ["Praising Kerry, Edwards Quits Presidential Race"].
The Kerry campaign has set up a VP search committee. Now, Kerry has constantly stated that he is "fighting for us" and "taking on the special interests." So, guess who he picked to head up the search? Yup, a banker and supposed "civic leader" named Jim Johnson:

For Immediate Release

March 3, 2004

JOHN KERRY NAMES HEAD OF VICE PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH PROCESS

Jim Johnson to Lead Effort to Pick Kerry Running Mate

Washington, DC – Today, John Kerry asked Washington businessman and civic leader Jim Johnson to lead the vice presidential search process to select a Democratic running mate for John Kerry in his fight to take back the White House and bring change to America.

"I have the greatest respect for John Kerry as a friend and as a national leader, and know that he will make an outstanding president. Kerry’s swift action in beginning this process to select a running mate indicates what type of president the nation can expect – decisive, focused and ready to lead," said Jim Johnson. "I very much look forward to being part of the team that will bring change to America."

Over the next several weeks, Mr. Johnson will assemble a team to begin the outreach and vetting of potential nominees.

Mr. Johnson is currently Vice Chairman of Perseus, L.L.C., a merchant banking and private equity firm based in Washington, DC and New York City. Previously he served as Chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae. Prior to joining Fannie Mae, Johnson was a managing director in corporate finance at Lehman Brothers. Before joining Lehman, he was the president of Public Strategies, a Washington-based consulting firm he founded to advise corporations on strategic issues.

From 1977 to 1981, he served as executive assistant to Vice President Walter F. Mondale, where he advised the Vice President on domestic and foreign policy and political matters. Earlier, he was employed by the Target Corporation, worked as a staff member in the U.S. Senate, and was on the faculty at Princeton University.

Johnson is Chairman Emeritus of The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. He is former Chairman and Honorary Trustee of The Brookings Institution.

Mr. Johnson lives in Washington with his wife and their son.

SUPER TUESDAY
Kerry wins nine; Dean takes Vermont; Edwards possibly out

California
Democrat
Kerry - 1,764,436 - 64.5 percent - 288 delegates
Edwards - 539,163 - 19.7 percent - 82
Kucinich - 125,691 - 4.6 percent
Dean - 116,082 - 4.2 percent
Sharpton - 51,906 - 1.9 percent
Lieberman - 46,926 - 1.7 percent
Clark - 46,026 - 1.7 percent
Braun - 21,466 - 0.8 percent
Gephardt - 17,391 - 0.6 percent
LaRouche - 7,111 - 0.3 percent
Uncommitted - 65 delegates

Republican
Bush - 1,562,488 - 100 percent - 170 delegates
Uncommitted - 3 delegates

Connecticut
99 percent
Kerry - 74,570 - 58 percent - 35 delegates
Edwards - 30,508 - 24 percent - 14 delegates
Lieberman - 6,655 - 6 percent
Dean - 5,118 - 4 percent
Kucinich - 4,087 - 3 percent
Sharpton - 3,155 - 3 percent
Clark - 1,557 - 1 percent
LaRouche - 1,428 - 1 percent
Uncommitted - 971 - 1 percent

Georgia
Democrat
Kerry - 283,621 - 46.7 percent - 48 delegates
Edwards - 251,669 - 41.5 percent - 38 delegates
Sharpton - 37,969 - 6.3 percent
Dean - 10,848 - 1.8 percent
Kucinich - 7,472 - 1.2 percent
Lieberman - 5,422 - 0.9 percent
Clark - 4,063 - 0.7 percent
Braun - 3,639 - 0.6 percent
Gephardt - 2,291 - 0.4 percent
Uncommitted - 14 delegates

Republican
Bush - 153,494 - 100 percent
Uncommitted - 3 delegates

Maryland
Democrat
Kerry - 260,393 - 59.6 percent
Edwards - 112,376 - 25.7 percent
Sharpton - 19,380 - 4.4 percent
Dean - 11,096 - 2.5 percent
Kucinich - 7,978 - 1.8 percent
Uncommitted - 7,440 - 1.7 percent
Lieberman - 4,829 - 1.1 percent
Clark - 3,824 - 0.9 percent
Mildred Glover - 3,531 - 0.8 percent
Braun - 2,508 - 0.6 percent
Gephardt - 1,837 - 0.4 percent
LaRouche - 1,382 - 0.3 percent

Republican
Bush - 72,315 - 100 percent

Massachusetts
Democrat
Kerry - 434,549 - 71.9 percent - 79 delegates
Edwards - 107,126 - 17.7 percent - 14 delegates
Kucinich - 24,701 - 4 percent
Dean - 16,801 - 2.7 percent
Sharpton - 5,971 - 1 percent
Lieberman - 5,325 - 0.9 percent
Uncommitted - 3,669 - 0.6 percent - 26 delegates
Clark - 3,052 - 0.5 percent
Gephardt - 1,419 - 0.2 percent
LaRouche - 944 - 0.2 percent
Braun - 929 - 0.2 percent

Minnesota
Kerry - 25,645 - 51 percent - 40 delegates
Edwards - 13,610 - 27.1 percent- 18 delegates
Kucinich - 8,425 - 16.8 percent - 14 delegates
Uncommitted - 1,103 - 2.2 percent - 12 delegates
Dean - 982 - 2 percent
Sharpton - 303 - 0.6 percent
Clark - 163 - 0.3 percent
Lieberman - 63 - 0.1 percent

New York
Kerry - 400,789 - 60.5 percent - 174 delegates
Edwards - 133,507 - 20.1 percent - 54 delegates
Sharpton - 54,368 - 8.2 percent - 8 delegates
Kucinich - 35,734 - 5.4 percent
Dean - 18,544 - 2.8 percent
Lieberman - 8,601 - 1.3 percent
Gephardt - 5,026 - 0.8 percent
Clark - 3,505 - 0.5 percent
LaRouche - 2,862 - 0.4 percent
Uncommitted - 45 - delegates

Ohio
Democrat
Kerry - 615,175 - 51.7 percent - 81 delegates
Edwards - 406,476 - 34.2 percent - 55 delegates
Kucinich - 107,292 - 9.0 percent - 4 delegates
Dean - 30,084 - 2.5 percent
Lieberman - 14,221 - 1.2 percent
Clark - 12,261 - 1.0 percent
LaRouche - 3,895 - 0.3 percent
Uncommitted - 16 delegates

Republican
Bush - 733,474 - 100 percent - 91 delegates

Rhode Island
Democrat
Kerry - 24,073 - 71.4 percent - 17 delegates
Edwards - 6,359 - 18.9 percent - 4 delegates
Dean - 1,315 - 3.9 percent
Kucinich - 1,028 - 3 percent
Uncommitted - 388 - 1.2 percent - 10 delegates
Lieberman - 286 - 0.8 percent
Clark - 219 - 0.6 percent
LaRouche - 55 - 0.2 percent

Republican
Bush - 2,152 - 84.9 percent - 18 delegates
Uncommitted - 314 - 12.4 percent - 3 delegates
Write-in/Others 68 - 2.7 percent

Vermont
Democrat
Dean - 43,005 - 57.8 percent - 9 delegates
Kerry - 25,065 - 33.7 percent - 6 delegates
Kucinich - 3,316 - 4.5 percent
Clark - 2,597 - 3.5 percent
LaRouche - 365 - 0.5 percent
Uncommitted - 6 delegates

Delegates
AP
Kerry - 1,292 [CNN: 1,557]
Edwards - 438 [CNN: 513]
Dean - 182
Clark - 70 [CNN: 57]
Sharpton - 24
Kucinich - 18
Lieberman - 8
Gephardt - 3
Other - 1
Uncommitted - 0

DEBUNKING THE MYTH: Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000
On Jan. 31, I posted an opinion piece about whether or not Ralph Nader should consider a run in 2004: ["Let Ralph decide"]. In the analysis, I made the case, that through first hand experience on the ground in New Hampshire running the field organization and extensive exit polling, Nader didn't cost Gore the state. I also posted some data from Florida challenging the assertion that Nader's candidacy may not have cost Gore that state.
Since the Jan. 31 post, Nader has announced that he will run for president again and the media and Democrats are attacking him. Smartly, Nader has used some of the information on this site to defend himself and his effort in 2000. And there is a debate raging on the Web as to whether or not this information is accurate or not.
Earlier today, Alex Beam wrote an interesting column in the Boston Globe challenging the mantra and pointing out that Pat Buchanan's candidacy may have weakened George W. Bush's position in some states: ["Ralph Nader: the odd man out again?"]. Beam only mentions Florida - with Buchanan's 17,000 votes that may have gone to Bush had "Pitchfork" Pat not been in the race. Beam doesn't mention, however, that Buchanan's numbers may have cost Bush the states of Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
In turn, the Boston Phoenix's Dan Kennedy, on his MediaLog, posted the article and then was critical of the data: ["Measuring the Buchanan effect"]. Kennedy does some "quickie analysis" and says Beam gets it wrong, and points to some NYT "news analysis" by David Rosenbaum: ["Relax, Nader Tells Democrats, but the Math Says Otherwise"].
In his "analysis," Rosenbaum uses national exit poll data to make his assumptions:

But based on who voted for him four years ago, [Nader's] analysis looks shaky. Voters leaving polling places in 2000 were asked by Voter News Service, a consortium of television networks and The Associated Press, how they would have voted if George W. Bush and Al Gore had been the only candidates on the ballot. Among Nader voters, 45 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Gore, 27 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Bush, and the rest said they would not have voted.

Well, Nader's analysis - which is also mine - isn't "shaky" at all, as I will show in this post. Rosenbaum continues:

In Florida, Mr. Nader received 97,488 votes, 1.6 percent of the total, and Mr. Bush carried the state by 537 votes. In New Hampshire, Mr. Nader won 22,198 votes, 3.9 percent of the total, and Mr. Bush carried the state by 7,211 votes. Had Mr. Gore won in either state, he would have become president.
Mr. Nader said at the Press Club that surveys of voters leaving the polls showed he had received more Republican votes than Democratic votes in New Hampshire in 2000.
That is true. New Hampshire has 30 percent more registered Republicans than registered Democrats.

Rosenbaum is right on the New Hampshire registration, which in 2000 broke down this way: Republican - 265,679, Democrats - 197,816, and Undeclared - 274,927. But that has nothing to do with the point about whether Nader being in the race cost Gore. Yes, there are more Republicans in New Hampshire, and yeah, independents trend conservative, so why would they vote for Gore? They wouldn't and Rosenbaum is making my case without knowing it. Voter registration in the state has nothing to do with whether Nader cost Gore the state.
However, if reporters are going to figure with figures, they should use the correct figures, right? Well, Rosenbaum isn't using the correct figures. He is comparing national exit poll data and cross-referencing them with state ballot returns. He should have used individual state exit polls from both New Hampshire and Florida and cross-referenced them with returns from New Hampshire and Florida. Had Rosenbaum done this, he would see that Nader didn't cost Gore these states and his "news analysis" wouldn't achieve its outcome - to attack Nader.
If Rosenbaum had looked at the exit polling from both of these states, here is what he would have found:

In New Hampshire, CNN's exit polling showed Nader taking more votes from Republicans than Democrats by a two-to-one margin. Nader received 2 percent of the Republican vote and 1 percent of the Democrat vote. Nader also took 7 percent of the independent vote.
At the same time, 6 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush! This is the real reason why Gore lost: He couldn't hold his own base! The Democrats never want to talk about this. They never want to talk about their negativity or the lousy campaign Gore ran. It's all, 'It's Nader's fault, it's Nader's ego,' ad nauseum. But back to the exit polling.
On the ideological front, 7 percent of Nader's vote identified themselves as "liberal," while 4 percent called themselves "moderate" and 2 percent "conservatives." Again, 7 to 6, pretty even and the votes could have gone either way.
When asked who they voted for in 1996, 3 percent of Nader's voters said they voted for Bill Clinton, 1 percent said they voted for Bob Dole, and 9 percent said they voted for Ross Perot. Seven percent said they did not vote in 1996. Here are how the numbers were charted:

1996------All----Gore----Bush----Buchanan----Nader
Clinton---45------79-------17---------0------------3
Dole------30-------8-------90---------1------------1
Perot------8------28-------62--------1-------------9
No vote---12------50-------44---------0------------7

As everyone knows, in study after study, Perot voters trend conservative. Here in this exit poll, by an over 2 to 1 margin, Perot in New Hampshire voters went with Bush. So it is safe to say that at least 66 percent - if not more - of Nader's 7 percent of Perot voters, would have gone to Bush. Combine that with the 1 percent from Dole and it is an even split with the previous Clinton voters which most certainly would have gone to Gore. With Bush beating Gore by over 7,000 votes though, and then splitting the Nader vote, Gore would still lose. Also note: 17 percent of Clinton's vote went to Bush! Gore couldn't hold the previous administration's support.
However, in a two-way race, CNN showed 3 percent of Naders voters said they would have voted for Gore, with 2 percent going to Bush, the same as Rosenbaum stated in his article. But even if the Nader vote was split 60-40, there is still no gain for Gore:

Here are the official New Hampshire results:
Bush: 274,290 - 48 percent
Gore: 266,121 - 47 percent
Nader: 22,188 - 4 percent

Results had the split been 60-40:
Bush: 283,165
Gore: 279,433

Again, even Rosenbaum's figuring with the figures doesn't add up to a Gore victory. As well, in a hypothetical two-way race, there would be no Buchanan candidacy, awarding thousands more votes to Bush.
The same chart, showing a two-way race, the results would have been the same - Bush 48 percent, Gore 47 percent, with 4 percent not voting. Somehow, Rosenbaum forgot to mention that! Again, a Bush win.
Now, this is just CNN and we know that exit polls aren't always accurate. So what do the polling experts say about the New Hampshire vote in 2000?
On Nov. 9, 2000 in a Nashua Telegraph article by David Brooks entitled "Nader probably didn't rain on Gore's N.H. parade," three different political experts challenged the notion that Nader cost Gore the election.

"You can't say, 'Oh, darn, (Gore) would have won otherwise,'" said Dick Bennett of American Research Group, a Manchester-based polling firm. Bennett said the evidence indicates Nader's vote was a solid core that wouldn't have moved to the Democrats.
Dartmouth College government professor Dean Spiliotes agreed that no blame should be parceled out.
"I think it's really hard to know, without some kind of systematic means of testing, how people would have voted in a different set of circumstances," he said. "A lot of these people might have not voted at all, if not for Nader."
Spiliotes also doubts the stereotype that Nader voters would naturally turn to Gore as their second choice.
"I know a number of people in this community who voted for Nader, and ideologically these folks were all over the place. Folks I would have pegged for Bush voted for Nader," he said.
Robin Marra, a professor of political science who runs the polling institute at Franklin Pierce College, pointed to two polls done by his group before the election. They showed that about half of Nader supporters had voted for U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the presidential primary.
"The conventional wisdom is that a vote for Nader helped Bush, but that may not be true in New Hampshire," he said. "Maybe some of them were just anti-establishment ... and if they saw Gore as establishment, they wouldn't have backed him."
Bennett said he thinks Nader's tally of 22,156 represented a core group of support that would have been unlikely to support another candidate - an opinion he reached partly because it appears a lot of Nader backers did switch to Gore at the last minute.
"When we polled in September we learned that the Nader voters were generally strategic voters - they would vote for Nader if it wouldn't hurt Gore. The minute they thought it would (hurt him), they changed," he said.

Three experts, some switching to Gore late in the race, but no blame for Nader.
But here is another example: On Nov. 10, 2000 in an Associated Press article published in the Foster's Daily Democrat entitled "Exit polls show Nader wasn't a spoiler in N.H.," the same figures were discussed:

In a New Hampshire exit poll, neither Gore nor Bush got a boost when voters were asked whom they would've chosen in a two-way race. Four percent said they wouldn't have voted at all.
While there were not enough Nader voters interviewed in New Hampshire to draw firm conclusions about their effect, national exit polls show 46 percent of Nader voters would have chosen Gore in a two-way race. Twenty-one percent said they would have voted for Bush, but 30 percent said they would not have voted at all.
If New Hampshire's Nader supporters matched the national trend, it appears unlikely Gore would have won. When those who would have stayed home or voted to Bush are taken into account, the net gain for Gore would have been only one in four votes.

Again, the state polls show no boost for either candidate. But again, using the national exit polls, with 46 percent of the Nader vote going to Gore and 21 going to Bush, here is what the returns would have looked like:
Bush: 278,949
Gore: 276,327

Even closer, but still no Gore win. But back to the AP story:

Clark Hubbard, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire, said Nader almost certainly hurt Gore, but how much remains unclear.
"The perceived closeness of the race pushed a lot of partisans back to the fold," he said. "All of the true partisans ended up voting for their party, it was that last-minute voting booth guilt."

Hubbard says the same thing as Bennett in the other article and his comments are a pretty safe bet. The Nader vote literally collapsed on Election Day, dropping for highs of 5 to 6 percent nationally, to the eventually 2.8 percent. In New Hampshire, Nader was as high as 8 percent at one point and ended up with a little over 4 percent.
I was also quoted in the same article:

"We really drew on the McCain factor. We had a lot of progressives who've stayed out of the process. The majority of Democrats I talked to were never going to vote for Gore ... The Democrats can be angry at us all they want. But they ran a filthy, disgusting campaign. They spent millions and millions of dollars scaring and stealing votes from us. Gore lost by slim margins all over the place. What that says is we didn't cost them the vote, this is a divided nation."

Kathy Sullivan, the chairman of the New Hampshire Demoratic Party, said this in the story:

"All I can say to people who voted for Ralph Nader is that if George Bush is sworn in, the day they start drilling in the Alaskan wildlife refuge, it's your fault. And when the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade ... remember you voted for Ralph Nader."

Well Kathy, yes, some of us voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and it is almost four years later and ANWR is just fine [with senate Democrats voting for the drilling] and abortion is still legal.
In fact, John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is telling James Hoffa over at the Teamsters that he is ready to drill, drill, drill! If Kerry wins, and the drilling starts, we'll remember that you voted for John Kerry.

Now, on to Florida.
As I said in the Jan. 31 post, this is a bit trickier because of the large number of votes Nader received [over 97,000] and the slim margin of votes which resulted in the state being "stolen" from Gore [under 600 votes]. It is a safe guess - using the national exit poll model - that Gore would have received more than enough votes to have kept the election from being sent to the Supreme Court, who selected Bush.
However, that's the national exit polling. The Florida exit poll data shows completely different results:

In Florida, CNN's exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote. At the same time, 13 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush! Again, Gore couldn't hold his own base and because of this, he lost. The Democrats don't say one word about the fact that 13 percent of their own party members voted for Bush.
On the ideological front, 3 percent of Nader's vote identified themselves as "liberal," while 2 percent called themselves "moderate" and 1 percent called themselves "conservatives." An even split: 6 to 6.
When asked who they voted for in 1996, 1 percent of Nader's voters said they voted for Bill Clinton, 1 percent said they voted for Bob Dole, and 10 percent said they voted for Ross Perot. Here is the chart:

1996------All----Gore----Bush----Buchanan----Nader
Clinton---46------82-------16---------0-------------1
Dole------30-------4-------93---------0-------------1
Perot------7-------23------65---------1------------10
No vote---12------50-------44---------0------------7

Again, Perot voters trend conservative. In fact, by a 3 to 1 margin, Perot voters in Florida went with Bush. So, with Nader taking equally from voters who cast votes for Clinton as they did from Dole, and then 10 percent previously voting for Perot being split on a 3 to 1 margin to Bush, that shows that if Nader had not been in the race, the majority of those voters would have gone to Bush, by a 7 to 4 margin. Also note: 16 percent of Clinton's vote went to Bush! Again, Gore couldn't hold the previous administration's support.
In a two-way race, CNN showed the results as Bush 49 percent, Gore 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting. And again, with no Buchanan, Bush gains thousands of votes. So, an even split of Nader voters offers no resolve to the matter of the state being thrown to the Supreme Court, with or without Nader.
Now, if you use the national exit polling data, yes, Gore wins handily. But it just doesn't work that way. Each state is different. Both New Hampshire and Florida have large sections of independents who are conservative but not Bush conservatives. Many of them might vote for Nader but wouldn't vote for Gore. Both New Hampshire and Florida are not like Oregon and Wisconsin. From personal experience, having lived in this state off and on for most of my life, I can tell you that independent voters in New Hampshire swing conservative. They might throw votes to Clinton; they might throw votes to Nader; but that doesn't mean they would go to Gore.
On the flip side, Florida is different. There is no doubt in my mind that 600 or more Nader voters from Monroe or Gainesville counties could have gone to Gore. These two counties have pockets of liberals - environmentalists in Monroe County, around the Everglades, and thousands of college students at University of Florida in Gainesville. According to the New York Times, which had a green map of Florida right after the election, Nader's strongest support was in those two counties. But the numbers from CNN don't show this at all so ...
Then again, as talked about in this great article by Jim DeFede, then with the Miami New Times, there was a lot of animosity for centrist Democrats and Gore in Monroe County over the Homestead Air Force base conversion to a multi-use airport: ["Collision Course"]. Again, when the Democrats abandon their base - in this case, liberals and environmentalists - they lose, especially when voters have other choices.

I contacted Kennedy earlier today and gave him some of the data which he posted on his site: ["Buchanan and Nader: a contrarian view"] which he later pooh-poohed, suggesting that because I was a "devoted Nader supporter" he's "not buying his overall thesis." Kennedy then again points to Rosenbaum's flawed analysis.
Now, I like Kennedy a lot. I try to read his Media Log a couple of times a week. While he is a great media critic, he falls a little short in the political analysis department, ignoring the overwhelming exit poll evidence showing that Nader didn't cost Gore the election - and registered Democrats hurt their own cause.

Hawaii Caucuses
97 percent
Kerry - 1,871 - 50 percent - 14 delegates
Kucinich - 981 - 26 percent - 6 delegates
Edwards - 512 - 14 percent
Dean - 323 - 8 percent
Uncommitted - 35
Clark - 30
Lieberman - 5
Kucinich was the only candidate to campaign in Hawaii.

Idaho Caucuses
Kerry - 2,665 - 54 percent - 12 delegates
Edwards - 1,096 - 22 percent - 6 delegates
Dean - 545 - 11 percent
Kucinich - 270 - 6 percent

Utah Primary
Kerry - 19,432 - 55.2 percent - 14 delegates
Edwards - 10,486 - 29.8 percent - 9 delegates
Kucinich - 2,602 - 7.4 percent
Dean - 1,343 - 3.8 percent
Clark - 492 - 1.4 percent
Lieberman - 407 - 1.2 percent
Uncommitted - 305 - 0.9 percent
Gephardt - 124 - 0.4 percent
Kucinich was the only candidate to campaign in Utah.

Delegate Count:
Kerry - 663 [735]
Edwards - 199 [214]
Dean - 185 [175]
Clark - 71 [57]
Sharpton - 16
Lieberman - 8
Kucinich - 8
Gephardt - 3
Other - 1
Uncommitted - 0
Associated Press [CNN]

Reactions to Nader
Ralph Nader dominated the political news over the weekend about his 2004 independent run. Calling the decision as contentious - to the Democrats - would be understatement.
First, here is a story with protest pictures outside of the NBC studios Sunday: ["Ralph Nader Announces Run for Presidency"].
The onslaught of criticism is falling on deaf ears as Nader says he will run hard: ["Nader says he won't back off even if major candidates in a dead heat"].
In the Manchester Union Leader Sunday [no link], former-U.S. Sen. John Durkin said it best: "Gore ran like a sleepwalker [in 2000]. It's a reach to blame Nader." Durkin, who endorsed Howard Dean in the primary and then pulled his endorsement after the Iowa Screech, extolled Nader for his accomplishments and for refusing to be "seduced by the pomp and circumstance of Washington."
"One of the problems in this country is there is a shortage of Ralph Naders," he said.
The Globe has a pretty good overview this morning: ["Nader joins race, riles Democrats"].
One Arkansas columnist advises the Dems to embrace the Deaniacs: ['Democrats, Deaniacs and Greens"]. But unfortunately, he gets it wrong about New Hampshire.
The Nation's John Nichols also weighs in: ["Will Nader matter at all?"].
Nader's Web site is up and running: http://www.votenader.org/

Other stuff:
Speaking of New Hampshire, the latest general election poll shows President Bush down 15 percent in a hypothetical one on one matchup: ["Bush's Approval Rating Slips In New Hampshire"].
The NYT ran this piece about Republicans mad at Bush: ["Disenchanted Bush Voters Consider Crossing Over"].
While John Kerry slouches back into lazy campaign mode: ["Front-Runner Kerry's Bad Habits Return"].
Then there is Monica Lewinsky, weighing in on the Kerry intern scandal: ["Lewinsky outraged over Kerry 'affair' furore"].
Bob Herbert continues his good column writing: ["Dark Side of Free Trade"].

Nader is running
MSNBC, with an advanced clip from "Meet the Press," is reporting that Ralph Nader will run for president as an independent.

February surprise?
"Bin Laden 'surrounded'".

Nader: Sunday's the day ...
On Sunday's "Meet the Press," Nader will announce his 2004 intentions: ["Nader to Announce Decision on 2004 Bid"]. FoxNews says he's in: ["Nader to Jump in Presidential Race"]. Also, Nader responds to The Nation magazine: ["Whither The Nation?"]. FoxNews had a stupid national poll on Friday showing Kerry and Bush equal at 45 percent. But throw in Nader and the numbers were Bush 43, Kerry 42, and Nader 4 percent. It is amazing that the guy hasn't even announced and he supposedly would get more votes than he did in 2000! But these national polls are fraudulent and the media shouldn't be reporting them at all.

Hoffa: Kerry says drill, drill, drill ...
There was some really hot discussions the other night on "Hardball" between host Chris Matthews and Teamster head James Hoffa: ["Transcript"]. But check out this exchange:

MATTHEWS: How about ANWR? You guys want to see ANWR because you want to see guys working in your business. I guess there‘s a lot of Teamsters jobs up there lined up and organized, if you could put a pipeline up to the Alaska wilderness. He is against that.
HOFFA: Well, we talked about that. He says, look, I am against ANWR, but I am going to put that pipeline in and we‘re going to drill like never before.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: What, are they going to run water through it?
(CROSSTALK)
HOFFA: ... more jobs than the ANWR would have ever created.
MATTHEWS: What are they going to run through the pipeline?
HOFFA: And that's the position he's taking.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: But he is against drilling up there. What are they going to run through the pipeline?
HOFFA: Well, they are going to drill all over, according to him. And he says, we‘re going to be drilling all over the United States. And he says that is going to create more jobs.
(CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: You got that guy rolling.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: What position was he in when he made all these promises?
(CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: It just seems amazing that he has turned around on NAFTA, turned around on WTO, turned around on ANWR, anything to get the Teamsters.
HOFFA: Oh.
MATTHEWS: Who is going to be boss if he gets in there, you or him?
HOFFA: Well, I think that
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: It sounds like you are the boss.
The text speaks for itself.

Post Dean
It is encouraging to see Deaniacs around the Web standing tall and deciding to vote for Dean even though he has suspended his campaign: ["Loyal 'Deaniacs' Balk at Backing Kerry, Edwards"]. This could hurt John Edwards' campaign - but hey - if the two couldn't reach a deal, they couldn't reach a deal.
However, here are some pretty important stories that have come out in the last few days about the Dean campaign:
First, the staffers unload: ["Staffers fill in details of the decline of Dean"]. I love these comments about veering from the script ... that is what a lot of people liked about Dean. They liked that he wasn't a stuffed-shirt pol. They liked that he was plain-spoken. They liked his normal, career-oriented wife. You live by the sword, you die by the sword, as the saying goes. There isn't anything you can do except continue to annoint empty-suited career pols who won't do jacksh*t for the country.
Then there is this from one of Dean's labor supporters: ["Labor Supporter Says Dean Ignored His Entreaties to Quit"]. God, government unions are so damn shortsighted sometimes! When you back a candidate, you are supposed to back a candidate! Who knows what the $1 million in Wisconsin could have done for Dean. Pathetic.
And Greider, as usual, gets a lot right: ["Dean's Rough Ride"].
Lastly, I haven't had a chance to post this article from GQ which goes into some of collapse in Iowa: ["Joe Trippi's Wild Ride"].

Bush targets Kucinich?
According to The Washington Post, President Bush has created some ads attacking Dennis Kucinich: ["Kerry's Past to Star in Bush's Ads"]. Also, the San Francisco Bay Guardian endorsed Kucinich.

Some other headlines and links:
I have been a bit busy over the past few days and missed some important links. Luckily, I saved them for future postings:
While everyone is screaming "ABB" and praising the Democrats, look at their plans to limit speech in July at the convention: ["Convention plan puts protesters blocks away"]. Such foolishness. But thankfully, protesters can just go down to the Boston Common and use the historic space for their UnConvention!
And then there is this: ["The Backbone Campaign"]. In continues to amaze me that people will waste countless hours on these types of projects instead of sitting down and doing the hard work getting good candidates elected.
The wildcard: Unlimited funds via 527s: ["Advocacy Groups Allowed to Raise Unlimited Funds"]. And you watch - for every MoveOn.org, there will be Bush-backed ad groups too. You can almost sense them, waiting in the wings ...
With or without Nader, Bush leads: ["Voters Hardened on the Economy, War, Gays Marriage"]. Again, national polls don't matter - it's the states, stupid. The media should stop reporting them completely and just talk about the candidates and their issues.
In Iraq, two investigations - suicides and rapes: ["Suicides in Iraq, Questions at Home"] and ["Rumsfeld orders review of sexual assaults"].

Dean R.I.P.
Howard Dean stepped out of the presidential race this afternoon. He did not endorse any of the remaining candidates but said he would try and galvanize his organization to revitalize the Democratic Party. This is like Jerry Brown all over again when he tried to change the Democratic Party with his "We the People" organization but never followed through with it. Of course, there was no Internet then, just Brown's very active 800#. Dean said he would also not be releasing his delegates, a very smart move. He will remain on the ballot in future states to allow his supporters to vote for him in attempt to get more progressive delegates for the convention. But with the 15 percent threshold needed to win delegates, Dean's hope to win more delegates is doubtful. He really should just endorse one of the remaining candidates and be done with it.

Here's Dean's statement from his blog:
"Today my candidacy may come to an end--but our campaign for change is not over.
I want to thank each and every person who has supported this campaign. Over the last year, you have reached out to neighbors, friends, family and colleagues--building one American at a time the greatest grassroots campaign presidential politics has ever seen. I will never forget the work and the heart that you put into our campaign.
In the coming weeks, we will be launching a new initiative to continue the campaign you helped begin. Please continue to come to www.deanforamerica.com for updates and news as our new initiative develops. There is much work still to be done, and today is not an end-it is just the beginning.
This Party and this country needs change, and you have already begun that process. I want you to think about how far we have come. The truth is: change is tough. There is enormous institutional pressure in our country against change. There is enormous institutional pressure in Washington against change, in the Democratic Party against change. Yet, you have already started to change the Party and together we have transformed this race. Along the way, we've engaged hundreds of thousands of new Americans in the political process, as witnessed by this year's record participation in the primaries and caucuses.
The fight that we began can and must continue. Although my candidacy for president may end today, the most important goal remains defeating George W. Bush in November, and I hope that you will join me in doing everything we can to support the Democrats this fall. From the earliest days of our campaign, I have said that the power to change Washington rests not in my hands, but in yours. Always remember, you have the power to take our country back."

CNN's new debate rules?
FoxNews is reporting that CNN's next Democratic presidential primary debate will limit the inclusion to any candidate who has received at least 10 percent in a primary. This would essentially black out Dennis Kucinich and/or Al Sharpton. Or will it? Kucinich received 16 percent in the Maine Caucus and Sharpton received 20 percent in the D.C. Caucuses, so who knows. If a caucus counts as a primary in CNN's eyes, well, it is still a four-way debate. If not, there could be problems. While John Edwards wants a one-on-one with John Kerry, keeping Sharpton out of the debate would be a mistake and could alienate black voters.

Is it a Weekly Standard ad or a Bush 2004 ad?
So I get home, plunk myself down in a chair and switch on the news, mostly because I want to see some of Dean's announcement and I can't find anything but minor clips. I leave it on FoxNews and start flipping through the newspapers when I hear an ad for The Weekly Standard, a conservative weekly, pimping subscriptions. I look up and in between the media accolades for the mag, there are pictures of President Bush at his desk, in a roundtable, on the aircraft carrier where he declared "Mission Accomplished" in the Iraqi invasion. I stop and think to myself, is this an ad for the president's reelection campaign or a magazine? Yeah, sure, it is a conservative magazine. But the ad is more like a campaign ad than a magazine ad. Is there some department who investigates the content of ads? I don't know but this needs to be looked at. I can imagine the howling that would be going on if a liberal weekly were showing President Clinton in such a glowing light during an election year and promoting the fact that the White House reads its rag. This is ridiculous.

Short clips
Ted Rall has an elegy for Dean: ["Howie, we hardly knew ye"].
FAIR's Laura Flanders looks at Kerry's Foreign Policy team ... and doesn't like what she sees: ["Not quite a dream team"].
You gotta wonder a little about Alex: ["Alex Polier, Insta-Celebster"].
Anti-war protester and former Jane Fonda boy-toy Tom Hayden thinks the time is now: ["The Progressive Populist Moment Has Arrived"].

POLITICAL ROUNDUP
Dean to endorse Edwards? Hmm ...
There is a lot of stuff breaking right now and some of the puzzle pieces are coming together. John Kerry won the Wisconsin Primary tonight. But the Washington Post is reporting that Howard Dean and John Edwards met on Sunday to hash some stuff out: ["Dean: Kingmaker or Rainmaker?"]. No agreements were reached but the two agreed to talk again on Wednesday.
It may be becoming clearer why Steve Grossman made some of his remarks on Sunday - first, suggesting Dean would drop out and later, saying he would move to John Kerry's campaign. Grossman must have known that Dean was working on a deal to keep Kerry from the nomination - which frankly, is a smart move. But Grossman is from Mass. and a former Kerry supporter. He could support Dean but he can't hijack Kerry. Grossman's political career would probably be over if he did that. While Kerry is not liked by many in the state, he currently controls the Massachusetts political mafia and they want Kerry to be the nominee in Boston in July.
However, notice this line in the Post:
A few days earlier, meanwhile, two top officials for the Democratic National Committee traveled to Burlington, Vt., to meet with Roy Neel, the Dean campaign's chief executive. Their agenda, diplomatically stated but unmistakable, was to find out whether and how Dean would harness his network of highly motivated grass-roots activists and small contributors on behalf of the national party and the eventual nominee, according to people familiar with the session.
God, these people are too much! They kill Dean's campaign via ridicule and now they want his lists. Pathetic.

More on Nader
The Web is bursting with Ralph Nader stuff. Here is a piece from Counterpunch: ["Nader Attack a New Low Point"]. Or this, a little more sarcastic, from the NY Press: ["Please, Mr. Nader, let’s repeat 2000"]. Here is one from the other side of politics: ["Run, Ralph, Run!"]. And something from former radical activist Tom Hayden, although more making the point that Nader isn't needed: ["The Progressive Populist Moment Has Arrived"].

Kerry wins Wisconsin
Democrat
John Kerry - 327,672 - 40 percent
John Edwards - 283,327 - 34 percent
Howard Dean - 150,682 - 18 percent
Dennis Kucinich - 27,232 - 3 percent
Al Sharpton - 14,685 - 2 percent
Wesley Clark - 12,687 - 2 percent
Joe Lieberman - 3,910 - 1 percent
Carol Moseley Braun - 1,630
Lyndon LaRouche - 1,630
Dick Gephardt - 1,264
Uninstructed Delegation - 1,136

Republican
George Bush - 158,677 - 99 percent
Uninstructed Delegation - 1,207 - 1 percent

Libertarian
Michael Badnarik - 1,497 - 44 percent
Gary Nolan - 1,488 - 44 percent
Uninstructed Delegation - 393 - 12 percent

Too positive?
Have the Democrats been too positive? The NYT thinks so: ["Missing Ingredient in 2004: Attack Ads by Democrats"]. This is very interesting. For some reason, I remember the NYT lecturing candidates in the past for being too negative and here is one reporter advocating the opposite. Ugh, will they make up their minds already?

Nader - 2004
Here is some more stuff suggesting that Nader will be running again in 2004.
The Oregonian has a profile of Jason Kafoury, the college kid who is helping Ralph make the big decision: ["The Monday Profile: Jason Kafoury"].
Despite assertions he won't be running as a Green, in Maine, the Greens are considering drafting him for their ballot line: ["Maine Green Independent Party to Caucus Across State"].
Blogger Daniel Munz gives a pretty balanced view of the pros and cons: ["Ralph: Nadir"].
But some, like John Pearce, keep their blinders and march in lockstep over the Democratic cliff while affecting no real change for themselves or the people: ["Progressives doom their causes by voting third party"].
Others, like Fran Shor, make some good points against a Nader run: ["What's the Historical Alternative?"].
Those who don't think the Nader option is important should read this piece from the New Republic, about retribution against Dean supporters: ["Oops!"]. See how the Democrats eat their own young? Why would you not want other voting options? Why should the voters continue to support this kind of behavior?

A denial
The woman who has been accused of having a two-year affair with Democratic frontrunner John Kerry denied the affair today: ["Woman Denies Rumors of Kerry Affair"]. It's funny that she would release this press release because many people over the last three days have suggested that a deal would be made and she would recant her comments, saying that she had dated a campaign aide. However, ABCNews reportedly has a videotaped interview with the woman confirming the affair: ["Report: Kerry's intern
tells all to TV network"]. Stay tuned.

POLITICAL ROUNDUP
Grossman: Fair weather friend?
Former DNC chairman Steve Grossman, the campaign chairman for Howard Dean, has signaled that he will abandon Dean if he doesn't win Wisconsin and will try to mend fences with John Kerry and rally Dean's supporters to the Kerry cause: ["Top Dean Aide Discusses Plans to Back Kerry"] and ["Chairman set to leave Dean camp"].
Grossman isn't a friend of mine but I know him and respect him. However, I don't think this is the best move he could make. Yes, he did a difficult and brave thing by telling Kerry he wasn't going to back him in 2004. And he is smart to be worried about disillusioned Deaniacs bolting the Democrats and flocking to Ralph Nader or the Green Party. But he should stay by Dean's side until the bitter end like a good soldier.

Kerry's 'mistress' ready to talk...
"She wants to tell her story. She has talked at length about her relationship with Kerry. But no one is believing her.": ["John Kerry girl tells all"]. But what the hell is she doing in Kenya?: ["Kerry intern hiding in Kenya"].

And this says is all
["Bush v. Kerry: The Power Elite's Dream Ballot"].
"Bush v. Kerry is simply nirvana for the bluebloods. As they say in the business world: it's a win-win situation. From their perspective, whomever places his hand upon the Bible (yes, the Bible) on January 20, 2005 doesn't matter because with a Bush/Kerry contest they're already assured there will be no meaningful change in America for the next four years. None. Zero. Zippo."

Edwards endorsed
The Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, the organizers of last night's debate, and the Madison Capital Times have endorsed John Edwards: ["John Edwards for the Democrats"] and ["John Edwards best prepared to replace Bush"].

And Nader is leaning towards a run
This from the Seattle Times on Saturday was the only thing I could find but it is all the buzz on the Web boards: ["Nader candidacy expected"].

Dean: Hell no, I won't go!
The AP's Ron Fournier's does a follow up to his earlier piece with Grossman: ["Dean to Advisers: 'We Are Not Bowing Out'"].

After Tuesday
A lot is going on behind the scenes of the Democratic primary. Not much of it is bubbling to the surface in public forums although the Web is all abuzz with strategy and speculation. However, the decisions are being made on the inside and one has to wonder what is going on.
Despite just 16 states casting ballots, everyone is assuming that John Kerry is the winner. This is a safe assumption but it is an accurate one? Steve Grossman, the former DNC chairman and frontman for the Dean campaign, is saying that Dean will abandon his campaign if he doesn't win in Wisconsin: ["Top aides say Dean prepared to stand down against Kerry"]. Earlier in the day, Dean denied this, saying he would like to stay in until Florida [March 9]: ["Transcript"]. It has become clear, from this and other debates on the Web, that it isn't about which candidate can win - as much as who can stop John Kerry - who is clearly not the best choice for the Democrats. So, I began to think: If I were involved in the Dean or Edwards campaigns, how would I stop Kerry? OK, this is a stretch but I see an opening here to stop Kerry from getting the nomination. After analyzing the primary map again [http://www.state.ma.us/sec/ele/elepdf/presprim04.pdf], here is what I would advise the Dean and Edwards camps to do. Winning the nomination is going to be hard. But stopping Kerry is easier. From there, who knows? The unfortunate thing about these candidates and the modern campaign is the obsession over money and the ignorance about grassroots campaigning. Candidates don't always need money. They can win [or place] with little funds. Jerry Brown proved this in 1992. Third parties and independents prove this over and over again. Why are the Democrats clueless to this truth? But back to the future - and stopping Kerry:

Stay in the race. Barring a very distant third place finish in Wisconsin, stick it out until Super Tuesday March 2. If your campaigns are running on fumes, cut your staff down to the bare minimum: One press person and an advance person or two. Lay out the basic strategy for your volunteers and tell them that this is the only way to survive. They will have to do more with less and if they really want you to be the preisdent, they will have to do all they can - without the help of numerous paid staff. Dean can do this via his very active Web lists and blogs. Also, it is time for the Dean and Edwards camps to start talking to each other if they haven't already. Some people inside the Dean campaign have said that they think Edwards is jockeying for the VP slot. Edwards has denied this but who knows. If these campaigns are serious about stopping Kerry, they have to act together.

March 2. March 2 isn't a southern sweep, as someone pointed out to me. The states include the New England states, Ohio, Maryland, Georgia, and California. Dean will win in Vermont and very well could place second in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. He could also place second in New York and California. All of these states have rabid liberal and anti-war constituencies that haven't been courted at all by Kerry. There is no reason for him to quit before March 2. Go home after Wisconsin, take a few days off. But by staying in, Dean could get more delegates and give the voters a reason to participate in the remaining primaries. Try and get as much free media as possible by holding small events in non-rented locations, similar to New Hampshire grassroots campaigning. This will cost you very little money while at the same time getting you some media. When Clark was campaigning around New Hampshire during the last hours before the primary, he was talking into a $150 portable amplifier. There is no reason why Dean and Edwards can't do the same. Go to the colleges where there are always good size auditoriums, professional audio, and tons of kids who want to hear you speak. For Dean, he should cede Maryland, Georgia, and Ohio, to Kerry, Edwards and Kucinich, respectively. More than likely, Kerry will get cocky and start kicking-in his national strategy. If the sex scandal explodes beyond the Internet, Kerry will sink like a stone. Don't you want to be there when it happens? Edwards will concentrate on Maryland and Georgia, states he will place second in at the very least, if not win.

The southern sweep. Depending on the results of March 2, and barring major Kerry losses, either Dean or Edwards might have to suspend or quit his campaigns. If I were running the Dean campaign, I would advise him not to quit but instead to "suspend" his campaign like Tsongas did in 1992. There is a difference. If he suspends his campaign, Dean could jump in or influence the race later on.
In 1992, Tsongas ran out of money - mostly because one of his fund-raisers was skimming from the till. When he suspended his campaign, he essentially said he wasn't going to campaign but people could vote for him if they wanted to. Tsongas' name stayed on other ballots and a lot of people still voted for him even though he wasn't actively campaigning. As well, when the insiders wanted to get rid of insurgent Jerry Brown - who was destroying Bill Clinton in debates and was leading in polls just before the New York primary - Tsongas jumped back in the week before and siphoned votes from Brown, ending his reform campaign [As a side note, years later during a lunch with a friend of mine, Tsongas said he regretted the move and wished he hadn't hijacked Brown's campaign. He said so many people - from Jimmy Carter on down - were urging him to jump back in. So, he did].
As I said before, if Dean isn't talking to Edwards, he should be. They should be trying to mount some sort of "Stop Kerry" movement as soon as possible. Kerry can be stopped. Looking at the map, there is time and there are states where Kerry can be stopped. There are still thousands of Deaniacs who haven't cast votes yet and Edwards has been gaining popularity.
However, Dean may be getting tired and with his sails deflated and the nomination all but snatched from his grip, he may want to just head home. I can understand where he is at. More than likely, he will drop out. But he might want to wait.

The March 9 states. The March 9 states are all southern: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Dean will probably not get over 15 percent in these states so if he stays in, he should pass them up and let Edwards and Kerry duke it out. Instead, Dean should move to March 16 - Illinois - where Carol Moseley Braun is still very popular. She endorsed Dean. Yes, there will be pressure for him to quit but why should he? Again, go back to the low money strategy: Get into a car, retail campaign up and down the state and pretend it is New Hampshire. Use the free media. Let Edwards take Kerry out in the south.

Pennsylvania. After March 16 comes Pennsylvania with its April 27 primary. That's a month. A whole month. Almost anything can happen in a month. Pennsylvania is a huge state - a big union state. Will Kerry's free trade past come back to haunt him? Brown, even after being eliminated from contention, still received over 25 percent of the vote and got delegates to the convention in 1992. That's a quarter of the vote interested in an insurgent even if the insurgent can't win. At this point, it will probably be a two person race between someone and Kerry. Will Dean's message survive? Can Edwards [with the help of the Deaniacs, assuming he is out] launch a surprise victory there? Possibly.

Midwest and the south. The future from there spells trouble for Kerry if Edwards can stick it out. The month of May is southern, Midwestern and liberal: May 4: Indiana and North Carolina [Kerry and Edwards split]; May 11: West Virginia and Indiana [Edwards and Kerry split]; May 18: Arkansas, Kentucky, and Oregon [Edwards and Kerry split, with Dean helping Edwards win Oregon]. May 25: Idaho [toss up]. As I have said before, look at Kerry's positions - he is so close to Bush it isn't even funny. How is that going to go over in Oregon where Ralph Nader got 6 percent of the vote and would have gotten more had Gore not scared votes from him. How about West Virginia and Indiana, states that have lost manufacturing jobs due to the bad trade deals passed by Kerry?

June. June 1: Alabama and South Dakota [Edwards and Kerry]. June 6: New Jersey and Montana [Probably both Kerry].

Kerry wins two more ...
D.C. Caucuses
John F. Kerry - 4,278 - 47 percent
Al Sharpton - 1,824 - 20 percent
Howard Dean - 1,596 - 17 percent
John Edwards - 927 - 10 percent
Dennis J. Kucinich - 303 - 3 percent
Wesley K. Clark - 93 - 1 percent
Write-ins - 55 - 1 percent
Joseph I. Lieberman - 31
Uncommitted - 19

Nevada Caucuses
John F. Kerry - 2,252 - 63 percent
Howard Dean - 601 - 17 percent
John Edwards - 373 - 10 percent
Dennis J. Kucinich - 241 - 7 percent
Uncommitted - 90 - 3 percent
Al Sharpton - 25 - 1 percent

So much for "[a]n estimated 6,000 Democrats converged on Chaparral High School ..." 6,000 people didn't even participate.

Nevada [and D.C.] Caucuses ...
Nothing yet from the Nevada Caucuses even if the polls have been closed for a couple of hours. However, reports are saying that the turnout was huge, the highest ever seen in the history of caucuses. Check out this from the state Democratic Committee's Web site:
"An estimated 6,000 Democrats converged on Chaparral High School in Clark County with thousands more gathering across Nevada to select their candidate for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. With thousands unable to head inside the school, party officials moved the precinct meetings out to the high school's football field; where Senator Harry Reid, Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins and State Senate Democratic Leader Dina Titus spoke of unity and a single-purpose - adding George Bush to the ranks of the unemployed he helped to create."
Wow.
Also, there is a caucus in D.C. to send delegates to the convention - not cast votes. That already happened, on Jan. 13, and Howard Dean won, handily. Of course, the media and politicos pooh-poohed it because the primary was "non-binding." But the fact remains, Dean did win one - the first one - the D.C. Primary on Jan. 13.
No results yet on who won the delegate apportionment.

POLITICAL ROUNDUP
Does Kerry have Clinton problems?
The Internet has been abuzz with allegations that Democratic frontrunner John Kerry had a two-year affair with an AP reporter. Strangely, there has been little mention in the mainstream press. No mention on "Hardball." No mention on "The Factor" or "Hannity & Colmes." WCVB Channel 5 did a short blurb on Kerry's denial, as did ABC News' "World News Tonight." But this should have gotten more play. The only one who seemed to notice was Men's News Daily: ["John Kerry Sex Scandal: U.S. Media Blackout?"].
According to the Drudge Report, where the story broke, the European and some American metropolitan press, has been all over the story: ["Kerry faces big test in internet storm about mystery woman"]. One newspaper, the Sun, even contacted the woman's parents. Her father called Kerry a "sleazeball": ["New JFK hit by scandal"].
And then there is the typical reaction, like this piece from Joe Conason in Salon, who blames the Republicans for the Kerry intern story: ["There he goes again!"]. Is he clueless? This didn't come from the GOP. This was leaked by Wesley Clark in an off-the-record discussion with reporters saying that Kerry would implode due to "an intern problem." Further, Clark probably got it from Clintonista Chris Lehane, a former operative of Kerry's who was part of the Shaheen-November purge and later went to Clark. A day after the allegations, at the height of the Clark amateur hour, he endorsed Kerry.
Lastly, this probably won't be Kerry's only "bimbo eruption." Which is why Howard Dean is reportedly not going to drop out after Wisconsin.

Nader on the horizon ...
No word from the Ralph Nader front. The silence is eerie. Word is he will wait until the end of the month. But time is running out. If Nader doesn't decide soon, will he be able to get on state ballots? I did a quick search about ballot requirements and even went to Ballot Access News but couldn't find any information. For the 2000 race, Nader started organizing in November and still missed six state ballots.
Some people have come out saying Ralph should run again. Here's one from an odd source, CBS News: ["Run, Ralph, Run"].
"I say: Go for it, Ralph.
Why? Because Nader is not to blame for the fact that Al Gore is not president. Because I believe vigorous, high profile third-party candidacies (as high profile as third parties get in this country, that is) are good, even crucial for the political system. Because skilled political mischief-makers capable of occasionally piercing the homogenized, focus group tested, corporate sponsored claptrap of the two big parties are a rare godsend. Because more voices are better than fewer voices."
But there is this from Norman Solomon: ["An Odd Accusation From Ralph Nader"].
"While Nader is 100 percent correct that he has a right to run for president, that's not in dispute. The debate is over the wisdom of running this year. Like many other people who voted for Nader in 2000, I agree with The Nation's editorial. But that's not the point. Agree with it or not, there's no basis for Nader's canard about 'censorship.'"
Whether or not Nader runs, there are some suing for inclusion: ["Third-party hopefuls sue for inclusion"].

Want to run for president?
Here's how: ["American Candidate"]. I was joking with my wife that I might apply, especially since I qualify, and she nixed the idea. :-)

Delegate counts
According to AP:
Kerry 540
Dean 182
Edwards 166
Clark 85 [CNN: 68]
Sharpton 12
Lieberman 9
Gephardt 3
Kucinich 2 [Actual: 8]
Other 1
Uncommitted 0

Needed to nominate 2,162
Total Delegate Votes 4,322
Chosen thus far 1,000
Yet to be chosen 3,321

Vanity Fair and a hot bath ...
There is just nothing like enjoying a hot bath while reading Vanity Fair. The new - and huge - Hollywood issue came out this week and it is massive - over 400 pages although, disappointingly, it is mostly ads. Where are the stories? The last Hollywood issue had a bunch of pretty good book excerpts and the magazine regularly has at least two good stories worth reading, sometimes more. This month, however, there wasn't much of interest to me. There is a brilliant feature on these three kids who filmed their own version of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in their backyard over an eight year period and have now become the hottest thing in Hollywood. There is also a pathetic rant by the otherwise hilarious Christopher Hitchens attacking Mel Gibson's latest supposedly breathtaking epic "The Passion of the Christ." Note to Hitchens: Go back to writing about Kissinger the war criminal and leave Gibson - who is a brilliant filmmaker, regardless of his loose interpretation of history - alone. Frankly, the world needs to see - and understand - a lot more about Christ.