That was the weak that was

As bad a week as it arguably was for John Kerry's campaign, it was a worse week for the Bush administration. Kerry capped a week of less than nimble responses to the Bush attack machine with a line so bad that it went directly into a Bush ad. Then Kerry went off for a week's R&R, despite the unrelenting Bushwhacking. But it soon appeared this was a brilliant piece of strategy, as it left Bush all alone on the stage, self-destructing.

The Bush Medicare bill, which was supposed to be a brilliant political move to take away a campaign issue from the Democrats, has been a flop from the start, and now it's getting worse. Almost immediately after passage, the Bush administration admitted that it would actually cost a third more than they said it would. Now a veteran and respected non-political appointee says the Bush people threatened to fire him if he told members of Congress before the vote how much the bill would really cost. Now a Republican Member of Congress charges that the Bushies first tried to bribe him (with campaign support for his son's run to succeed him in Congress) and then they threatened him, in order to get his vote. All this (and more) will be investigated by various administrative and legislative officials, and could lead to criminal charges.

Politically, seniors never did buy that this was true prescription drug coverage or improved Medicare, and of course they're right. But these scandalous revelations are putting a lot of pressure on the major senior political organization, the AARP, which backed the bill. They must be feeling like the former Spanish government right about now.

There was no good economic news either. Gasoline prices continue to rise, but wages and employment don't. It turns out that the Bushies have even outsourced their campaign logo garb, to a country that Bush has forbidden the U.S. to trade with. Hmmmm. Kosovo is causing problems again, and thanks to the crisis precipitated by Bush policies, the first American soldier died in Haiti.

But the big theme for the week was the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, and the attempt to 1)link Iraq with the war on terror, 2) position Bush as the stalwart leader 3) position Kerry as weak on defense.

The problem with linking Iraq and the war on terror is that 1) some recalcitrant allies are linking them but not to Bush's advantage, and 2) at the moment neither is going very well.

The week started with the fall of the Spanish government that supported Bush, replaced by a government openly hostile and resentful of being implicated in Iraq. Following Spain's announcement that they plan to pull their troops out of Iraq, the prime minister of Poland (which is part of the Coalition of the Willing but Duped) complained his government had been misled about WMDs, and there was some noise from South Korea about pulling their troops. Another UN inspector, Hans Blix, says not only that there weren’t WMDs, but that terrorism is worse now because of the invasion of Iraq.

The only prospect for a war on terror success this week rests at the moment in the hands of Pakistani troops. After high profile arrests and charges, holding people for years without charges, and with other police and judicial power any dictator would envy, the Bush people have failed to convict terrorists, and quietly had to drop charges against a chaplain accused of espionage at Gitmo.

Things are not going to get any better very soon, as the 9-11 commission goes public, and several Clinton administration officials will testify that they warned the Bushies well before 9-11 that al Qeda was the number one threat to American security. Plus there's a new book coming out which should have some impact, The House of Saud, The House of Bush by Craig Unger, which details extensive relationships over the years, including more than a billion smackers flowing from Saud to Bush businesses, and the curious flights from America of suspicious Saudis immediately after 9-11, made possible (when no one else in the country was allowed to fly) by the Bushwhackers.

The week also saw several large explosions in Iraq, one of which was seen on split screen with VP Dick "Halliburton? Never Heard of Them" Cheney, talking up Bush success and trashing Kerry. Cheney's trashing was almost immediately countered by none other than Republican John McCain, who said that John Kerry is not weak on defense, don't be ridiculous. McCain carries a lot of weight with independents, so this attack at least appears to have been blunted.

George W. "Bunker Mentality" Bush ended the week with a speech recycled from pre-war, minus any embarrassing references to WMDs. Even TV reporters, to their credit, didn't let him get away with it completely.
Just listen to this rhetoric, though:

"There is no neutral ground - no neutral ground - in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery and life and death," Mr. Bush said.
"The war on terror is not a figure of speech," Mr. Bush said. "It is an inescapable calling of our generation. The terrorists are offended not merely by our policies - they are offended by our existence as free nations. No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands."

What can you say about it? It is absolutist, frightening, and insidiously brilliant. If you apply much of it narrowly to the most fanatical of the terrorists, it is even close to true. And that's why it is so pernicious, because Bush has shown by his deeds that it doesn't so apply. He means it much more broadly. In rhetoric and intent, it is fully as fanatical as anything a fundamentalist terrorist could say.

It's not the sentences that are important to Bush and his Hidden Persuaders, it's the words: concession, appease, accommodation. He's not wishy-washy, he's 100% for war. It's war, and nothing else. It isn't criminal behavior, that isn't really supported by communities or peoples or whole religions. It isn't criminal behavior and fanaticism in response to massive oppression, because if it were, something would have to be done about that oppression that we sponsor and cause. Or the physical conditions that we impose and allow. But no---that would be appeasement, concession, accommodation. Let us turn your country into a parking lot for Halliburton, or die. This is civilization. The rest is communism---sorry, I mean terrorism.

The Associated Press reported this week that "the United States has begun training and equipping armies in parts of Africa that U.S. officials see as an inviting refuge for terrorists as well as a long-term source of oil." Mali, Mauritania, and "Marines are preparing for missions in Niger and Chad."

That’s the agenda. It’s the oil stupid.

But remember that string of absolutes---part Jehovah, part Tarzan: me good, they evil. Since I, George W. "Crusader" Bush am good, anybody who opposes me is evil. Is an appeaser.

Is against civilization. Is against YOU. Might as well be a terrorist, cause there is no neutral ground--no neutral ground.

Plus, if you vote for me, George W. "Burning" Bush, it will make you part of the coalition of the Good. Me Good. Vote for Me. You Good. Vote for anybody else, you're Evil, you'll rot in hell, and when the Rapture comes, screw you. (Actually, we'll screw you a lot sooner than that.)

So the United States of Bush is Good. Everything about it is Good, everything they do is Good, right? Makes it all insultingly clear doesn't it?

Linking terrorism and Iraq is itself insidious, even apart from the failure to concentrate on protecting against terrorism that the Iraq adventure represents. The current rationalizations for war in Iraq (which come down to this: do you think we’re better off without Saddam or not?) debase what’s left of this country’s honor. America goes to war when it has to. America was told it had to go to war to defend itself against WMDs. Now we’re told that this didn’t really matter. That the fact that the U.S. didn’t allow the UN inspectors to finish looking for weapons and instead launched an invasion on either flimsy grounds or false pretenses, doesn’t matter. President Bush took this nation to war, and committed our grandchildren to paying for its consequences, without the informed consent of the American people and the U.S. Congress.

And they impeached Clinton for lying about oral sex.

I wonder when the press will get around to calling this a "scandal-riddled administration"?


The week ends with peace demonstrations in cities across North America and around the world. Not everyone believes that the test of leadership is making like the Old Testament Jehovah in the comfort of the Fortress White House, and sending young men and women from small towns and inner cities to go die, kill, maim and get maimed, some physically, and nearly all psychologically for life, so that Bush and his buddies can get even richer and more powerful.

This is not bravery. It is cowardice. This is not strength. It is the most shameful weakness.

The TV War

It's hard to know who is winning the TV war. It's hard to know even how to fight it.

But we can observe. Cheney talking about the Bush success in Iraq on split-screen with the fiery ruins of the latest bombing can only be described as cognitive dissonance.

Earlier, John Kerry spoke out against the Bush Iraq policy. Newspapers covered both speeches, and other talk of the day, with relative fairness and completeness. But not all television did.

CNN showed very little of the Kerry speech. It didn't show the presence of former Secretary of State Albright or the former Army Chief of Staff with him on the stage. Other cable TV reports continued the theme of how high the conflict is at this stage of the campaign, without dealing much with substance.

The issue that won't go away is the "foreign leaders" statement. Sec of State Powell and other Bushies tried it out on Sunday, cynically playing the card Kerry dealt them by pretending that by not naming names of leaders who are anxious for a regime change in the U.S., it must mean Kerry is lying. Even though they know he can't betray confidences, and most leaders aren't going to go public while they still have to deal with the Bushies.

They got traction on it, and took it a step farther, as Theron indicated. Cheney has since repeated the implication several times that not only is Kerry not being honest and forthcoming, but hinting darkly that he's promised things he shouldn't to foreigners he shouldn't be dealing with.

It didn't help that Howard Dean linked the failures in Iraq to the terrorist bombing in Spain. It's not Kerry's view, but it enabled Ed Gillespie, GOP National Committee chair, to piggyback Dean's comment on the ongoing smear to Kerry's honesty and patriotism, this time explicitly using the T word: "We cannot allow presidential candidates or their surrogates to become mouthpieces for terrorists. Blaming freedom-loving people for these attacks is not the way to defeat the scourge of global terror."

Kerry didn't help himself this week by getting quoted saying that he voted for the $89 billion appropriation for Iraq and the U.S. military before he voted against it. It just plays into the Bush theme of flip-flopping, however accurately it describes the legislative process of voting conditionally (if Bush cut back on tax cuts to the very wealthy to pay for this) before voting against final passage when conditions aren't met.

And someone should have told him not to make a speech on military policy wearing a pink tie.

It's hard enough being perfect on the campaign trail, and fighting an attack machine that has tons of money and absolutely no scruples, which takes the greatest delight in the successful lie. But the Kerry campaign also has to take into consideration the way these things are covered on TV. The emphasis on conflict, the corporate media bias, and the sheer idiocy.

Speaking of Rudi Bactiar, the CNN Headline News anchor who chirps and emotes incongruously throughout prime time: it's hard to believe that this person can help determine the fate of the planet. But there you are. I guess Kurt Vonnegut isn't surprised, and Joseph Heller wouldn't be.

Today Rudi demanded of a Washington Post reporter on the phone, doesn't Kerry have to name those names of foreign leaders who said they support him? The reporter repeated the retraction of the Boston Globe reporter who incorrectly quoted Kerry in the first place, and mentioned that Cheney upped the ante even more by saying that these leaders had "endorsed" Kerry, which clearly they haven't. But Rudi was not deterred by this kind of quibbling. Shouldn't these European leaders Kerry was talking about be named? she insisted.

So we've gone from a reporter's mistake, to "foreign leaders," to foreign leaders endorsing Kerry, to Rudi deciding they are European leaders. And from unsubstantiated charges to lying to being unpatriotic to being a mouthpiece for terrorists. And that's from Sunday to Wednesday.

It turns out that Kerry has been making those policy statements we suggested he should go ahead and make (including one today, Thursday). It's just that nobody is covering them as such. But Kerry has to talk about this foreign leaders flap. For one thing, it will definitely be covered. He has to lay out this whole scenario, from the cynicism--and why the Bushies know he can't name names---to the smears. It's exhibit A. If he tells it like this, it will help him. If he ignores it, it may stick in people's minds and hurt him, or it could even get worse. He has to call them out on it...And find another color tie.

A Spainyard in the Works
by international correspondent,
cousin Lemuel Dash

The probable result of the new government in Spain will be a "smart" anti-terrorist policy.

The general concern over the Iraq adventure included a significant European concern that this was a diversion from the real enemy. Saddam was evil but wasn't setting up cells inside your country and getting ready to blow up your citizens. Ex-patriate Muslim fanatics were and still are. Many European countries have significant Muslim populations. The vast majority are good citizens. They should be allies in avoiding being blown up. But you have to allow them to be allies, and give them a realistic stage to express themselves. Having a very public war on a sectarian regime (however brutal and despotic) but comprised of Muslims, was not the best step forward.

Look for a more holistic, legal, and finessed approach to terrorism. But not a retreat from defeating terror and advancing civil society.

A little instant history: The Popular Party treated Basque national aspirations with a contempt inherited from Franco. The political wing of ETA has been calling for negotiations not armed struggle for about ten years. The PP resisted any dialogue. The result was the targeted terror of ETA over the past years. The Socialists may not be so dogmatic. They have significant support in the North. So watch this space.... This could be a Historic Moment where Basque national aspirations are recruited into a pan-European effort to defend the continent. Or maybe not.

On a broader front: The wheel is finally in spin and the possibility of real New World Dynamic could be forthcoming. Maybe better than a New World Order. Maybe not. Stay tuned

Lemuel
P.S. Suggested Reading: here

the reign in Spain

It looks bad: terrorists attack, Spain votes their government out. But it's not that simple, and that's obvious even to experts like us who have never even been there.

Spain has been dealing with terrorists for 35 years. The U.S. is a neophyte by comparison, yet lectures everyone else on the subject. No Spanish government can relent in its efforts to protect its citizens from terrorists.

That Al Queda was said to possibly be involved in the latest attack may have just been the last straw for a populace that was overwhelmingly against their government's involvement in the Iraq war. They were put in the position of again swallowing its consequences, and they rebelled. They have enough to deal with. That's as plausible an explanation as any other.

The timing was unfortunate but the idea of "letting the terrorists dictate the election" works both ways. Should voters who want to make a statement against the Iraq war and get their country out of it, be prevented from doing so because it would look bad following a terrorist attack?

It's worth mentioning that a new poll shows a surprising 45% of Americans surveyed said that if another terrorist attack happens on U.S. soil, it would incline them to vote against Bush. That was about double the percentage of those who said it would incline them to vote for Bush.


In the meantime, the Bush attack machine which is outspending Kerry by something like 20 to 1, may be having an effect. Polls show Kerry is beginning to be defined as not having strong convictions. Perhaps people who believe TV advertising get the country they deserve, but that's no comfort for the rest of us who live here.

Kerry, who now has sufficient votes to be the nominee, can't depend on this cornucopia of Bush mistakes to continue. Somehow he has to keep from being defined by the Bushies and their collaborating media parrotheads, so that people will still be paying attention at convention time. That long heralded series of policy pronouncements might help, but they ought to get going on it.

the usual subtext

by Theron Dash

Sometimes I can't believe how naive my brothers can be. They think this flap the Bushies are keeping alive about Kerry not naming the "foreign leaders" he said were rooting for him to win, because he can't betray confidences, was just a clever little double-bind opportunity. Phineas for one knows better, he's the oldest, he can just about remember v.p. Richard Nixon's red letter red-baiting days.

First of all, it turns out that Kerry didn't even say "foreign leaders." The reporter who said so has since listened to his tape again and corrected it. Kerry said "more" leaders. Here's the story.

But the coordinated chorus of Bushies, not just Powell and the White House flacks but v.p. Dick "Undisclosed Location" Cheney, demanded to know who these leaders are, has the same old subtext. Why doesn't he name names? What's he afraid of revealing? Like maybe these leaders are...Osama bin Laden?

You think this is paranoia? Check out the Washington Times sometime, that print equivalent of Fox News, which covers the Kerry campaign with headlines like, Terrorists Favor Kerry, and a bit more subtly, Arab-Americans Favor Kerry.

It's subliminal red-baiting, since the above-ground stuff isn't working anymore. Delete "red" and insert "terrorist." Terrorists sympathizer, favored by enemies of America. You can almost see Nixon's dark scowl.

It's clear as a bell in this Cheney statement at a campaign event in Arizona:
"But it is our business when a candidate for president claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to them that makes them so supportive of his candidacy."

They have to resort to suggestion at the moment, since they can call Kerry liberal all they want (the equivalent of radical in the 60s, Communist in the 50s and on) but they can't make him a Dukakis. They're looking for this year's Willie Horton, and if they can't find one they'll sow some doubt, some foreign phantoms to give voters the Willies. It's not just a double-bind, it's a subtextual smear.

Kerry has to call them on it. Ask them why they're so interested, and just what are they trying to imply? It's another thinly veiled attack on his patriotism. I apologize for my brothers. They don't always understand that these guys haven't had a new idea since 1950.

noted

An Annenberg survey shows that a majority of American voters (most Democrats plus many independents) disapprove of the Bush campaign using imagery from 9-11. This is a major blow for the Bush strategy.

Three more disasters for Bush last week and over the weekend: Kerry exposed the so-called "manufacturing czar" as an industrialist who had exported jobs to China (more or less) even before the appointment was made public, and it was then quickly withdrawn; more evidence that the Bushies cooked the books on Medicare; and the post-terrorist attack election in Spain which swept the pro-Bush government out of office and installed the socialist party, which will withdraw Spain from the Iraq occupation.

One Kerry problem developed: after he'd adroitly handled his Bushies are liars and crooks comment made privately but while still partly miked (he refused to apologize, and Bushies have to shy away from repeating liars and crooks when so many stories are appearing that cast them in exactly that light) an old assertion resurfaced, that some foreign leaders told him privately that they are hoping Bush is replaced. Bushies say tell us who they are (which obviously he can't, as these were private and presumably confidential conversations) and when he doesn't they are outright suggesting he's lying. It's a neat double-bind, and Kerry probably shouldn't have said it, but then the new leader of the Spanish government said in public that he hopes Kerry wins. That's not a trend the Bushies would like to see expand, so continuing to keep this issue alilve could be very risky.

are we this dumb now?
by Theron Dash

What's happening to Washington Week in Review? To PBS? To intelligent reporting and analysis? Are we this dumb now?

Washington Week, despite Paul Newman's flattering intro (which seems to have been missing lately...hmmm), has been getting progressively duller and unwatchable (as opposed to dully progressive, which describes...well, not us.) This used to be a fairly painless half hour update on the conventional wisdom in Washington, with the occasional insight and bit of real reporting. Now it's like a televised coffee break, in which unimpressive parrotheads giggle and mouth cliches, ingratiating themselves with each other and saying little or nothing new, trenchant or insightful.

Maybe the plethora of other news analysis shows on cable have depleted the ranks so they're forced to rely on lesser lights, but it's becoming embarrassing. Plus there's this giddy self-referencing hewing to a jockular theme, as in Friday's campaign coverage, about how both candidates are going negative so early, isn't it crazy, my god can they keep this up, what'll it be like in October? Shouldn't somebody go positive at some point? was one of the piercing questions. This was after they played a negative Bush ad and the counter-charge part of the new Kerry ad, neglecting to play, and therefore to notice, that the rest of the ad, most of it in fact, was positive.

It's not like there wasn't more to talk about, like the salon story about the Pentagon mentioned in the last post. Why is nobody else even mentioning that story?

But back to the dumbing down question. Frontline continues to be pretty damn good, but some other PBS docus I've seen are really puzzling, and maddening. I happened to catch a fellow named Wells on C-Span the other day---I've lost my notes on it already---talking about his research on human origins based on DNA, and it was pretty fascinating. He played excerpts from his docu aired on PBS, which I saw, but it drove me nuts to the point that I began hating this guy and his research. Which makes me even madder now that I realize I might have missed something interesting and important, all because people can't make a decent docu anymore.

That docu did the same thing as another very worthy project, "The Elegant Universe," a Nova production, about tne new physics, specifically string theory. In both cases some of the visuals were amazing. In the physics programs, the computerized visualizations and animations really helped with some of the concepts, such as Einsteinian curved space and gravity wells, and atomic structure (I liked how the nucleus pulsed like it was on speed) but it did what the Wells docu did: it made a point, then immediately repeated it, then repeated it again. Then came back to it, adding all the points onto the new point. Like the narrator's off-camera voice would say, " Einstein theorized that space is curved." Then picture of a scientist, and he says: "According to Einstein, space is curved." Cut to the narrator-host sitting somewhere very picturesque, or in the middle of a clever computer simulation (an elevator to infinity, for example) and he turns and looks at the camera and says with a perfectly straight face, "Einstein said that space is curved."

Did you get that? Well, don't worry. In about five minutes, they're going to repeat it all again.

Do they really think that because this stuff is hard, that the best way to approach it is blugeon your head with repetition until you're half dead, and then you'll be able to follow it? The sad part is that when the second half of the Elegant Universe program finally got to string theory and played it straight, it was fascinating and pretty easy to follow.

Are we really this dumb now? Are our attention spans so short, or just blugeoned into insensibility by endless repetition accompanying fast cut fancy movement images? What a waste of talent and money, and I might add, my time. Give me the twenty minutes of actual stuff, and save the rest for the pledge drive.

And can those Washington parrotheads. I'd rather hear Paul Newman talk about the news.

Toot toot

Seeing no one else stepping in to handle this job, the Dash brothers will now toot their own horn. Our political coverage, from Iowa to the Dem's v.p. hunt, has been close to unerring, and generally better than you'd get from any one media parrothead.

Still, we aren't the best of bloggers, in that we don't post everyday (we have LIVES, people! For instance, there are so many Star Trek episodes to watch for the fifteenth time!) and we don't do a lot of links.

So we'll try to do a little better on the links, but since the whole point of the blog is for us to shoot our mouths off, separately and together, that's what we'll continue doing.

Apropos of politics, the Iraq scandals continue to grow. Under heavy cross-examination fire in Congress, CIA director Tenet admitted that he had to warn Bush and Cheney that they were exaggerating intelligence judgments on Iraq's supposed WMDs and connection with al Queda. Now there's a report from inside the Pentagon that a lot of this stuff was manufactured there. It appears in salon, in their new alliance with move on.org: right here. (See? That's a link.) Halliburton continues to make news, all of it bad for the Bushies. The latest involves over-estimating and overcharges on some sweetheart Iraq deals. (You can look that up yourself. There's a limit to how much work we'll do for you.)


The narrative: So far this campaign season, the media is following the story called "Kerry attacks." It's dramatic, and it's new, since Bush has had the media in his pocket for three years plus. Now Bush is vulnerable and the media is famously shark-like, heading for any blood in the water and when not going for the kill (which might be too dangerous for our chickenhearted media)hovering there like chatty, sing-song grinning, heavily made-up vultures.

Kerry has been very skillful in keeping control of the story, but sooner or later he's going to hit a slack period. Then the media will look for another story, a reversal if possible, like "Bush fights back." The longer the Kerry-driven story goes on, the lower the bar the media will set to begin reversing it: the capture or killing of bin Laden would certainly do it, but so would something a lot smaller, like a modest uptick in job growth.

That's when the Kerry people have to be ready with Act III, not just Kerry Counter-attacks but "Kerry inspires." Ideally this would happen in the last weeks before the election, but it will need to begin at the Dem convention in July. Kerry will need to begin laying out a positive vision (which he does to campaign audiences, but those aren't the soundbites.) The convention will mainly be his best opportunity to project a lasting image of himself. That's when viewers/voters want to know, who is this guy? And his wife and family. He'll need to project honestly, but he can: he's a guy with dimensions, with a solid family life, he's athletic, etc. plus he has the personal authority to be a leader in tough times.

So that's the campaign as we see it: so far Kerry has successfully fought off the Bushies' attempts to define him, but they'll only just begun. He's been pretty impressive about remaining on attack, and he's clearly fearless. So the next months will be that game, and when or if the story switches from Kerry's to Bush's. Then the Dem convention is crucial to establishing Kerry as a man, a human being, voters can be comfortable with and above all (this time), have confidence in. Then at some point, especially if Kerry is still ahead in the polls, he concentrates on inspiring people to vote for him, rather than against Bush.

While we're blathering, a word about the status of the v.p. hunt. So far it's playing as we said it might. Kerry, having been stung by the very public Gore v.p. hunt in which he was mentioned and ultimately rejected, is keeping the process quiet and orderly. But as it goes on, support for John Edwards grows. The longer the process goes on, the more difficult it will be for Kerry to choose anyone other than Edwards.

No credible new names have surfaced, except John McCain, which is pretty interesting, however unlikely. We still like Gephardt, but with Kerry so effective on the attack, the need for a v.p. to do the dirty work diminishes, and Edwards as Mr. Sunshine makes more sense. The two are appearing together today or tomorrow, so let's see how that looks.

"Today's Stew

"We spend $30 (billion) to $40 billion in California, a trillion dollars in the country, on health care. Where is the money going?"
------Archie Lamb, chief counsel of CA Medical Association, in a new "California Consensus" report on health care by representatives of insurers, medical professionals and government officials, that calls for greater transparency in spending as a preliminary to universal health care.


"...And let's give special mention to The Wall Street Journal, which...in 1998 told its readers to 'rest easy': 'U.S. corporate accounting has been getting steadily more conservative in recent years, not less so.'
In other words, we shouldn't blame the public too much for getting caught up in irrational exhuberance. Foolish ideas were made to seem sensible by the unanimous optimism of analysts and the financial media. That unanimity was the product of a climate of fear in which everyone knew that asking hard questions put your career at risk. It wasn't just a market bubble: the system failed."
-----Paul Krugman, New York Times Book Review


Political notes: A Zogby Poll study of the electoral map shows a pattern favoring Kerry. In a bipartisan poll, Kerry has a lead in Florida of some 4 points, and while Nader polls at 3%, he is at the moment drawing equally from Republicans. Campaigning in Florida, Kerry vows to set up a legal team to monitor patterns of fraud in Florida voting before the election, and advocates voting systems with paper trails or some way to check and recount votes.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports Bushies preparing to attack Teresa Heinz Kerry during campaign. Pennsylvania is a must-win state for both Bush and Kerry, and Pittsburgh is a key. Attacking Teresa Heinz in Pittsburgh---home of Heinz Hall, Heinz Field where the Steelers play, and where every kid remembers the school trip to the pickle factory and the pickle pin they get on the way out---throws the city to Kerry.

Kerry has won primaries with strong support from the black community. It occurs to us that a lot of the qualities the media parrotheads criticize about Kerry are part of his appeal to this community. They see dignity, not stiffness, and they are used to feeling expressed in words, accompanied by gravitas. That Kerry reminds them of Kennedy is a big plus, as no other white politicians in the last half century are as revered as John and Robert Kennedy.

Weekend Update

By Theron Dash

Dept. of Worst Fears: new national poll showing Bush and Kerry tied at about 45% with Nader at 6%. Why it's not yet time to panic: Nader has high name recognition, maybe higher than Kerry has yet. Six percent is more than double what he eventually got in 2000, when he was on the ballot in most states. It's doubtful he will get on the ballot in many states at all for 2004.

Shot Across the Bow: Relatives of 9-11 victims and firefighters protest Bush's use of 9-11 imagery in his first campaign ads. The Bush campaign so far is defending them, but the publicity isn't good. Strategically this may complicate the Bushies efforts to wrap themselves in the tattered flag of 9-11, which is their main campaign theme.

Subversion in Haiti: by the U.S. .. Columns by Molly Ivins and Columbia University’s Earth Institute director Jefrey Sachs tell the same story: the Bushies wanted Aristide out at about the time they decided to invade Iraq (in other words, Inauguration Day) and didn’t just neglect Haiti but subverted Aristide and democracy in Haiti, for what seems like the same reasons the Kissinger bunch fomented a coup in Chile and were complicit in the assassination of its president, Salvador Allende, and others. Too much of that redistribution of wealth stuff. Stories of Aristide being hustled out of Haiti is just another face of regime change and pre-emption. So when Bush in his commercials says “I know exactly where I want to lead this country” you can trust him, he does.

From Prez to be to VP?


John Kerry won 9 out of 10 states, most of them by 20 to 40 percentage points over John Edwards. Vermont voted its heart for Howard Dean, but exit polls showed that the Dean voters were perfectly content to vote for Kerry in November.

John Edwards, having won nothing and having lost in 8 of the 9 states by devastating margins, made an eloquent concession speech, and sounded like the vice presidential nominee he probably will not be. But Edwards has raised the bar for the v.p. candidate in terms of energy, youth and eloquence.

Kerry reportedly has not spoken of any possible v.p. choices, even privately, but now that he has the nomination, there will be little more inside stuff to talk about for the coming months. He has made known his basic criteria: the candidate must be qualified to be president, and someone he gets along with well, and someone who believes what he believes, and only then do electoral political considerations come into play. His own victory speech comment, that Edwards will be important to the party in the future, suggests what some have said, that he isn't sure than a one-term senator with only personal injury law as his previous experience is ready to be president.

The pundits also argue about whether Kerry should string this decision out, keep people guessing and hence interested. That could be a dangerous strategy, if support for a Kerry-Edwards ticket, already pretty strong among Democratic primary voters, continues to build. No one knows what's in Kerry's mind on this subject, but if he really doesn't want Edwards to be forced on him, he needs to make his decision before any further Edwards momentum (should there be any) gets out of control.

There are two names often mentioned that seem to pass the experience test, and are connected to a key battleground state: Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Senator Bob Graham of Florida.

Bob Graham is not the right choice. Kerry doesn't need help with the gravitas imagery, he needs someone with the energy if not the youth of Edwards. Graham reads as old and slow. It would depend on calculations we can't make that he would deliver Florida, but we are skeptical.

Dick Gephardt is the better choice. He is passionate and energetic. He can be idealistic and an attack dog. He can help win Missouri and he has already helped Kerry win Ohio in the primary---he practically has lived there for the past several weeks. Ohio is a better bet as a key state that went for Bush and has a bunch of electoral votes. We believe Florida may go to Kerry, but it won't be because of the presence of one of its Senators on the ticket. It will go Democratic because Jeb Bush is unsuccessful in repeating his subversion of the voting process, and black voters actually get their votes counted.

Kerry and Gephardt look good together. That's become important to the challenging ticket, just as Clinton and Gore looked good together in 1992 when they took on president Bush I. (Kerry and Edwards also look good together, which is one reason that ticket is so popular among Democrats.)

Somewhere between Graham and Gephardt is Bill Richardson of New Mexico. He has experience governing a state and in Washington and foreign policy. But not a lot. He comes with some Clinton baggage. But he is well connected in the southwest, and could help secure not only New Mexico but Arizona. Plus he is Hispanic, which can help in Florida (where there is an increasing non-Cuban Hispanic population) as well as in the southwest. But again, this may not be a factor, or not so important, and may be counterbalanced by problems with other minority groups. Still, it would open a new front in the coming campaign, perhaps one the Bushies aren't expecting.

Another name mentioned that is probably going to be taken seriously is Wesley Clark, but he's not a reliable candidate, and his off the cuff remarks are apt to spark controversy that detracts from the focus Kerry will want to maintain.

Other names can't be taken seriously, like Hillary or even Bill Clinton. Others will be taken seriously. VP candidates in recent years have been surprises, in that they weren't in the public eye for awhile before being chosen. However, these primaries we believe have changed that. The races got so much positive attention for the Democrats that it's going to be hard to absorb an entirely "new" name into the process. If it is a "new" name, it will have to be someone instantly recognized as right, like Gore for Clinton. They were also pretty similar on the issues, and that's important as well. In short, if Edwards were more experienced, he would seem to be just right. But he isn't, and he didn't win anything, especially in a swing state like Tennessee or Ohio. So unless there is a huge groundswell for him in the coming weeks, the Kerry-Edwards ticket is unlikely. But of course that's not up to us. It's up to Kerry.

Now the drama will be in the first forays of the Bush ads, and whether they define Kerry or Kerry defines himself. Bush has something like $150 million to pollute the airwaves with, and he has to spend it all by August. If he can't get traction with that, it might not even be close in November.

The Dash Brothers Voters Guide


All you Super Tuesday voters, gather round. We offer our thoughts not on who to vote for but on how to vote. Consider, and make your own choice.

We are not believers in symbolic votes. We believe in voting for the candidate we believe has the best chance to do the most good, and stop the most evil. This is a kind of calculation, but it is to our minds a better one than the calculation of "I'll vote for that person even though he or she has no chance of winning, because [fill in the blank: to send a message, they seem nice and likeable, I feel sorry for them, etc.] and anyway, IT WON'T MATTER, the frontrunner doesn't need my vote.

This is gambling---making decisions based on an outcome you foresee but which has not yet happened. It is always dangerous. You have to calculate what you might lose. When you buy a lottery ticket, all you can possibly lose is the buck you paid for it. When you vote symbolically, you risk a dire outcome. For instance, G.W. Bush.

In a state like California, where the Democratic candidate is expected to do very well, there is already a movement to "swap votes" with voters in other more apparently contested states: so a Democrat in CA will vote for the Green candidate, in exchange for a Green party partisan in, say, Ohio, voting for the Dem. We don't support this. Our confidence in the media's ability to forecast the future is not that high. The fun of guessing outcomes stops at the voting booth. Vote for the candidate who has the best chance of doing the most good and stopping the most evil, wherever you are.

Lastly, we urge voters everywhere to become actively engaged in the ongoing debate and ongoing process of how voting itself is being conducted. Tomorrow many of us in CA, Maryland and other states (Ohio we're pretty sure) are going to be using touch-screen machines that supposedly register our vote. There is currently no way to verify that our votes are registered and counted correctly. There are many ways to sabotage these machines and change the outcomes.

This is especially troubling when the CEO of the company that manufactures the most used of these machines is a Bush partisan who has said in public that he "guarantees" Ohio will go for Bush.

Tell your local officials that you want a system that leaves a paper trail---that if you're using some form of electronic system, you want a paper receipt that shows your votes were recorded properly, just like you get when you use a credit card. Demand a system that tallies the number of live walking and talking people who come to vote with the number of votes counted.

If the integrity of voting is compromised, every state will be Florida, and we'll be waxing nostalgic for the verifiability of the hanging chads.

Super Monday

After complaining that John Edwards was too polite in the last debate, media parrotheads started complaining that he got too aggressive in Sunday's one hour scour, ruined his good guy image, seemed desperate and may have lost his spot as v.p. in the process. Give the guy a break. He tried the I'm an Outsider card, a proven loser this year, probably to convince Howard Dean people to work for him on election day in the Super Tuesday states where Deaniacs have some sort of presence. But he gave Kerry the perfect opportunity for a very clear comeback, asking him if he thought the country could be changed from Washington. Yes, Kerry said, because that's where the Congress is and where the White House is.

The entertainment value was a little different this time, with everybody fighting with the questioners as much as with each other. But this debate is very unlikely to have any effect on tomorrow's voting. It was held on Sunday morning, 11 a.m. on the East Coast, when mostly political addicts and reporters are watching. Not more than a handful of people in California probably saw it, since it was either on too early or was rebroadcast during the Oscars. And the soundbites were mostly Kerry's. Though Edwards again showed some skill at quickly and efficiently communicating the heart of the matter.

Kerry got some Ohio and New York newspaper endorsements on Sunday, and the San Francisco Chronicle this morning. These endorsements tend to say what the voters have said: yes, Edwards is a smart and articulate guy, maybe a more attractive candidate (to some), but he is not ready to be president. Kerry is.

The latest polls show no indication of Edwards' famous last minute closing; the trend in Georgia is towards Kerry. Kerry's lead in New York, California and Ohio is hefty. Maryland is looking good, and the New England states are solid. The only poll done in Minnesota so far was by the Kerry campaign, and it showed a formidable Kerry lead there as well, but it's a caucus state so polls are dodgy. Still, we see Kerry winning 7 states by 20 points or more, and 3 states by no less than 10 points, for a total of them all.

If it is this lopsided, then Edwards really will have to think about dropping out, or face the possible humiliation of losing to Kerry in the south next week. He'll be under a lot of pressure to do so, because the Dems don't want to risk the opposite possibility of Kerry doing well everywhere but in the south, when it's clear he'll be the nominee and Edwards can't possibly overtake him. But if Kerry does face him down in the south, then he'd be that much stronger---but Edwards wouldn't have much of a future in the party anymore.

The danger for Kerry is that he's now expected to win all 10 and win big. That sets a pretty low bar for Edwards. The only other storyline on Tuesday night's coverage is to jump on any sign that Edwards isn't being pulverized everywhere.

Why does this matter? It's a good idea to try figuring out how the media parrotheads operate, because in anything like a close or difficult race, their attitude towards candidates can shape the campaign. The media despised Al Gore, and so they joyfully grabbed every lie and self-serving characterization the Bushies gave them. Certain of them (like the Howard Fineman/Gloria Borgia crew at CNBC) seem ready to do it to Kerry this year. But voters so far this year have been operating with their own dynamic, and the bobbleheads have been trying to adapt their patter. But they can't quite keep from spraying their cynicism everywhere. The interaction of candidates, party, voters and media will decide this campaign, and the election will decide nothing less than the forseeable future.

Post Post Debate Post

Media parrotheads bemoaned John Edwards for not picking a fight with Kerry in the debate, not going for the jugular, not attacking, and all the other stuff that gets their blood and ratings up. They saw it as surrender, since some combination of horserace and warfare is the only way the simpleminded can understand politics.

But one media sage had a different point of view---Bill Schneider, the resident political bobblehead at CNN, the one with the gnomeish half-grin and ability to do political analysis in soundbite size chunks. He saw the civility and high level of discussion at the debate, the four personalities (all different and all attractive in their own way) and their common attacks on Bush as helping the Democrats. In the week that many parrotheads were crediting Bush with retaking the political initiative with his "proposed" anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, Schneider awarded the debate his Political Play of the Week as a strong plus for the Democrats.

Also on Friday, Edwards picked up some support from Howard Dean activists in Minnesota, making that state's caucuses now his best chance to win something on Tuesday. (Still, Kerry has a lot of strength there, with AFL-CIO backing and organization. There is also the wildcard of Dennis the K who may appeal to the Greenish Dems more than Edwards.) Edwards got some good news in a poll in Maryland that shows him pretty close, but bad news from a poll in Georgia which shows Kerry with a 20 point lead among likely voters. (In other polls the race is tighter.) Kerry also got an important newspaper endorsement in Ohio.

Post Debate Post

The debate in Los Angeles, entertainment capital of the galaxy, was pretty entertaining, thanks mostly to the irrepressible Al Sharpton (with the best applause and laugh lines of the night), the unflappably sincere Dennis the K, and the subtle jabs and feints of the Johns Edwards and Kerry.

Edwards came off well. He is much better in debate, where his clarity of expression has some substance. Since we saw much of the debate on tape we were able to fast-forward through his son of a mill worker stump mantra, and some of the distinctions he draws are without a difference, but he did overtly make a case for himself (though Kerry bluntly said Edwards couldn't document any of his claims of being more attractive to independents and Republicans) and for people inclined to vote for Edwards but concerned that maybe he didn't know where Iraq is, his foreign policy answers were cogent enough to be reassuring.

Kerry gave some very effective answers, crisp and definite when they needed to be, and complete and detailed when they needed to be. He still isn't very good on explaining his position on gay marriage issues, and neither is Edwards actually, but Edwards is probably right that cultural issues do matter to some voters. Kerry is also right that they are not as important, even in how people rank their priorities to pollsters, as issues of security, jobs, health care and education.

But the built-in laughs had to do with Edwards saying that Kerry would make a great running mate, and Sharpton and Dennis the K. talking about their nomination acceptance speeches. (Sharpton actually made a good point several times that the reason for him to stay in the race is to go to the convention with delegates to affect the party platform.) The joke is based on the fact, clear to everyone, that Kerry has the nomination all but sewed up. Edwards probably did himself some good, for those disposed to search for an alternative, but for most, we suspect Kerry confirmed their confidence. Edwards may have moved a bit closer to making Minnesota and Georgia close. Minnesota in particular is difficult to predict because it is a caucus state, with lots of Dean partisans. We haven't heard anything about the Wellstone people, but if any endorse one of the candidates it could be the difference. (Dean is very unlikely to.) But for the moment we're sticking to our feeling that it will be a ten state sweep for Kerry.

This was perhaps the first debate that the death penalty came up. Kerry is the first presidential candidate in a good long while to oppose it, and though some media parrotheads thought this was a throwback, it may very well mirror the changing mood of an electorate disillusioned by mistakes and maybe, just maybe, by the reflexive vengefulness that somehow has become the conventional response. Larry King asked the Dukakis-killing type question: would he favor the death penalty for someone who murders a child? Kerry gave this a great answer, beginning by saying he'd want to choke that person with his bare hands, and that he understands this instinct, but too many condemned prisoners have proven to be innocent.

For those who think Kerry is too political, think about how courageous a stand this is. Clinton felt he had to neutralize this issue, to the extent of signing off on the execution of a mentally retarded prisoner. But given the realities of unjust executions and their symbolism in racial and class inequities reflected in the prison population, for all the conservative white votes in Georgia, for example, that Edwards might pick up by being for captial punishment, Kerry may gain black and other minority votes.

The reason that these issues did come up in this debate, besides the presence of Larry King as moderator, is that the media parrotheads are always happy to fall in line with Bush in making these so-called cultural issues important, because they are sensational, get adrenelin attention (and ratings) and they are seemingly uncomplicated, for or against, basically beyond the control of a president anyway, but a lot more fun to talk about than boring old health care and social security.

The New York Times has endorsed Kerry. The LA Times probably will as well, but even if they don't it won't help Edwards enough. California may like charm but above all wants to back the winner. With New York, California and Ohio, plus the New England states, Kerry should have a very good March 2. With Georgia and Minnesota, it will be even sweeter.

Passionified


Just a month after the merest glimpse of a black female breast became the tipping point (and is there any point in denying the unavoidable puns?) for unease and disgust with relentless commercialized crassness on television, there's pious violence and the violence of piety unleashed on movie screens. Suddenly Jews are screaming at Protestants, Catholics are screaming at Jews, and Romans are pretty upset as well. Another tipping point perhaps, or just a profitable provocation?

Let us provide you with the recovering Catholic point of view. The Passion of Christ has been a mainstay of a certain kind of Catholicism for a very long time. The in-church movie version is called the Stations of the Cross. There are graphic crucifixes, so-called holy picture, depicting in curious detail the agony of Jesus. It is a stand-in for the suffering of the poor, the mass and minions of the institutional church, to bind them to the church's doctrine and especially its authority by glorifying their suffering. It is at the same time a cleansing identification and an awful exploitation.
It is a profound lesson about bearing the crosses of life, and it is a not too subtle suggestion that good Christians seek solace instead of justice.

This is not the Bleeding Heart of Jesus. No, that Jesus is struck to the quick by the suffering of the poor, the hungry the sick, the mistreated, the victims of injustice and oppression. That's what your religious right is criticizing when they sneer at Bleeding Heart Liberals.

No, the Passion is about quaking in your pew. Sure, it's actually about sacrifice, a somewhat new take on a very old theme, perhaps even a primordial one, and certainly a mystery of human societies. The blood sacrifice. But as the Church used it for centuries, it was about scaring the hell out of you.

It is not, you notice, the Christian message of charity, mercy, blessed are the peacemakers. It's not about love. It's about fear.

And it's about visceral emotions, not cultivating a new way of thinking, feeling and behaving, as one might argue is the contribution of Christ, as well as Buddha and other heroes of the human soul.

So it was only a matter of time before the Passion became an action movie. The bad guys, the ultimate Good Guy, the blood, the violence. Except for the extent of the violence and the names of the main characters, the Gibson movie apparently is little different from others in the genre.

We say that based on what's been written about it, and especially on the scenes shown on TV. We haven't seen it, and we don't plan to.

From what we have seen and what we've heard described, it is a combination of movie sadism and Catholic sado-masochism. It's the greatest pornography ever sold.

I can quit anytime!

But I choose to talk about primary politics again. John Kerry swept the small state primaries and caucuses Tuesday, as expected, and by margins that show no movement for Edwards. Looking forward to Super Tuesday next week,polls in California and New York don't show much movement either. Even if Edwards closes in the final week, he doesn't seem to be close enough to win any of the big states, and Kerry is getting the endorsements in the small states, too. Edwards got bumps from big newspaper endorsements in Iowa and Wisconsin, but that's unlikely to happen with the biggest newspapers in New York and California. So the only revision to our prediction last week is that Kerry is now likely to win them all, including Georgia, where years of Civil Rights service are serving him well in a state where African Americans make up about half the voting Democrats. California and New York are secure, and Ohio seems so now. Minnesota voters may remember Kerry's kinship with Paul Wellstone in the Senate. Edwards isn't even on the ballot in Vermont. Where's he going to win? Massachusetts?

In other news, the Secretary of Education who called the National Education Association a terrorist organization said he was just kidding. Officials of the NEA now residing at Guantanamo could not be reached for comment.

Simple, Effective and Forbidden


Let's take a break from the campaign trail and talk about something that is apparently too radical even for Ralph Nader.

A big issue this year that is likely to get bigger is jobs. The U.S. economy has not been creating jobs at the rate of people entering the job market. In fact it has been losing jobs, so even modest job creation will not undo the damage for a long time. There will be people who need to make a living, who can't get jobs.

That's behind a lot of the anti-NAFTA rhetoric, and the furor over out-sourcing: American companies firing or failing to hire U.S. workers in favor of workers in other countries who are paid less, sometimes a small fraction of what U.S. workers would get.

It's also reflected in today's announcement that consumer confidence dropped significantly last month.

G.W. Bush's trickle down economics isn't working, which is hardly a surprise. The Democratic candidates have a number of proposals to encourage job creation, reduce outsourcing and reform trade agreements to build in fair wages as well as environmental standards, which would as a byproduct make some outsourcing economically less enticing.

John Kerry has proposed combining the meeting of environmental and even national security needs by jump-starting a larger scale alternative energy industry, to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases, lessen dependence on foreign oil and create jobs. He estimates half a million jobs. That in itself is not a lot, but a new industry can have a synergistic effect. It's a good idea.

So is attacking the problem from another direction. Kerry believes that creating a better health care insurance system that takes great financial burdens off both workers and employers is part of the solution. He talks about this in terms of cutting costs, and he's right.

But this approach suggests something else-a much simpler and, in our current politics, much too radical solution, that some thirty-five years ago was talked about as just about inevitable.

Even more than thirty-five or forty years ago, people who thought about economic and social trends, and thought about the future, saw a major problem emerging in the rapid development of technology, especially that part of it which at the time was often called automation.

It was clear that although new technology would create many new jobs, it would also destroy many jobs. It would at the very least redistribute jobs and wealth. There would be winners and there would be losers.

What should be done about the losers? That was the question. Future-oriented thinkers looked at how much wealth was being created and would be created, and the trend towards expanding the purview of social justice, and they concluded: because the losers weren't themselves responsible for their plight, since they were victims of technology and global economics, society owed them the living they were going to be denied.

From this sprang the idea of the Guaranteed Annual Income. In most scenarios, it was very simple: everybody would be guaranteed an income sufficient to meet their basic needs. It was so clear that society would be able to afford to do this that the debate moved on to consider long-term social and cultural ramifications. But by the late 1960s, many influential economists and even some politicians assumed it was going to be necessary.

Besides the social responsibility to those who lost out through no fault of their own, there was a second reason for the GAI. This was an idea that crossed political, economic and social lines, as evidenced by the two men who did the most to put it into practice: Henry Ford and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The idea is simply that if people can't afford to buy things, the economy collapses. Henry Ford paid his workers better wages than he needed to, and said quite clearly that this was the reason: he wanted people to be able to afford to buy his cars. FDR was persuaded to enact those New Deal programs that directly paid millions of individuals for various kinds of work that became defined as being in the public good, because people can't spend what they don't have.

Since World War II, the U.S. has fostered a predominately consumer economy. The high consumption lifestyle is spreading with globalization. As it is now developing, that economy is unsustainable simply on environmental grounds. And not even a Guaranteed Annual Income will work until the economic addiction to manufacturing need and greed is dealt with, probably by being diverted. But even so, it's quite clear that an economy that is based on consumption, but concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, is headed for disaster.

So the GAI seemed like a sensible way to both guarantee that people weren't penalized for job losses that weren't their fault, and to guarantee that money for consumption would still flow. Guess what? It still is.

It works for those who lose their jobs because of outsourcing, which is in its way a byproduct of technology. It works to ease the economy through periods of transition. And it can have numerous other benefits, such as freeing people to do work for the public good. We're still living off of some of those "make work" programs of the 1930s that supplied us with so much public infrastructure, began conservation and left us a legacy in the arts that's as close to a golden age as America has seen since Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville and Whitman were chums.

There are a few proposals currently making the rounds that go about this in a piecemeal or partial fashion. There's the proposal that companies that outsource devote a percentage of the profits they derive by doing so to support workers they displace. There are proposals for various forms of national service that guarantee an income in exchange for public works. Even these health insurance proposals, if they in fact cut health care costs for all citizens, wind up being guaranteed additions to income.

But of course you never hear political figures propose a Guaranteed Annual Income anymore. It's just one of those sixties fantasies of the future now. The kind of thing you'd expect from Marshall McLuhan, say, or Buckminster Fuller, who proposed that the government pay people (like him, for example) just to think. (And he was pretty persuasive that the government would end up making a profit on it.)

On a day that the current president proposes a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, it's not hard to figure out why. In many ways things are changing way too fast, but in other ways, change is much slower and more fitful than anyone would have believed a generation ago. They not only expected we'd have the equivalent of universal healthcare and the GAI by now, but we'd have colonies on the moon and spaceships headed for Jupiter.

So we torture ourselves with complicated half-solutions to problems, admittedly more complex than they appeared in the sixties, but still subject to much simpler solutions. The Guaranteed Annual Income is such an idea. In terms of need, its time has come. But we are so far from it that to even mention it is politically suicidal, and intellectually forbidden.

Lies and Body Bags

So G.W. Bush is beginning his campaign early, trying to stop the bleeding. If the bit we saw on TV is a preview of his campaign, we can’t wait. Poorly delivered same old same old, as if he doesn’t actually want to be president anymore…

Just as we predicted, Ralph Nader put the interests of the nation ahead of himself and…unh, never mind. But the reaction’s been interesting: Democrats are ANGRY with him (seems to be the mood all right) and the pundits seem almost unanimous that he is either not going to have much of an effect in 04, or could actually help the Democratic nominee. Perhaps by adding to the assaults on Bush policies, perhaps by making the Dem nominee look moderate in contrast, or perhaps (the weakest argument, and it’s his) by giving disaffected GOPers someplace to go if voting Dem makes them barf. And as we did sort of predict, Howard Dean immediately issued a statement cautioning his supporters not to throw away their vote, but stick with the Democrat who can beat Bush.

Nader spent Monday on a parade of TV shows. Best question was asked by Jim Leher: who is cheering today? Who is supporting you?

Over the weekend there was a very edgy exchange between the Bush people and the Kerry people, over a Georgia GOP Senator’s warning that Kerry was vulnerable on defense because he’d voted against every weapons system, etc. Max Cleland, who this senator beat, went after him for criticizing a war hero when he’d gotten out of the draft with a trick knee. That seemed a bit over the top, even from an amputee veteran. But Kerry’s response, while similar, was nuanced enough to indicate that he was aware of the underlying message in this attack---that he was soft on defense and hence wouldn’t protect America and hence didn’t love America, etc.---and that he was going to play hardball too, to fend it off. His statement that he didn’t know what Republicans who didn’t serve had against Democrats who did, was not justified by the literal meaning of what he was attacked for (as noted in the White House response.) But it was a return of fire with the weapons he had, showing that if the underlying message was to question his patriotism and willingness to defend the country, he would reply to that underlying message, regardless of what the literal message was, since it was smokescreen. This is pretty sophisticated stuff. It’s live ammo, and it’s dangerous, but it’s powerful, and shows an awareness that’s been missing from Dem campaigns of the past.

On the styles of Kerry and Edwards: it’s become conventional wisdom among the media bobbleheads that Kerry is a stiff and Edwards is the personable, dynamic one. Two things wrong with this. First, if it’s based on recent weeks, it turns out that Kerry has been under the weather, but emerged healthy after finally taking two days off, energizing crowds in Atlanta, bantering with people at a town meeting (Woman in crowd: “Hi, My name is Doris, and I’m a recovering Republican.” Kerry: “I’ve got a one step program for you: vote for Kerry.”)

When he simply showed up for services at Martin Luther King Jr.’s church the congregation was ecstatic. So there’s charisma there that voters are finding, even if the media can't.

Second, the media is still stuck on the Clinton model. Edwards looks and sounds and acts more like Clinton, therefore he’s a better campaigner, the kind people are comfortable with, and want to have on their TV screens for four years, etc ad naseuam. We don’t buy it. Apart from our feeling that Edwards image doesn’t wear well, there’s this to consider: styles change. What attracts people changes, and something different is usually part of the attraction. Plus, and this is the major point: we already elected this folksy nice guy, and where did that get us? Why is the Dem who reminds you of Bush going to be attractive to voters who want more than anything to get rid of Bush? They want the anti-Bush, and that may well extend to style as well as substance.

A couple of other weekend stories: on the extent and power of the Democrats’ anger at Bush (even stronger, some pundits say, than the antipathy of GOPers against Clinton), and one on Republicans who are turning against Bush. (If we were good little bloggers we’d have the URLs for you, but we didn’t record them. Sorry.) The most telling comment of why these GOPers turned against Bush was the most succinct: “Lies and body bags. Bad combination.”

Darth Nader

So focused on beating Bush are some prominent progressives and (progressive media) that they are begging Ralph Nader not to run for president in 2004. This is the Lesson Learned from 2000, and part one of What We're Bitter About (in terms of it surfacing, not in importance or bitterness, for part two is Florida Disenfranchises Black Voters and part three is the really big Scalia Appoints the President.)

The Nader nattering is happening now because Nader has used it to get himself booked on Meet the Press on Sunday, which has replaced the press conference in the old home town or even Larry King Live as the place to announce your candidacy. He says he'll announce his decision then and there. Those who claim to be In the Know say he will announce he'll run as an independent (not Green Party) candidate. We're not so sure. Last time we saw an actual statement by Nader he said something like he'd decide based on grassroots support, but that he hadn't detected much so far. That was not more than a week ago. The grassroots are no Greener this week. So he might not. (But then again, we thought Colin Powell would prevent Bush from launching a stupid preemptive war on Iraq.)

Could Nader strip enough votes from Kerry---ah, sorry, the Democratic nominee---to throw the election to Bush? The Big Nightmare of 2004? (Or one of them.) Some say he won't get nearly as many votes in 04 as in 00---there just isn't going to be much of that Gush v. Bore, they are all the same horseshit. Well, that's probably right. But then again, Pat Buchanan isn't running, and the votes he took from Bush in 00 and won't take in 04 might make up the difference. So yes, Nader could cause trouble, maybe even enough to...no, we can't even SAY IT.

There are people out there who see the president or even the Candidate as some sort of hero-god; they love Him and if he Fails somehow they are Crushed. They're so pure they won't vote for anybody human unless they're vegan. (Vegans are usually human, except the ones from Vega.) They are therefore always setting themselves up for 1) Disappointment, and 2) exploitation. Ralph Nader is a crusader. He's succeeded by being relentless, if not fanatic. I don't know if he's a raging egotist at this point, but sometimes he acts like one. That's the other side of being relentless and fanatical. And so invested in purity. He should probably just take Holy Orders and start a monastery of Nader's Pray-ers.

Nader might believe that the time is right to absorb angry Deaniacs, now that John--I mean--Howard has gotten out of the race. And he might attract some , especially the Vegans (the ones from Vega who don't understand earth politics and have a culture that worships emotion and thinks logic is bad.) But if Nader does announce, Howard Dean has to get out there RIGHT AWAY and gently but firmly tell his supporters that their campaign was about defeating George Bush, and not to take their eye off the ball. They would be subverting everything they accomplished in making the Democratic candidates bolder and more aggressive. Eventually Dennis the K has to do the same thing, for his following is easily as fervent as Dean's and Greens.

It will be best for Nader and certainly best for the country if Nader announces that he's not running. But even if he does, there's a long way to go...We're likely to see at least two major shifts before it's over. At some point before the conventions, Bush's money is going to start wearing at Kerry's image, then the Dem convention will give Kerry a bounce, and then the GOP convention will give Bush a bounce, and then we'll see who takes the momentum. Of course, this year has been so unpredictable all that may be bullshit. But there is a decent chance that Kerry is going to win by a margin no one is predicting at the moment, and Nader won't matter. But even so, getting in the race gives the Bushies hope. And we hate to do that.

Early polls in New York and California show Kerry 40 to 50 points ahead of Edwards for Super Tuesday. But this is not a "comfortable" lead, in that this is no time for Kerry to get comfortable. But it's also hardly reason to worry. Kerry's been up and down on the stump, but when he's good---as he was in his interview this week with the PBS Newshour---he's excellent. He inspires confidence. Suggests to us once again that when he's engaged, he can outshine Edwards in the debate forum that Edwards wants desperately to use to boost his candidacy.

Bush is losing credibility like air from a punctured balloon. This week, two reports signed by Nobel scientists said his administration is distorting scientific facts for political gain (wonder where he got that idea?) and Bush himself had to disavow the prediction for job growth that he signed off on a week ago.

And so far the usual rabid right techniques haven't even begun to work. The rumors of illicit romance fizzled--it was supposed to be an intern naturally---when the woman not-involved denied it, and incidentally, denied she'd ever been an intern, and her parents declared for Kerry--and the incredibly damning photo showing John Kerry and the wicked witch of the right, Jane Fonda AT THE SAME PODIUM IN 1971! turned out to be a fake. Not only that, but the actual photo of Kerry alone at the podium was taken by a guy who is now a PROFESSOR OF JOURNALISM ETHICS, and guess what? He's really pissed.

The Day After

A day earlier than expected, Howard Dean dropped out of the presidential primary race, saying he would support the eventual Democratic nominee, and will dedicate his organization to defeating G.W. Bush in November.

A USA Today poll showed John Kerry with a double digit lead over Bush among likely voters. For the first time, another Democrat—John Edwards—also is shown beating Bush, though only Kerry polls over Bush among “all voters.”

Edwards is getting a bump from the coverage, though some question whether that’s because the pollsters stopped polling too soon, and his “surprise” showing was more a story about the polls than about him. The coverage also invites more scrutiny, and while many agree he is an attractive candidate, they question his credentials. For example, NY Times columnist Richard Cohen begins his Thursday column this way: “In his stump speech, John Edwards talks about a girl ‘somewhere in America’who ‘will go to bed hungry, hoping and praying that tomorrow will not be as cold as today, because she doesn't have the coat to keep her warm.’ That wan and pitiful child, a creation of Edwards's vivid imagination, has been on my mind a lot lately. I can see Edwards tucking her in. But I'm not sure he knows what to do with her once she wakes up.”

The Wisconsin stats also show that despite Edwards’ appeal to the jobless and poor, Kerry carried the vote of voters in the lowest socioeconomic categories.

The talk continues to be that Edwards will essentially bypass California (where one byliner felt his star quality would help him) to concentrate on Ohio and Georgia, and either New York or Minnesota, depending on the story, and perhaps Maryland. Of the ten states on Super Tuesday, we still think California, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont will go big for Kerry; Minnesota, Maryland and Ohio will go to Kerry but perhaps by under 10 points, and Georgia is a toss-up. But of course there are still 13 days to go. Kerry will probably stagger endorsements throughout the period so there's a news hook every day for him. So far Edwards has only demonstrated that with a concerted effort, outspending on media and with lots of personal campaigning, he can surge towards election day and...come in a closer than expected second, except in the state where he was born, which he won (and where Kerry did not exert maximum effort to defeat him.) His best shot, say the pundits, is the debate. That shouldn't be terribly comforting to his supporters.

What happened in Wisconsin

John Kerry won the primary with about 40% of the total vote. John Edwards got about 34%, with Howard Dean getting only about 18%. Edwards' better-than- expected second place showing (of course we called that part) was probably due to a set of conditions and situations that won't be repeated for the rest of the primary season. (Which is not to say that he won't do well or even win some other states.)

Wisconsin allows voters to choose which primary-the Republican or Democrat-- they want to vote in, regardless of their party registration. That doesn't happen again, at least not in any of the big states coming up. Edwards got a lot of Republican votes and a sizeable number of Independents. Kerry did about as well with Democrats (nearly 50%) as he has in most other states, and his numbers in the various exit poll categories (by race, etc.) remained about the same.

Does Edwards' strength with non-Democrats say something about his appeal in the general election? Not necessarily. None of the media bobbleheads mentioned this, and we haven't seen geographical breakdowns yet, but we're guessing he got a lot of votes in Madison and Milwaukee from students and others who were voting to keep the process going---that is, to not settle on the candidate quite yet. Though Howard Dean might have expected to get that vote, probably it went significantly to Edwards. Edwards had the not-Kerry buzz in the past few days. (He was endorsed by the biggest newspapers in Milwaukee and Madison.) Kerry's percentage was down between one and five points from pre-election polls, but Edwards' was up considerably, indicating that he probably took more votes from Howard Dean than from Kerry.

Another factor clearly was his anti-NAFTA emphasis in the final week of campaigning. NAFTA is a weird issue. It resonates both with the anti-globalism left and with the Pat Buchanan far right, who couple it with being anti-immigration. As the only candidate on either ballot (including Bush) talking the anti-NAFTA talk in a state that has lost jobs, some to Mexico and other countries, Edwards was a magnet for disaffected voters of both kinds. Besides, with Kerry's string of victories and the fact that he is the presumptive nominee, voters are beginning to talk about casting "symbolic" votes, because they don't think those votes will matter, Kerry will win anyway.

The media bobbleheads were falling all over themselves early praising Edwards, salivating for a close race and a chance to dis Kerry, but by the end they had to admit that tomorrow's headline would be that Kerry won (which it is, in the NY Times and USA Today, with Kerry's picture on page one.) They talked about Edwards' appeal and eloquence as a speaker, which is frankly lost on us. As we said, he doesn't wear well. They dissed Kerry for giving the same victory speech as he has for weeks, and they were right to do that---he really needs to retire a good bit of it. But there were differences, he did emphasize jobs and trades more, earlier in the speech than usual. And Edwards isn't saying anything new really; they're just paying attention for once.

The political play of the evening was the order of after-election speeches. Howard Dean went first, and the networks covered his every word, just in case he might make news by dropping out, but he didn't say much new---just emphasized what his movement has accomplished and that it will go on, which suggests what some were saying today, that he's looking for a way to retire as a candidate but stay in it as head of a kind of issues oriented Internet Army movement.

But just as Dean was coming down the home stretch, John Edwards leapt on his stage and started talking and pumping his arms and grinning, and the networks abruptly abandoned Dean to cover what an Edwards aide had billed as the most important speech of his political life (for at least the second time so far). Apparently he had planned to speak long before this, when he was a good deal closer in early returns, but the room at his headquarters was half-empty and his people delayed his appearance until they could scare up more of a crowd from a nearby bowling alley. He got out one good line, that the message of the primary vote was : "Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear."

But just as Edwards was getting started, John Kerry appeared on the stage of his headquarters, and every one of the networks and cable stations switched to him giving his stump speech (since by then he was clearly the winner), effectively erasing Edwards' "give me a second look" speech.

Edwards had probably started his momentum with his NAFTA talk and a moment in the debate when he caught Kerry talking like the nominee already, saying "I" will beat George Bush. "Just a minute, John Kerry," Edwards said, and with that became the "let the process go on" candidate. But the mishandling of the timing of his speech may have cost him almost as much as his showing gained him.

Earlier in the day, a distracted looking Kerry had said something to a reporter about candidates not cherry-picking one state or another to run in, that like him they should campaign in every state. He's said this before but in the context of the Edwards showing, some bobbleheads acted as if they hadn't heard it before. But he had a point in Wisconsin, because Edwards really did direct a lot of resources there. He spent more time there than Kerry, and even outspent Kerry on media advertising.

For that he gets the chance to reap some free exposure with media that have little else to report on for a couple of weeks until Super Tuesday, when Edwards' candidacy will be duly slaughtered. (Kerry will actually have a few more victories next week, in small states.) A lot depends on how much money this showing will inspire. But Edwards is still probably not going to be competitive in many of the Super Tuesday states, like California and Minnesota. He's apparently looking to mount special efforts in Georgia (the one Southern state of that day) and New York State (campaigning in the upstate industrial cities with his anti-NAFTA song); the test of his appeal will probably be in Ohio. If he can win an industrial heartland state, then he’s shown something.

Kerry is probably kicking himself for not spending more in Wisconsin but the challenge should energize him and alert his campaign. (Maybe even inspire them to write a new speech.) It should also alert his voters, that this is no time for symbolic votes. His fundamentals in Wisconsin were undamaged---the 50% of Democrats, the 80% of all voters who said they would be satisfied with him as the nominee, including 70% who voted for Edwards. At this point Kerry is still likely to win most of the Super Tuesday primaries and enough delegates to be within mathematical striking distance. It gets a little tricky the week after Super Tuesday with a slate of Southern primaries, but he may have enough by then to wrap up the nomination even if he doesn't win several of these states outright.

Several things to watch in the next week or so: more talk of Edwards as v.p.? More media coverage of his campaign? And especially, do the expected endorsements of Kerry, by the AFL-CIO and politicians like Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania, materialize on time? One thing the media will watch because every story has to have an ending: what Howard Dean decides to do on Thursday. But whatever he does is unlikely to be much of a factor at this point. He's very unlikely to endorse anyone if he drops out, and Kerry will benefit as least as much as Edwards.

One other potentially interesting decision will be CNN's candidate debate (moderated by Larry King, as he so often reminded us for the past couple of weeks of primary coverage): they may decide to not invite Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucenic, which according to the rules they could (because they haven't gotten the threshold percentage of votes). If Dean has dropped out by then, it could be John Edwards' fond desire: a two-person debate. That would be pretty interesting, and not at all certain that it would really be so good for Edwards. But they are two very smart guys, both of them former trial lawyers, so it could be fun to watch.

A brief word on a subject that deserves longer treatment, but it does cut to the chase: the debate this week raging among the media bobbleheads and in the august pages of various Times about G.W.'s service record during the Vietnam war largely misses the point. The element that makes this an important consideration (though not an "issue") is that G.W. Bush supported the war in Vietnam---he thought it was morally right and good policy for the U.S. to be fighting in Vietnam---just as long as it wasn't his ass on the line. He had, as Cheney described his own absense, "other priorities." He got his congressman father to jump him over 500 or so applicants ahead of him to get into the National Guard, well known as a draft dodge in 1968, and he got promoted to second lieutenant with lightning speed, for no apparent reason. That is, he avoided participating in a war he supported, and used influence to do it. It isn't that he didn't fight. It's that he wanted others to fight, but not him. That's what is so reprehensible about what he did. And why it is relevant to his fitness for the presidency now, when he has shown no compunction about sending others to die in a war of aggression he began on false pretenses.


Now, just before voting in Wisconsin begins, we risk our perfect primary record with another hunch: that John Edwards will get enough of a late surge to come in second to John Kerry, instead of third behind Howard Dean, as the most recent polls predict.

However, that said, Edwards is becoming a less attractive candidate every day. His one-note campaigning and slumped-smile demeanor isn't wearing well. We suspect his v.p. stock is also falling. So though it's likely he will be the last man standing whose name isn't Kerry, he may have a share in the spotlight for only a few more weeks, until he gets his two-man race on Super Tuesday, and doesn't do all that well.

There is also the possibility, however remote, that Howard Dean's genial demeanor at the debate did not, as the media bobbleheads concluded, signal his surrender, but was a clever play for a more sympathic image. Which might translate into votes in Wisconsin.

The day before Wisconsin...

Howard Dean's campaign chairman let it be known yesterday that after Wisconsin he would announce his support for John Kerry (he'd worked on a Kerry Senate campaign.) Today he is no longer the Dean campaign chairman, which seems to indicate that Dean is going on in some way, even after his defeat tomorrow.

John Edwards got another newspaper endorsement in Wisconsin, and people are pointing out that the poll numbers for he and Dean put together would make a competitive candidate. But he's running third in the latest polls. Will he and Dean strike a deal? Only if the deal is for Dean to pull out and support him. It will never go the other way.

We just saw C-Span coverage of a rally in Madison in which Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke. Stories about her have split, some emphasizing her outspokenness and eccentricities, others rhapsodizing her skills as a campaigner. In Kerry's victory speeches she's just been this little figure to the side in the front row on the stage, seldom in one of those waving embraces that usually characterize the shots of the Political Couple. But hearing her speak, and watching the audience, it's obvious why they say she is such a great campaigner. She speaks in a soft, accented voice, yet her audience was utterly rapt. She is not packaged, she's alive up there, cogent and eloquent. Her theme was, no more cynicism. Allow America to be the living symbol of possibility again, as it was when she grew up in East Africa. She's funny and feisty, intelligent, and you sense this individualized combination of sensuousness and elegance and a touch of wildness. She's real. And she must have that power of presence, because that audience---assembled for a rally, and therefore pumped up---hung on her every word, and was totally with her in feeling. It was something to see.

Ted Kennedy spoke next. He's 71, and has weathered well. He's slimmed down, looks healthy, sounds on top of his game, and looks pretty happy. Apparently his relationship with both Kerrys is more than political. He and his second wife befriended Teresa when she moved with Kerry to Boston. So the Kennedy continuity, a very real element that will become more important as the campaign goes on, is a living one. The Republicans can paint Ted Kennedy as the liberal devil all they want, but on President's Day in the U.S., the Gallup organization says that when asked what President in U.S. history they admire the most, it's a two way tie: Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.

Within the past few weeks, both John Edwards and Howard Dean declared Wisconsin a must-win state for their campaigns. They both backed off that stand, but if neither of them gets even a quarter of the vote, which now looks likely, they may have to avail themselves of at least a semi-withdrawal from the race. Look for Dean or Edwards or both to announce they are "suspending" their campaigns but not releasing their delegates. This gives them that remote possibility of a collapse of the Kerry campaign, or actually it would have to be a collapse of Kerry, so the convention has to turn to another nominee.

Dean is the most beleaguered. His staff is in virtual revolt, and it's likely that he will have to replace key staffers with volunteers if he is to continue his campaign in any form. John Edwards left the campaign trail to attend fund-raisers several times in the last week, so there's a real question whether he can afford to go on. Clearly neither has the money, or will get the money, to even begin to be competitive in the ten states voting on Super Tuesday, which include California, New York and Ohio.

On Saturday John Kerry won the caucuses in Nevada and in D.C. D.C. had previously given Dean his only "win" in a non-binding caucus. This however was the real one. The candidate's debate today in Wisconsin was notable for Dean backing off the opportunity to hit Kerry on special interest money, after the Bush campaign made it the subject of its first official ad (though Internet only). The Washington Post congratulated the Bushies on their nerve, for the amount of special interest money from major corporations and wealthy donors flowing into the Bush campaigns, and the obvious payoffs to past contributors, is a major Bush vulnerability. Meanwhile several public interest groups agree that when all special interest contributions are added up, Kerry ranks 92nd out of 100 Senators. He has taken less lobbyist money in this campaign than Dean, Edwards or any other Democratic candidate. Even if the total amount featured in the Bush ad is correct---$640,000 over 12 years for Kerry---it pales in comparison to Bush who took in $6.5 million in 2003 alone.

Kerry, the media bobbleheads all agreed afterwards, looked "presidential."

Another interesting moment in the Wisconsin debate was after John Edwards made his usual somewhat disingenuous pitch that he "understands" the problems of working people better because he comes from a working class background, although he doesn't dispute that Kerry and Dean would be just as sensitive to the issues of jobs and poverty. Al Sharpton debunked Edwards simply by saying that good people are good people, it doesn't matter what race or whether they went to prep school or not. Clarence Thomas is black and comes from a similar background, but he and Sharpton come to completely different conclusions on the issues, Sharpton said.

campaign update

General Wesley Clark's endorsement of John Kerry just a few days after he dropped out of the race is something of a surprise. (It's scheduled for Friday.) Though Clark was polling in the teens for the Wisconsin primary, his endorsement probably won't end up adding much more than would have gone to Kerry anyway, likely to be half or more of those numbers. The endorsement comes as Clark is being mentioned more often as a v.p. candidate, and there's a report going around that Kerry isn't real interested in Edwards. On paper, Clark is a strong v.p. choice, just as he was a strong choice to do well in the presidential primaries, on paper. The problem is that he isn't on paper. Out on the campaign trail, on his good days he was great, and on his bad days he was alarming. The Kerry campaign doesn't need a v.p. who is as likely to be a liability as a help. We hope Kerry comes up with a better choice. (The fact that insiders are mentioning him could be a trial balloon, or just to compliment him and keep him motivated, but isn't a serious consideration.) Our bet is that Clark won't be the v.p. If Kerry thinks Edwards hasn't shown enough strength in the south to warrant being on the ticket, why would he pick Clark, who has shown less? It would have to be that Kerry believes Clark has what it takes to be president should that be necessary, which reportedly is a stronger consideration for Kerry than it is for people who like to speculate and don't actually have the responsibility for the choice.

Howard Dean is now running third in Wisconsin polls, and since those polls have come out he's again changed his public position on what he will do after the primary. First he said he would be out if he lost,then he said he would stay in until the end no matter what, but at least one reporter has him saying he will go home to Vermont and think it over. He's gone negative on Kerry and it's not helping. He's apparently angry over some ads in New Hampshire by a third party that he suspects the Kerry people had something to do with, though they've denied it. Angry enough perhaps to quit the race, and endorse John Edwards.

stats of the day

proportion of voters in Virginia Democratic primary
who believe John Kerry can beat G.W. Bush...........85%

proportion of votes in TV poll on the Lou Dobbs
Moneyline conservative cable TV program who believe the payroll records
released by the White House answer all the questions
about G.W. Bush's National Guard service...........5%

who believe they don't....................................95%



Wesley Clark gave the best speech of his campaign in thanking the voters of Tennessee, but he'd come in third, and was barely above 10% of the vote in Virginia, so Wednesday he will formally announce he's dropping out of the race.

Senator John Edwards gave a variation on his homily of last week, which was at once an extraordinary moment in American politics---like you'd imagine Jimmy Stewart playing him---and also kind of weird. He'd talk about the dire straits of a worker who had to tell his young daughter he'd just been fired, and his crowd would roar and he would smile that Jimmy Carter smile.

Senator John Kerry appeared more tired and more serious than usual, and wasn't as effective in his victory speech, which hasn't varied much, but that hardly mattered. He did make sure to include the lines that the media would transform into the soundbite of the night---that America had voted for change, in the east, in the west, in the north, and now the south. In Virginia he again got more than half the votes cast. Edwards was credited with a "respectable second," though he was thirty points behind Kerry. Edwards did about the same in Tennessee but Clark was about 10 points stronger there, and Kerry was in the mid 40 percentiles.

On to Wisconsin. It's possible these three candidates will be in the race until after the last primary, and possibly until the convention. Edwards is planning on a two man race but he was running behind Clark in this week's Wisconsin polls. He doesn't automatically pick up Clark's support (as he might in a southern state) so Wisconsin will be his last real test to take his campaign to the next level. Right now Dean is running second, and he's vowed to keep on going no matter the outcome. He may pick up some of the Clark "outsider" vote, but a lot of Clark's support will probably go to Kerry. Another 50%+ win is not out of the question. That they're contesting Wisconsin is good for Kerry. He's proven something different each week. Wisconsin is the first state so far to allow Independents and Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary. That will be the headline next Tuesday.

(There will be some tempted to suggest Clark as the v.p. on a Navy-Army ticket. Bad idea. Clark is still too much of a, if you'll pardon the expression, loose cannon. He can be incisive and very effective, but sometimes his competitiveness gets the better of him. )

Dean and Edwards can continue to pick up some delegates in Super Tuesday's 10 primaries, and if Edwards has surged into second place across the board, he may pick up more in the next block of Southern primaries in mid March. But nothing short of a revelation that John Kerry started out life as Johanna is likely to stop him, and victory after victory becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy that he's a winner.

But it's not true that voters are voting for him just because he won the previous contests. The exit polls show the voters overwhelmingly believe he is the one to right the economy, to right foreign policy. In a year that seemed to be repeating the recent trend of voters going for novelty and the "outsider" candidate, primary voters cite Kerry's experience as an important reason they're voting for him, and an important reason they believe he can stand up against and beat Bush. Defeating an incumbent president who has taken the nation to war requires a candidate with stature, and Kerry is now the only candidate in the field who qualifies.

These primaries suggest that another bit of conventional wisdom may be faulty: a Massachusetts Democrat can't win in the South. We believe that Kerry's performance in the primary puts Virginia in play as well as Tennesee, along with Arkansas, Louisiana and---above all---Florida, where the African American vote is going to be huge, assuming they are permitted to vote this time. (Media bobbleheads who claim a Democrat can't win Virginia should notice that Kerry was standing next to the Democratic governor of Virginia, who had endorsed him and introduced him for his victory speech.

The only fly in the ointment so far: apparently all this corporation bashing has cut into the soft money that the Democratic party wants to raise, to counter the upcoming onslaught of slick negative advertising the Republicans must already be putting together. So we'll see if Americans can still be swayed into voting against their own interests by fifteen seconds of slick deception, repeated a hundred times a day.