Best of the Blogs

Here we go

Jerry has been wondering if reformed boozeaholic Shrubby sometimes grabs a sixpack and some salty pretzels and sneaks upstairs to cop a buzz. Well, here’s a clue… According to Paola Boivin of the Arizona Republic, he has the Secret Service schlep around his own stash of, uh… non-alcoholic beer. That, to wash down a plate of cheese enchiladas at "The Tee Pee" a Phoenix eatery. Aren't the beef rangers putting enough money into the till to rate the prez eating beef enchiladas? Or is closet paranoia about mad cow permeating the West Wing? An old twelve steppin’ friend of mine told me that over at the meetings (not Aschcroft’s daily prayer sessions but the AA ones) they say non-alcoholic beer is for… non-alcoholics. Wonder if he drinks Sharps, Cutter, or the high priced imports?

posted by Groom 3:50 PM

The Question of Legitimacy

In a long and thoughtful essay in today’s New York Times titled A Tougher War for the U.S. Is One of Legitimacy, Robert Kagan worries that the fissures between the European and American “world views” that were unearthed by disagreements over the Iraq war may become an “enduring feature of the international landscape,” with seriously debilitating consequences for both the United States and Europe.

“For Europe and the United States to decouple strategically has been bad enough,” he writes. “But what if the schism over "world order" infects the rest of what we have known as the liberal West? Will the West still be the West?”

The essence of the rift is that Europeans believe the world is not as dangerous as Americans say at precisely the moment that Americans have decided that the world is far more dangerous than we thought. Implicit in Kagan’s argument is that the Bush administration’s extremely narrow definition of our “national interest” has been not simply a public relations failure but also a strategic mistake.

“We fight not just for ourselves but for all mankind,’" Benjamin Franklin declared of the American Revolution, and whether or not that has always been true, most Americans have always wanted to believe that it is true. There can be no clear dividing line between the domestic and the foreign, therefore, and no clear distinction between what the democratic world thinks about America and what Americans think about themselves.

Because Americans do care what others think of them, Kagan argues that we cannot ignore the steady denial of international legitimacy by fellow democracies which “will over time become debilitating and perhaps even paralyzing.” Kagan lays the blame for the unipolar predicament squarely on “the narrow realism that dominated in Republican foreign policy circles during the Clinton years” and specifically on Condoleezza Rice, the Stepford national security adviser, who wrote in a famous essay in January 2000, that Clinton administration had failed to focus on the "national interest" and instead had addressed itself to "humanitarian interests" or the interests of "the international community." The Bush administration, she argued, would take a fresh look at all treaties, obligations and alliances and re-evaluate them in terms of America's "national interest."

The notion that the United States could take such a narrow view of its "national interest" has always been mistaken. But besides being an analytical error, the enunciation of this "realist" approach by the sole superpower in a unipolar era was a serious foreign policy error. The global hegemon cannot proclaim to the world that it will be guided only by its own definition of its "national interest."

The bottom line, in Kagan’s view, is that the legitimacy of American power and American global leadership has come to be doubted by a majority of Europeans and “America, for the first time since World War II, is suffering a crisis of international legitimacy.”

Kagan clearly fears that the now famed “transatlantic rift” may become permanent and damaging to both the U.S. and Europe. What he doesn’t address is the very real possibility that the “rift” is more a matter of style, than substance. Suppose the president hadn’t said you are either with us or against us in the war on terror and forced many countries to say, well, yes, we’re with you but there are important issues other than terrorism and weapons of mass destruction? Suppose Donald Rumsfeld had not been so rude in his dealings with “old Europe.” Suppose the administration hadn’t published its provocative “preemptive security strategy?” Suppose Condolezza Rice had been a seasoned diplomat instead of a closeted academic naïf? Suppose Colin Powell hadn’t done his shuck and jive show at the UN? Suppose Dick Cheney were sane?

In short, is there really anything wrong with our relationship with our old friends in Europe that couldn’t be fixed by sensible regime change in Washington? I suspect not.

posted by Jerry Bowles 12:57 PM

Is Blair on borrowed time?

Closing his letter from America early this morning Alistair Cooke of the BBC made a facetious reference to Iraq and “onward Christian soldiers.” In less than 72 hours Lord Hutton will issue a report on his inquiry that will determine whether Britain’s most unlikely Christian soldier, prime minister Tony Blair will have to resign for presiding over a plan to falsify information about Iraq’s WMD programs and mislead Britain into war.

Conservative Party leader Michael Howard has already accused Blair of lying. Former Labor foreign secretary Robin Cook has called for Blair to admit that going to war with Iraq was a mistake. New true lies put out by 10 Downing and the White House affirming “we know we’re gonna’ find ‘em.” Lord Cheney with his bullshit act stinking up the joint in Davos.

Most American’s can’t comprehend the moral and political implications when a Foreign Secretary in Britain resigns. Blair is the first PM to face an “inquiry” in three centuries. Defence Ministry “consultant” David Kelly apparently did a “self-suicide” after suggesting that Blair’s government wanted the Iraq WMD info “sexed up.” Now top US WMD sleuth David Kay has resigned.

Blair left himself a subtle out. But the US corporate media, like Leon the overpaid football star in the Budweiser ads, don’t wanna go there. He told the Hutton inquiry that he started putting the “plan” in motion half an hour after a call with president Bush.

posted by Groom 8:57 AM

Stand by your man '04

Judy Dean's TV moment: She loves her work and her husband and doesn't love the spotlight. What could be more normal?

Win or lose, and there's still a long way to go before that's decided, this piece on Salon reminds me of why so many of us love Howard Dean and see an honest man, warts and all, as just what the country needs. I especially like the second to the last paragraph.

"As eager as we all may be to turn Judy Steinberg Dean into a symbol of something -- to tattoo "cold careerist bitch," "feminist role model" or "passive-aggressive wife" onto her body -- it turns out that she may just be a boring, sweet, smart Jewish girl who loves her family and her work. Journalists like me and Jodi Wilgoren and Maureen Dowd -- people who obviously like attention and are fascinated by power -- cannot fathom why a woman wouldn't be thrilled to be in the center of a political lightning storm. We try to cast her and re-cast her, chew on this mystery meat until we can name her. But that exercise apparently reveals more about us than it does about our subject."

What the interview showed is a thoughtful, sweet, smart Wasp guy who loves his family and his work, who may have a bit of a temper but is clearly rock-solid when it comes to knowing what's important.

posted by John 12:37 AM

Friday, January 23, 2004

Weapon? Weapons? Who's Seen the Weapons?

BBC world headlines story: US chief Iraq arms expert quits

David Kay resigns and tells a reporter he saw no evidence of illegal arms programmes in Iraq after 1991.

posted by John 11:38 PM

Yo, Dick. Jury's In

"The jury is still out," Vice President Dick Cheney. Reuters, January 21, 2004

"I don't think they existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s." David Kay. Reuters, January 23, 2004

posted by Jerry Bowles 10:05 PM

Bush marginalizing US Moslems

Although Shrubby received a lot of baksheesh and votes from the Moslem community in the jacked 2000 election,the BBC is reporting that growing numbers now feel marginalized and treated like second-class citizens as the result of the Patriot Act and other "homeland security" politics. Are we ready for an estimated 8 million Koran dads and moms leaning toward the Democratic candidate.

posted by Groom 5:27 PM

It’s Kerry’s to Lose

Based on last night’s debate performance and his increasing lead over the once-front runner, it’s Kerry’s race to lose. He has Clark’s medals, he has Lieberman’s track record in the Senate, he’s even tempered and a calming contrast to Dean, and he has that Lincolnesque central-casting look about him that dwarfs Teddy Bear Edwards. Saturday Kerry takes to the ice for his Bill Clinton saxophone moment when he plays hockey in a charity benefit with former Boston Bruins. All he has to do is drop his gloves and take a few swats at Terry O'Riley and Joe-six pack and his NASCAR buddies will say, “that’s my guy.”

I don’t like it, but my vote in the primary will come too late in the process. If Kerry wins South Carolina (Arizona and Delaware don’t count), it’s all over. Clark needs a third place finish in New Hampshire (look out general there is a Teddy Bear sneaking up on you) and a win in South Carolina to be taken seriously again.

I don’t see Lieberman or Dean doing the right thing, dropping out, if they don’t win NH or South Carolina. There is nothing happening in Missouri, now that Gephardt is out. They don’t even expect a heavy turnout, but hope to break the 19 percent participation mark from the last time around. Not a good sign for a supposedly anti-Bush sentiment in the heartland of America and the ability of any of these candidates to engage the public.

posted by Josh 1:07 PM

The Executioner’s Song

Why is it whenever I listen to Dick Cheney, and let’s face it, as a humble voter I don’t get many chances, I feel like following him right up the mountain and into that cave, never to return again? He sounds so reasonable, so well-informed, so Walter-Cronkite-comforting – all those things that Shrubby lacks. His voice reminds me of that old Scarlett O’Hara cliché, “Butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth.” For the first 30 seconds or so a thought flies through my head that maybe we aren’t all doomed with this crowd…. Maybe someone actually knows what is going on and has the sense and maturity to protect me.

And then one starts to look at what he is actually saying. He’s still out there claiming that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were inexorably linked, and that WMD’s are still to be found. His evidence for the Al-Qaeda links are that there were terrorists living in Baghdad. Okay, Dick, but what about the no-tell hotels in Moghadishu and Khartoum? And what “jury” is still out on WMD’s? O.J.'s?

posted by Evelyn 8:47 AM

Ain’t no high wage jobs in Texarkana

If it sounds like Buck Owens “Waitin’ in the Welfare Line” or Johnny Paycheck’s “You Can Take This Job and Shove It” it should. Manpower’s usually upbeat quarterly job survey indicates that the “Bush recovery” is nothing but Shrubby and Snowman lying through their teeth to cover up an economy that is a hotbed of inertia. Sixty one percent of those employers surveyed said they plan to offer the same number of jobs as last quarter while thirteen percent said they plan to cut back. That’s three steps backward for each step forward. And just a reminder... the Bush administration declared that the "national recession" officially ended in November, 2001.

posted by Groom 6:09 AM

Thursday, January 22, 2004

Deserter in Chief

In the Faux News "analysis" of tonight's debate, wingnuts Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke were SHOCKED, SHOCKED, SHOCKED that Wesley Clark failed to repudiate Michael Moore's characterization of Shrub as a "deserter" in Clark's presence at a press conference the other day. The setup question--asked of Clark by fellow wingnut Brit Hume who was on the panel--seemed premised on the notion that this was such an outrageous allegation that any right-thinking American would immediately repudiate it. How dare anyone suggest that our commander in chief failed to meet his minimum obligations to his draft-dodging National Guard unit?

Now, of course, those of who pay attention know the story by heart. Like many other fortunate sons during the Viet Nam war, Shrub used his daddy's contacts to get himself into the Texas National Guard and despite being a self-confessed drunk and having mediocre grades and test scores, got himself into the flight program. He dropped out of that program a couple of years later (about the time that mandatory drug testing of pilots was instituted) and had himself transferred to some base in Podunk, Alabama where nobody recalls ever having seen him attend a required meeting. It may not be "desertion" in the literal sense but it is far from a dinstinguished military record.

And the original source of this spurious information is not Michael Moore or some other rabid partisan but Walter Robinson, a highly respected investigative reporter for the Boston Globe.

The General said the right political thing which is that Moore is entitled to his opinion, that he--Clark--has not looked into the matter and, anyway, it wasn't important to what he was trying to do.

It's not General Clark's duty to defend Junior Bush from his rowdy and reckless past. And, if the Republicans want to re-open this nasty can of worms, I say: bring it on.

posted by Jerry Bowles 11:21 PM

Clark team-building skills attract a very “un-Deaniac” crew in NH

Back in college, when my mentors at the Deke House were sending me through unspeakable acts of hazing teaching me to “learn to lie” (Shrub learned that trick at the Yale house, I suspect) my friend George Rickey was coming home with stories about how Marine drill sergeants were crushing bananas on his head during ROTC summer camp. After leaving Miami “the cradle of coaches” University, George became a jet jockey for Marine aviation and I wound up at Rolling Stone.

After many missions dropping bombs on those “secret areas” where Henry Kissinger wanted to roll the dice, George went to Okinawa and then he migrated away from the Corps. He comes from a long line of American patriots; there’s a bridge named after his grandfather somewhere in central Massachusetts. And of course, he’s been a lifelong Republican.

I’m not surprised that George threw his hat in the ring with Wes Clark. He saw a true leadership vacuum. Clark may have made the transition from being a lukewarm GOP supporter to a Democrat for that same reason. Remember the stories about how as a young Army officer Colin Powell was a Democrat, then something happened.

George and other New Hampshire vets met with Clark and organized a few events in New Hampshire that were more successful than some of the shindigs the paid professional consultants cooked up. One reason they were successful is that, unlike some of the Deaniacs, they listen more than they talk.

“Leadership and team building is intuitive to him,” George said of Clark. That’s the quote that the New York Times ran today. Facing another local veteran hero in “Comeback Kerry” and a retooled Howard Dean, it will be interesting to see how Wes Clark projects his style of leadership in the New Hampshire debate this evening.

posted by Groom 5:20 PM

Pentagon soft on e-vote security

When you’ve jacked one election and are preparing to jack another, you don’t talk about securing the electoral process in your State of the “Union” message to the people. You continue to scare the American people into submission with an un-democratic agenda designed to keep the nation “secure” while your donors profit from a “war on terror“ touched off by your family’s friends from Saudi Arabia.

All those women and men in uniform protecting the home front from terrorism in Iraq who were a backdrop for your Thanksgiving photo op are prospective voters in the 2004 election. Now, a study by four electronic voting experts finds that the e-vote system known by its acronym SERVE (Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment) for military (and civilian personnel) is about as secure as a GI guarding Paul Bremer‘s office in Baghdad without a bulletproof vest.

The experts, including David Jefferson of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, among others, say that SERVE has “numerous fundamental security problems that leave it vulnerable to a variety of well-known cyber attacks.”

SERVE will be tested early next month in, of all places, the South Carolina Democratic Primary. Did you say you wanted a receipt to show how you voted…

Pop quiz for John Edwards
John, we all know that most ordinary Americans down your way like NASCAR, cheap beer and dollar gas. But do you know what is the largest cash crop in Cleveland County, North Carolina. Let us know… but don’t inhale when you find out.

NASA's "scream speech"

Wouldn't you scream if the Mars Rover crapped out after the prez fronted some big points during his State of the "Union" speech. Will NASA blame the solar panels... we know that solar energy is made by "fuggin commos." Let's get Enron up to Mars and build us a real electricity source.

posted by Groom 2:05 PM

Voting rights… what voting rights?

Recently approved by the legislature in Texas, Tom Delay’s redistricting plan is another example of the segregation that is resurgent in the new Republican South. The Delay plan, which eliminates two minority congressional districts, was approved by Elder Ashcroft’s minions at the Justice Department even though it violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Now, Justice is stonewalling a request by congressional Democrats to obtain internal memos related to how the White House may have influenced the approval of the plan. Currently the Texas congressional delegation features sixteen Democrats and sixteen Republicans. Now that Elder Ashcroft has blessed the racial gerrymandering Texas will send 23 Republicans and 9 Democrats to Washington after this November.

A recent Scripps-Howard study found that only 42.8 percent of Texans who were registered to vote bothered to do so in 2000, a presidential election year. That gives Texas the third worst voter turnout rate in the nation. Maybe the “politics of hope” is supposed to fix that. Don’t take action to take back America… just hope that your voting rights come back.

posted by Groom 8:51 AM

Kerry Wants to Fight for You!?

I just heard Judy Woodruff of CNN interview John Kerry for about three minutes. During that span of time he must have said “I will fight for…” or “I have fought for…” at least 20 times, if he said it once. All the also-rans in Iowa have enjoyed the fight, some even invoking John Paul Jones famous words, “I have not yet begun to fight.”

What am I missing? Is the word “fight” appropriate (given the war in Iraq), effective (it is over used by ALL Democrats and few Republicans), informed (when democracy and governing is about compromising), appealing (when women and many men are repulsed by fighting), helpful (what does “fight” mean), and what we want in our candidate? I have been around focus groups and run a few myself: nothing from those experiences remotely suggests that invoking the word so often, if at all, is effective.

One thing I know: Bush is not using the word.

For all the fighting Kerry claims he has been doing in the Senate, he doesn’t have much to show for it except a string of speeches and votes that will end up as sucker punches when Rove steps into the ring. Kerry has not one major piece of legislation to show for all his rope-a-doping.

I wonder who Mohammed Ali will endorse? Now there is an endorsement worth fighting for.

posted by Josh 12:42 AM

Quiet, Please: Weasels at Work

"...the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities...George W. Bush

"The jury is still out," Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I think that there is some concern that shipments of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) went to Syria." Senator Pat Roberts

See our post from March 31, 2003 for details.

posted by Jerry Bowles 12:41 AM

Is Japan a model for the Middle East?

A friend on an e-mail list put this question to me. Since the answer bears heavily on what the USA can or should do in Iraq or in other parts of the Middle East, I reproduce it here.

To assess the relevance of Japan as a model for what might happen in
the Middle East, we need, I believe, to keep in mind four key facts that
complicate the simplistic view that "America and their allies....freed
the Japanese people."

(1) At the end of World War II, the Japanese were not ignorant of
democracy. There had been in the 1920s the flourishing of "Showa
Democracy," with democratic elections to the Diet, political party
formation and a flourishing, frequently adversarial press. Democratic
tendencies were suppressed as militarism flourished. Still, any Japanese
who were in their teens or older and survived to the end of the War
could remember what Taisho Democracy had been like. The Occupation didn't
start with a population to whom democracy was wholly foreign.

(2) Japan was a defeated state but not--and this is a vital point--a
failed state. When the Emperor surrendered, the overwhelming majority of
Japanese took him at his word. Civil order remained intact. While
occupation purges removed the more flagrantly militarist individuals
from office, Japanese government bureaucracy continued to function. (And
here is a truly amazing factoid: During the occupation there was only
one--yes, only one--American casualty due to hostile action.)

(3) The occupation did order the breakup of the zaibatsu, the giant
business conglomerates that had colluded with the militarists before and
during the war. But, on the one hand, their breakup created new
opportunities for younger men who would, otherwise, not have achieved
real authority until they were in their late fifties or sixties. On the
other, the dissolution of the zaibatsu did not prevent their member
companies from continuing to cooperate in the form of keiretsu, more
loosely organized but still effective groups. There were hard times
while wartime damage was repaired, but the economy still functioned.

(4) The economy did more than continue to function. The Japanese
population was already highly literate and schooled in industrial
disciplines. The war had accelerated the acquisition of skills in
chemicals, metal-working, and precision machinery--all industries whose
products were in huge demand after the war, globally as well as
locallly. The period of rapid growth (1955-70) provided dramatic
confirmation that the new, postwar institutions were working and
providing rich rewards for those who supported them.

The argument against any facile application of the Japanese model to the
Middle East points to (1) the lack of any real, historical experience of
democracy, (2) the presence of failed states--creating a situation in
which removal of current governments creates a chaotic situation in
which civil order collapses, (3) the weakness of existing business
organizations--requiring building from near-zero as opposed to
rebuilding and adapting existing institutions, and (4) the lack of the
literacy and skills needed for Middle Eastern economies to compete
effectively in world markets--assuming that such world markets are not
already dominated by earlier market entrants--now India, China, the
NIES, as well as "the West" (including Japan).

Please remember, too, that these remarks are from the perspective of
someone who knows a bit about Japan--but very little of substance at all
concerning the Middle East. If one is to believe, for example,
advertising promoting tourism, travel and investment in the United Arab
Emirates, there may well be parts of the Middle East to which the
remarks either apply more weakly or don't apply at all.

I would be very interested in others' reaction to them.

posted by John 12:34 AM

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

"Can Dean revitalize his campaign after Iowa?"

This Wolf Blitzer question on CNN has provoked a lot of talk on the Howard Dean thread on Salon Table Talk. This is my contribution, speaking to my fellow Deanizens.

After reading through this thread this morning, I'd say the question was totally misguided.

We are the campaign. And we're pissed and we're energized.

That we need to be more savvy in advertising, media relations, and ground organization--you bet. But the one thing we know about the good Doctor is that he's smart and he learns. And if a Kerry can pull a comeback kid, a Dean can be a Seabiscuit.

Plus, as someone posted a while back, Dean is still ahead in actual convention votes--thanks, in part, to the great work that Steve Grossman and Zoe Loftus have done in mobilizing super delegates for Dean.

Dean as Moses[Michael Moore's latest take]? I could settle for that if I had to, but I think he's Joshua, leading us into the promised land.

Or maybe David. Goliath hasn't seen anything yet.

I know I'm babbling on, but guys you inspire me. You make me proud to be part of us.

posted by John 10:24 PM

Fashion Notes

Hasn't anyone ever told Rummy not to wear blue shirts after 7 pm, especially on more formal occasions like State of the Union addresses? My God, are there no standards anymore?

posted by Jerry Bowles 5:04 PM

The Profligate Son

Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz offered the following assessment of the State of the Union address:

President Bush declared that 'the American people are using their money far better than government would have'--but in fact his administration has taken 24 percent more of our money than the Clinton administration did. The most striking hypocrisy during the evening was members of Congress giving a standing ovation when Bush called for limiting federal spending and cutting wasteful spending. Congress and the president have cooperated to produce a 24 percent increase in spending in just three years. And the president praised Congress for 'great works of compassion' in creating a huge new prescription-drug entitlement--but it's not actually compassionate to spend other people's money.

posted by Jerry Bowles 4:24 PM

The war that’s closer to home

We’ve spent $120 billion on an Iraq war in which 500 US servicepersons have died and no end in sight. The last time the National Cancer Institute bothered to publish data, Americans spent $41.2 billion annually on cancer treatment with no end in sight.

Cancer, not Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden, killed sixty two Americans during the president’s “State of the Union” address… 1500 each day, 547,500 each year. And, ironically, Dick Nixon declared war on cancer in 1971. The American Cancer Society says that the number of people diagnosed with cancer will double by the year 2050. We seem to prefer to treat cancer, rather than prevent it. Funny how treatment is more profitable than prevention.

War against terrorism? What’s more terrorizing; being inundated with news about a bomb going off in Baghdad or Jerusalem or being told in a phone call (or a message in your voicemail) from a managed care provider that there’s a bomb going off inside you? The TV ad for a major cancer care center says “I was given a one percent survival rate and then I went to xyz cancer care center.” A tiny caption runs below… “paid actor, results vary.”

While the Bush inner circle shits on America and steals us blind John Edwards seeks to mobilize “average Americans” with his “politics of hope.” But I smell a little too much Franklin Graham in his gas tank. Can the “politics of hope” defeat the cancer of greed that is eating away at what’s left of American Democracy? Good thing you nixed that Saudi deal on the house John.

Wes Clark, in an indirect swipe at Howard Dean, said “if you are going to run for president, you must have a positive message.” But when is a “positive message” a phony message, focus grouped and massaged by political consultants?

A haggard looking John Kerry, back from his 40 days wandering in the desert, has rekindled some of the old 1960s passion and rhetoric thanks to an Iowa epiphany. But can another Yankee Jesus work his magic in hillbilly heaven? John McCain was a decorated war veteran and a POW too.

How do we stop the cancer is the operative metaphor for campaign 2004. Howard Dean has offered some strong medicine to “take back America.” But in a nation that pisses away $57 billion a year on gambling, a lot of folks think there’s nothing to “take back.” We’re a nation complacent enough to accept chemotherapy and 547,500 cancer deaths each year instead of mobilizing like the gay/AIDS community did and demand better drugs and better care. We’ll continue morphing into a nation of teletubbies with 12mpg SUVs instead of demanding more fuel-efficient vehicles that might not operate on gasoline or other combustible products. And we’ll continue watching the cancer of greed devour our democracy. Remember… paid actor… results may vary.

And don’t forget this…

Here’s where you get the real story on how the Bush family and their close family friend Katherine Harris jacked the 2000 presidential election in the state of Florida. Bob Graham… you listening? Making your list yet Bob?

posted by Groom 11:54 AM

The Helicopter Vote

Forget NASCAR, just put Kerry back in his helicopter.

When I saw that image of Kerry piloting his own helicopter over Iowa (with echoes of helicopters over Vietnam), I said, Kerry just sewed up the male vote, and he did. Kerry got 37 percent of the male vote, Dean only 20. Women liked teddy-bear Edwards better; he received 23 percent of the male vote and 29 percent of the female vote, the only candidate to do better among women than men.

We now have real data on Dean’s core supporters, an untested core that I have been questioning from the beginning. New voters did not support Dean—barely one in five did. Younger voters did support Dean at Edwards expense; Kerry held his own with the 17-29 year olds. So based on Iowa polls of actual voters Dean only outdrew his competitors on these measures: very liberal (32), decided more than a month ago to support him (32), strong stand on issues (31), and of the 14 percent who said the war in Iraq was the issue that mattered the most, Dean received 37 percent of the support (the economy and healthcare were twice as important to Iowa voters).

Dean did not energize the traditional base of the party that constitutes the backbone support of the Democratic Party: somewhat liberal to moderate, middle age and older, less educated, and more union. This is not a winning formula for beating Bush and if he is to win the nomination these figures need to significantly change, not only in New Hampshire, but through out the other early states as well.

In a few days we'll know how the Vietnam veteran does on demographics going up against a Kosovo general. And we'll get a second opinion on Dean's demographics.

posted by Josh 10:31 AM

Requiem for Howard

For those of us who viewed the Dean phenomenon as having less to do with Howard Dean, the man, than about standing for principles and changing the corrupting influence of big money and issue opportunism that now dominates both parties, the sudden and ignominious collapse of the Dean campaign (and after his psychotic rally-the-troops episode Monday night, who can deny that the end is near) is disheartening. To the relative few of us Americans who follow politics closely, read blogs, or live in Brentwood, Dean offered an enticing vision of an end to politics-as-usual.

What particularly grates is that Bill and Hil's lackeys at the DLC and DNC will probably wind up once again in control of the party's platform and money and it will be back to the same old confuse and triangulate moral rot that we have come to expect from Democrats and Republicans alike. No doubt some Dean supporters will simply lose faith and sit this one out.

That would be a mistake. Whatever happens from here on out, the Dean campaign's use of the Internet to open presidential elections to greater direct grassroots participation is important and historic. We need to find ways to keep that spirit alive and bring more and more people into the process. Maybe this wasn't our time to be kingmaker but that time will come if we stick to our principles and stay organized.

And we have made a difference. When John Kerry started campaigning, he had no significant differences with Shrub. Now he has lots of them. All of the candidates now do. We did that. That was us.

Right now, we all need to pick ourselves up, wash our bloody knees, stick some Band-Aids on them, and get back into the race. Remember, it was never about Howard Dean winning; it's about George Bush losing.

posted by Jerry Bowles 12:06 AM

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

Caucus votes cost $100 a piece!

Suzanne Goldenberg writing in the Guardian reports that yesterday's Iowa "caucus" was the most expensive US primary in history, with each single vote costing each candidate $100 in everything from tv ads to jitney buses to coffee and donuts. The real winner in Iowa's depressed economy was the economy of Iowa... for Andy Warhol's classic "15 minutes." Another reminder why politics remains America's greatest spectator sport.

posted by Groom 3:52 PM

Women and politics... the other Dr. Dean avoids the media slimelight

Praise for Dr. Judith Steinberg from Debra Saunders in today's San Francisco Chronicle. No reason a doctor needs to morph into a campaign wife just because Maureen "do you like my new face" Dowd says you have to.

posted by Groom 1:49 PM

State of the Jacked Union

Before you watch the State of the Jacked Union tonight, don't forget to go here to see how Brother Jeb (as in Confederate general Jeb Stuart) and Congresswoman Harris did the yob.

posted by Groom 10:42 AM

What We Learned

One of the positive notes to come out of Iowa is the realization, again, that conventional wisdom is often wrong. Despite all the great advances in "scientific" polling, the American people retain the capacity to confound and surprise. And, it also proves once more, that highly-paid mainstream pundits really don't know a lot more about what's happening with voter sentiment than the rest of us. The really, really positive thing about this is that Shrub may be a lot more vulnerable than the polls tell us.

posted by Jerry Bowles 10:26 AM

Will there be a Statesman in Dean?

All Dean backers, including my fellow bloggers, must be disappointed with the results. I'm sorry he didn't do better, so there is no gloating here. The good news is the Iowa winner has gone on to win New Hampshire only three out of 13 times since 1972. (I think it is misleading to suggest that Dean is the beneficiary of Gephardt’s retirement—that’s a little bit like saying the Colts’ Payton Manning loves the New England Patriots after the drumming he took in the AFC Conference title game.)

I don’t see Clark winning New Hampshire, so it’s Dean’s to lose—it’s his turf, his new demographics, and his big test.

What struck me most about Iowa was the fact that 75 percent of the caucus participants were against the war, reflecting the national numbers for the Democratic Party identified in earlier posts here, but Dean’s cornerstone, anti-war message did not resonate. Rather two soft-on-war candidates bested him handily. Furthermore, at least in Iowa, his bashing of the Democrat insiders, did not resonate either.

How is Dean handling this? Not by changing his game plan, but by getting angry again, whipping up his inner terrier, and reminding everyone that he is in it for the long haul, come more hell, high water, famine or pestilence from those not-so scattering cockroaches he loves to hate. That may work in New Hampshire, but it ain’t going to cut it in the South on round three—and he is being watched nationwide, not just in New England.

We did see the doctor of spin last night with Dean claiming that he was not disappointed, so I don’t see him taking the high road if he squeaks by in New Hampshire (with less than 10 percent winning margin) and loses South Carolina. I bet there is some scenario planning going on about what to do with the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, and lip service about who can best beat George is on the cutting-room floor. We’ll see.

posted by Josh 8:23 AM