June 6, 2005

November 8, 2004

Walk of Electoral Shame

In honor of the recently hott BizCazh.com, and in final comment on the Great 'Lection of 2004, I submit "The Morning After":

The Country is bound for one LONG walk of shame. America, the once beautiful, is slowly making its way back to its apartment, still wearing last night's clothes. The country has sex hair, and can taste its own breath.

Parental advisory -- exteme lyrics, visceral imagery, rank partisanship, &c.

November 4, 2004

Sad, Beautiful Map

November 3, 2004

What Happens Now?

Kevin Drum nailed it, I think. Scandal earns the day. History, the President's first term, and the current political dynamic are brimming with evidence for this, as Drum points out:

Consider the highlight reel of reelected presidents over the past 50 years. Ike won a second term and watched in dismay as his chief of staff was forced to resign over a vicuña coat. Richard Nixon buried George McGovern in 1972 and then resigned a year and a half later when Watergate finally caught up to him. Ronald Reagan sweated out his second term wondering if he'd be impeached over Iran-Contra. Bill Clinton didn't have to wonder: Two years after his reelection, he was defending himself in the first impeachment trial in over a century. ...

Second, there's the problem that second terms are, well, second terms. It takes more than two or three years for a serious scandal to unfold, and problems that start to surface midway through a president's first term usually reach critical mass midway through his second term, a phenomenon that shrewd political observer Kevin Phillips calls "the sixth-year itch." It's like a political SAT: What's the next year in the series 1958, 1974, 1986, 1998?

You don't have to be a math whiz to know that 2006 is the next stop. And once again, George Bush is especially vulnerable to this since his first term already has several good candidates for scandals waiting to flower. Take your pick: Valerie Plame? The National Guard? Abu Ghraib? Intelligence failures? Or maybe something that hasn't really crossed anybody's radar screen yet, sort of like the "third-rate burglary" at the Watergate Hotel that no one took seriously in 1972.

I don't expect the scandals will do much more than papercut the President himself, after all, the biggest head anyone's expecting to roll in the Valerie Plame incident is Scooter Libby, if any head rolls at all.

I half expect everything else but the Supreme Court to be pretty calm, nothing tremendously catastrophic or exhilarating in the near-term. Of course, several countries could change things drastically on the foreign policy front. More speculation tomorrow. Bed for now.

Four More Years

OK, it's essentially official. Even if, by some miracle, legal battles in Ohio throw the outcome of the election into question, President Bush will remain President Bush until the year 2008. Half the networks have called Ohio for Bush, enshrining him as the victor in the sleepy minds of many. And as my one true love, the Supreme Court, informed us in 2000, we mustn't disturb our fragile national psyche with silly questions of absentee whozits or civil rightamajiggies or provisional whatnots. If the people think Bush won, he won.

And they do, so he did.

I had expected this outcome long ago, but there's one disappointment I wasn't numb to. Justice Rehnquist. The evidence suggests his thyroid cancer is fatal. I can't imagine he'll be returning to the Court for any real tenure. Sure, he'd love to attend to his legacy, but you know, can't cheat death and taxes 'n' all.

To me, the Supreme Court is a fragile miracle. It's my favorite thing in our entire government. Even Scalia and Thomas, the big lugs. After all, lose them, and you lose the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of much of America. And America, despite its lack of faith in all else, somehow continues to believe in the Court.

I don't think the Court will turn drastically conservative or anything, but I think it could lose its progressive edge if the balance is tilted by a Bush nominee. And then it would become just another muddy, stale brick in the wall.

November 2, 2004

If You Voted, Holla Back

Aww. Soon our "Election 2004" category tag will be obsolete. (Well... I better not say that yet. But seriously, I think it will be.)

NPR this morning was doing a cool thing where they'd just play the raw, unfiltered voices of voters and poll workers -- it sounded almost as if these people had called and left messages on some big NPR answering machine, e.g. "Hi, my name is Chet, and I'm workin' the polls here in Shreveport this morning... it's a cold day... but let me tell you, the line is out the door!"

Anyway, it was really cool: Everyone sounded excited and, well, surprised by the long lines of voters.

I still think E-Day ought to be a holiday -- in fact, it ought to be the holiday, a national celebration of democracy replete with parades and BBQ chicken.

But barring that, it's nice to feel a sense of enthusiasm and engagement.

Can't wait to tune in tonight. Kerry by 2.

October 31, 2004

Yes, I Remember Those Bitter Days... It Was Fox vs. Hedgehog, and the Streets Ran Red With Blood

From Slate's Today's Papers, penned today by David Samo:

The WP also fronts a piece that claims the election will "amount to a great national Rorschach test" where voters will choose their leader based on whose psychological profile they prefer. In troubled times, do they value Kerry's discerning and nuanced approach to complex problems or Bush's forceful and unwavering conviction? Or as pundit David Gergen puts it, do people want "fact-based [or] intuition-based policies"? The LAT also points to Bush's hedgehog mentality (vs. Kerry's fox) as the dominant factor in the electorate's bitter polarization.

Wait, isn't that just a choice between good policy and bad policy? Who says, "Yeah man, I love intuition-based policy"? Ohhh, wait, I know: People for whom "intuition" is a code-word for "faith." Rats.

I was just talking with Aaron the other day about how intractable this big secular/religious divide seems. If somebody is basing their voting decision on, say, a belief in the rapidly-approaching end times (Rapture-based policy?) how do you engage with that?

I'm not saying, "religious people are scary"; I mean, come on, give me some credit here. I'm just asking, if religion is the animating force behind someone's policy preferences, how can I even hope to deliberate with her? (Or she, for that matter, with me?)

In other news, I find this "fox vs. hedgehog" thing to be the lamest and least informative analogy ever.

But bring on the election! Foxes 4-eva!

October 28, 2004

Who to Watch?

So Election Day is just around the corner. We'll* march to our polling places and make our voices heard.

*For all values of we where you ≠ disenfranchised

And then we'll turn on the TV to see what happens!

So... here's the question... which network should I watch?

I ain't gonna do the clickmaster-exxxtreme channel-surfing thing. I just can't handle it. I want to pick one channel at 8 p.m. and leave it locked in 'til midnight 4 a.m. (I will of course be scouring the internet like a hellion at the same time. But that's a different issue.)

So which do you recommend, Snarkreaders at large? I'm seriously looking for suggestions here; I have no established preference.

October 27, 2004

Different Realities

Last week's PIPA survey has gotten quite a bit of play in the press. In short, red and blue America live in different worlds. Red America (that is, over three-fourths of President Bush's supporters in this election) sees a world where Saddam Hussein was the shadowy figure behind al Qaeda and 9/11, where somewhere in the crannies of Tikrit there sits a yet-undiscovered stash of weapons of mass destruction, and where most of the world cheers our efforts in Iraq. Blue America believes the opposite on all counts.

When it comes to what people believe about their candidates, majorities of the President's supporters misperceive his foreign policy positions, while majorities of Kerry's supporters perceive his positions accurately, weeks before an election where foreign policy is supposedly the biggest issue on the table.

But the survey respondents who give me the most hope for democracy are the 18-Percenters. Eighteen percent of Bush supporters still believe Iraq had WMD or a major WMD program even though they know that the Duelfer report concluded otherwise.

Hans Blix. David Kay. The Senate Intelligence Committee. Charles Duelfer. Either invisible to faith-based America, or simply wrong.

So this is what it comes down to. We march to the polls a week from today armed with completely different truths, answering completely different realities. How are we supposed to build a democracy together? And what could possibly be done about this divide?

October 23, 2004

More "Switch" Ads... Except This Time It's Slightly More Important That You Do, In Fact, Switch

Errol Morris, he of the Apple "Switch" ads and "Fog of War" and lots more, has a bunch of fairly cool ads up on his site.

Everybody in the ads voted for Bush in 2000 but is voting for Kerry this time around. Included: some Marines, normal dudes, and cuties. Okay, there's only one cutie.

I really like what's going on with these ads: Errol Morris is trying to connect with lots of different kinds of people using voices that they recognize.

We're pluralistic and diverse, yeah -- but we also really like people who are like us.

I mean, that's why I'm such a sucker for arguments in policy mags and on certain blogs: I go, Heyyy, these guys are nerdy like me... they dig the economics... okay, this sounds good. Sometimes I like to think it's because, you know, they're the best, strongest arguments -- but nah. They're just in many ways the most comfortable*.

*Actually I do think they're the best and strongest. But that's only because I am perfectly and uniquely discerning.

Politics is probably more social than analytical -- but that doesn't mean analytical arguments can't be part of the process. You've just got to find the right social vector to deliver them!

Anyway, apparently no one is running the ads. Oh well.

October 19, 2004

Wanting War

The Chicago Tribune editorial board, a smart group for sure, endorsed George W. Bush for president.

Near the beginning, there's a quote from John McCain:

So it is, whether we wished it or not, that we have come to the test of our generation, to our rendezvous with destiny. [...]

And that pretty much sets the tone. This is how they wrap it up:

This country's paramount issue, though, remains the threat to its national security.

[...]

For three years, Bush has kept Americans, and their government, focused--effectively--on this nation's security. The experience, dating from Sept. 11, 2001, has readied him for the next four years, a period that could prove as pivotal in this nation's history as were the four years of World War II.

That demonstrated ability, and that crucible of experience, argue for the re-election of President George W. Bush. He has the steadfastness, and the strength, to execute the one mission no American generation has ever failed.

Okay, this is not an unfamiliar sentiment. It's Bush's whole call to arms, right? I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not th--oh wait, no, that's Aragorn.

Yeah, see, that's the problem: This is earth, not Middle Earth.

Can the Tribune be serious? "[A]s pivotal in this nation's history as were the four years of World War II"?

Here's the thing: They want to believe that. I think a lot of people do. It's something that Chris Hedges argues very convincingly in his book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, which is about--well, yeah. (P.S. I interviewed Hedges for Poynter.org.)

He says: The notion of a martial struggles ennobles us. It suffuses us with grim righteousness. It's mythic and meaningful.

But in this case, it's also total bullshit!

Why isn't dealing with the Sauron of Social Security ever our rendezvous with destiny? Why can't the struggle against global poverty be the test of our generation?

Oh, right, because those challenges don't involve killing orcs terrorists. Seriously! We're nuts like that!

Now I'm sure Robert Kaplan would tell me, "Hush, squeamish child of privilege. Go back to your video games and allow Achilles to do his bloody work." And I accept the point that violence is a tool we have to use.

But to assert that that it is the primary work of our nation now--that all other challenges pale before some all-consuming war--is, I think, wishful and wrong and a little bit sick.

And I'm surprised that a group as able as the Tribune editorial board is playing along with the terror-obsessed Tolkiens who tell that tale.

... Read more ....

October 17, 2004

The Reality-Based Community

From Ron Suskind's NYT Mag piece:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

So who do you think the senior advisor to Bush was?

October 15, 2004

Debate Liveblogging, Round Fo--oh Wait.

I caught the tail end of the debates last night on an airport TV screen, trying to discern the political orientations of those around me from their facial expressions. Everyone just looked mad.

From what I could tell, the big gaffe out of the debate was forecasted to be Bush's "I never said I wasn't worried about Osama" line, which pundits predicted would drench the airwaves tomorrow, juxtaposed with some video of that one time he said he wasn't worried about Osama.

Wrong. The Fran-Drescher-esque drones of CNN Headline News today focused their incessant banter on a different "story" out of yesterday's debate -- Kerry had the utter gall to identify Dick Cheney's daughter as a lesbian.

It's not that Kerry just blurted this out of the blue; he'd been asked whether he thought homosexuality was a choice. This was his response:

We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

It's not that Mary Cheney isn't out and proud.

It's not that Kerry's answer contained even a tinge of disrespect for Mary Cheney.

It's that a savvy Bush campaign adviser realized that the Osama thing was going to be all over the news today and selected his own brilliant little dodge. The entire Cheney family (except for Mary) was out in full force today, shocked, SHOCKED!! that Kerry could have mentioned their daughter to "score political points."

Lynn Cheney:

I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more. And the only thing I could conclude is this is not a good man. This is not a good man. And, of course, I am speaking as a mom and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.

Father Cheney:

You saw a man who will say and do anything in order to get elected. And I am not speaking just as a father here, though I am a pretty angry father. But I'm also speaking as a citizen.

Even other-daughter Liz was trotted out on Paula Zahn to share her family's suffering, poor wounded lamb.

Feel free to look at Kerry's statement one more time.

The media bought this???! News directors/editors everywhere actually swallowed the notion that a campaign run by Karl "No Smear's Too Queer" Rove was outraged that an opposing candidate had affirmingly mentioned the sexuality of a profoundly public lesbian?? We've lost our marbles.

The only logical way to interpret Kerry's statement as any sort of a swipe at Mary Cheney is to grant that homosexuality is tainted. Andrew Sullivan can take it from there.

Color me disgusted. Not at the Bush/Cheney campaign -- all's fair in love and politics -- but at the journalists who swallowed, digested, and shat this sham into our diet of news.

October 11, 2004

October 10, 2004

The Ambassador President

Here, for your convenience, is the most interesting part of Matt Bai's epic Kerry foreign policy piece in the NYT Mag:

If forced democracy is ultimately Bush's panacea for the ills that haunt the world, as Kerry suggests it is, then Kerry's is diplomacy. Kerry mentions the importance of cooperating with the world community so often that some of his strongest supporters wish he would ease up a bit. (''When people hear multilateral, they think multi-mush,'' Biden despaired.) But multilateralism is not an abstraction to Kerry, whose father served as a career diplomat during the years after World War II. The only time I saw Kerry truly animated during two hours of conversation was when he talked about the ability of a president to build relationships with other leaders.

Okay, it's not so interesting yet, but it gets better, I think, after the break...

... Read more ....

October 8, 2004

Presidential Debate II: Poland's Revenge

Debate liveblogging in 40.

Looking back on the morass of inscrutable half-observations that was my VP debate post, I am going to tighten it up this time.

I think you should comment in real-time, too. Yes, you. It'll be like a little e-party.

Update: E-party in the comments!

In retrospect: Yeah, well, that was an interesting experiment... it's cool to see 49 comments over on the right, anyway. This must be how Kevin Drum feels.

October 5, 2004

I Wish This Debate Was Held in Miami Instead of the Last One So I Could Call This Post "Miami Vice"

All right. We're here, we're queer, we're ready to blog. Aaaand, we're already on the first question, so I'm just going to cut to it.

9:04 p.m.: Clearly, Dick Cheney is just going to bring it. In his first answer, already he's restating that Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected. Which fact, I believe, was thrown into doubt last week by the CIA. And, er, Donald Rumsfeld.

9:06 p.m.: Johnny's clearly going to bring it right back. We've lost more troops in September than we have in August, he says, More in August than in July, more in July than in June.

9:11 p.m.: Second Cheney answer, second doubtful assertion ... The situation in Iraq is one where you've got terrorists and you've got all the weapons of mass destruction that [Saddam] had been building up, and you're in danger of the two coming together. There're those pesky WMD that don't appear to exist. I think there were about 420-some pages on this in the New York Times this past Sunday, in fact.

9:15 p.m.: Cheney's strategy, at this point, is clear. Screw the facts. Harsh? Absolutely. But come on. Third answer -- third severely questionable assertion. Ten million registered voters in Afghanistan, almost half of them women. Oooor:

The tally of registered voters in Afghanistan, over 10.5 million in an overall population of 26 million, is now believed to be significantly inaccurate, the result of widespread multiple registration by voters. As explained here, pronouncements by Afghan and international officials boasting that 40 percent of registered voters are women ignores the likelihood that tens of thousands of women have been registered more than once (some believing their voting card would entitle them to benefits or food rations), and masks regional variation in the figures, including data from some southern provinces showing that less than 10 percent of those registered are women. Several election officials in Kabul acknowledged to Human Rights Watch in late September that the number of Afghans expected to vote on October 9 could range as low as 5 to 7 million.

That study came out like last week. It's not like D.C. hasn't seen it.

9:20 p.m.: Ya-ZOW! Cheney to Edwards: ... random piece of legislation, yadda yadda ... you probably weren't there to vote for that, Senator. Da-HANG!

9:29 p.m. Johnny is a pitbull. This is the height of hypocrisy. ZING! I love it! These guys are, like, verbally all over each other. I would tell them to get a room, but them getting it on would actually be kind of gross, and Dickie might have a coronary.

9:34 p.m.: Gwen Ifill? LOVE her.

9:39 p.m.: D.C.: I could respond, Gwen, but I'll need more than 30 seconds. *smug grin* Gwen: Well, that's all you've got. (Beeyotch.) This woman is fierce. Whatever the pundits say, they're wrong. Gwen Ifill won this debate.

9:44 p.m.: Sooo, it may seem somewhat discordant that Robin's blogging in Pacific Standard Time and I'm blogging in Eastern Standard Time. And, also, odd, given that I'm currently in California, where it is in fact 9:45 p.m 6:45 p.m.. (Ahem.) But -- I dunno -- it seems wrong that an event that is clearly transpiring in prime time is somehow happening at 6 p.m.

9:50 p.m.: I don't even see Johnny rifling through papers. How does he remember all these FACTS?? Don't get me wrong, Cheney also has an impressive grasp of boatloads of info, but Edwards is like frickin' Tron.

10:01 p.m.: Gay marriage, blah, blah, blah. Oh wait, hold on, was that a tender moment between Messrs. Eddie and Chen-Chen? Dickie's all, Thanks, Johnny. That was really sweet, you know, what you said about Mary. *batting of eyelashes, exchange of long, loving glance*

Don't be afraid to speak your love, guys. We all know Don't write discrimination into the Constitution is just pol-speak for J.E. + D.C. 4evr.

10:10 p.m.: Oooh, yeah, speak health care to me, Johnny. Fifty years old, Matt. FIFTY. YEARS. OLD.

10:14 p.m.: Gwen to Johnny: You have no experience. Why are you here? Johnny: Ummm ... look into my eeeeyes. Am I not beautiful? Is my jawline not perfect? Does the 1950s part in my shiny, gorgeous hair not convince you of my earnestness? Don't question me, Argwentina.

Good answer.

10:19 p.m.: Cheney: Wait, Gwen, you want to know why I'm different from John Edwards? Whoa, I'm totally not. I'm, like, the son of a mill worker. And I'm prettier than he is.

10:21 p.m.: Edwards: How am I not like Cheney? Well, let's see, I'm actually John Kerry. What??

10:26 p.m.: Kevin Drum think Johnny sounded too negative in the foreign policy part of this debate. I'd disagree, and not just because he's hott. Not hot. Totally un-hot. Old enough to be my father. OK, well, maybe partially because he's hott. Really, harsh criticism coming from him sounds completely un-harsh.

10:36 p.m.: Oh, snap. John Edwards started his final statement by thanking Gwen and Cheney. Cheney, somewhat pointedly, I thought, started his statement with, Gwen, I want to thank you. *Thudding silence.* No nookie for Johnny-boy tonight.

Pre-spin closing thoughts: I actually thought this debate was really interesting in the foreign policy segment, then faltered off as domestic policy took over. Not only were the two men quite snarky to each other at first, but they were engaging in a substantial back-and-forth on the merits of the policy and the strengths and weaknesses of its execution. Facts (and, yes, largely unfounded assertions) were flying left and right, and it was meaty and absorbing, I thought.

It wasn't that either of them started doing worse as the debate wore on, it just kind of ground down into predictable ruts when it got to domestic policy. (Cheney: Look at all the great stuff we've done. Edwards: Look at all the great stuff we'll do.) That's partially because the domestic situation is just murky right now -- could be better, could be worse. A lot of scathing criticisms could be made of the situation on the homefront these past four years, but there's nothing there quite as shimmeringly catastrophic as Iraq.

All Edwards had to do was sit there and be charismatic. And he did, but he was sharp about his facts and his logic, too, so he definitely did well. Cheney, sadly lacking the charisma chromosome, did the best he could against such an opponent. I don't think either won or lost this one, but Edwards may have continued the momentum Kerry earned last week, while Cheney didn't quite reverse the falling fortunes of his set, I'd imagine.*

Now, onto the real fight. Will Laguna Beach's L.C. wrest Stephen from the wily arms of her competitor Kristin? We'll find out at 10:30 p.m. / 9 p.m. Central.

*Although I still think his set is going to win.

The Growl vs. the Grin

I think Matt is probably too busy writing "I ♥ Veronica Mars" in puffy-paint on a sky-blue t-shirt to blog the veep candidate debate, so here I go!

6:01 p.m. PST: The CNN commentators all kinda secretly hope that either Cheney or Edwards will go crazy on air.

6:10 p.m.: Rats, I'm losing interest already.

6:21 p.m.: Cheney just tagged Edwards: you can't substitute rhetoric for real conviction, he says. I'm getting the sense that the VP would have done a lot better against Kerry than Bush did.

6:28 p.m.: Nice election reality-check from Edwards: "You need more than 35 people to have an election in Cleveland," he says. (Apparently that's how many U.N. election supervisors are in Iraq today.)

6:30 p.m.: I think if Cheney could just get away with just rumbling "I have gravitas gravitas gravitas..." he would. He's really not making arguments, just projecting authority.

6:33 p.m.: Dude, the DEATH STAR just appeared above my post! P.S. We're not all queer.

6:38 p.m.: Just posted on the WaPo transcript:

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, the 90 percent figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they've taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent.

And yet, um, somehow that doesn't make me feel any better. At all. Perhaps because it's logically equivalent to: "Yo, but check it, Iraqis are getting mowed down, too." Gyeahhh.

6:40 p.m.: That whole thing where John Edwards reels off all of Halliburton's wrongdoings? Wickedly effective. Cheney says (and I paraphrase wildly, of course) "Lies, lies, all lies! Go to factcheck.com!" I think he means factcheck.org, but it's not responding. Swamped instantly by Cheney's referral? Is that even possible?

6:42 p.m.: Of course you can tell us a personal story, John.

6:45 p.m.: Cheney (wild paraphase): "I hang out in the Senate all the time. The first time I met you was when I walked on the stage tonight." It was delivered really well -- with a kind of disappointment and regret. Like he once had high hopes for Edwards, but alas. Cheney does that well.

6:46 p.m.: Yeah, remember that thing where Edwards reels off lists of things embarrassing to Cheney? Did I mention it's wickedly effective?

6:48 p.m.: Cheney on poverty (w.p.): "We need jobs. And to get jobs, we need to make America the best place in the world to do business. And to do that, we need tort reform." Wait, what?

6:49 p.m.: Ooh, they're debating in the city with the highest poverty rate in the country. Zow. Edwards is slammin' with the economic argument. W.p.: "Incomes are down, prices are up, and we're in Iraq! Dang!"

6:55 p.m.: Cheney making an argument that a lot of people -- almost a million -- in the top personal income tax bracket are small business owners who run their businesses as sole proprietorships. Thus, a tax increase would hurt their businesses. Not sure if that's true, but if it is, it may underscore something I've long suspected: Responsible fiscal policy should be more nuanced than "tax the hell out of rich people."

6:56 p.m.: Nice counter-punch from Edwards: Kerry may have voted for tax increases 90-something times, he says, but he voted for tax cuts 600 times. That's called context, folks.

7:00 p.m.: I'm with Matt. Edwards knows everything. He's also purty.

7:02 p.m.: Whoah, that was weird. Cheney (w.p.): "Yeahhh I don't really wanna talk about gay marriage. Next."

7:05 p.m.: Not sure I'm down with Edwards' rhetoric here (w.p.): "We'll reform malpractice law, sure, but... what about little Valerie, who was horrifically injured by a faulty swimming pool? I'm with Valerie, not with the insurance companies." Yeah yeah yeah. But let's talk policy, Jo-Ed.

7:11 p.m.: This is really a classic debate: tame, elliptical, boring. I'm appreciating Kerry vs. Bush a lot more in retrospect. And mostly just 'cause Bush was so weird.

7:14 p.m.: I also ♥ Gwen Ifill. First the veep-cans finish up their AIDS answers and she's like, "Uh-huh. Thanks for nothing, dudes." (She said it with her eyes.) Now a tough question to Edwards (w.p.): "Are you even qualified to be Vice President?"

7:17 p.m.: Have you noticed that J.E. keeps talking up Kerry, but D.C. has barely mentioned Bush? Seriously! It's weird!

7:19 p.m.: Cheney: "I don't talk about myself very much." That scores points with a lot of people, you know. It might even score a few points with me.

7:21 p.m.: See?? Edwards just said "John Kerry" even though it was against the rules!! (Gwen asked them each to make a case for themselves without using their running mate's name.) And he just did it again! ON PURPOSE! Dude is on-message: Kerry, Kerry, Kerry.

7:27 p.m.: Wait, are half of African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans actually dropping out of high school? Sheez.

7:28 p.m.: Debates are so funny. Two incredibly powerful people, but in this context they're like: "Ooh wait, is it my turn? Are you sure? What? Wait... yeah, okay... no, it's not my turn? I'll shut up. Sorry."

7:29 p.m.: Headline out of the debate: "Cheney vows to 'work it.'"

7:31 p.m.: To the very last minute, Edwards is campaigning. Contrast to Cheney, who hasn't seemed particularly interested in this debate at all.

7:33 p.m.: Closing statement. Edwards is painting a picture... a picture of America... with words... I see it... I see the mill! Seriously, I know this is just politico-populo-hypnotism, but I'm still lovin' it. "I have grown up in the bright light of America, and that light is flickering today. I see it."

7:36 p.m.: Cheney is talking terrorism. That's what it's all about for him. Not terrible. But not a word-picture, either.

7:39 p.m.: Thanks for being with us tonight, Snarketeers. I'm gonna change the channel now before CNN sucks my brain out.

October 4, 2004

Foolish Senator...

...you forgot Poland!

... Read more ....

October 2, 2004

Lord of the Swings

If you've been watching MTV this campaign season, you're by now used to having your shows abruptly stop while the network cuts to the heartfelt pleadings of celebrities and their ilk that you rock the vote this Election Day. I mean, I'm a fan of democracy or whatever, but I'm not trying to have my "Room Raiders" interrupted to hear Malcolm X's daughter tell me about my civic duty.

Actually, that's not my main objection to the MTV vote-mongering. Clearly, someone behind the scenes at MTV desperately wants young people to get out and vote. This has been an MTV hobbyhorse for a few years now, but I don't ever remember them actually cutting away from shows to send the message.

All of this is an oblique byway to my argument. So MTV's doing a lot of serious cheerleading for democracy. But they fail to bring their Generation-Q acolytes any understanding of the issues at play in the election. The celebs make vague references to "issues" that concern young voters, but there's been no substantial programming that says, "Here's what's at stake." I don't want a horde of little Avril wannabes and Kutcher clones going to the polls without any sense in their heads, voting for the first thing that looks their way.

Over and over again, you hear the suggestion: more voters equals better democracy. Ten million people have signed up to vote in Afghanistan! they cry.

Conveniently brushing past evidence like this:

The tally of registered voters in Afghanistan, over 10.5 million in an overall population of 26 million, is now believed to be significantly inaccurate, the result of widespread multiple registration by voters. As explained here, pronouncements by Afghan and international officials boasting that 40 percent of registered voters are women ignores the likelihood that tens of thousands of women have been registered more than once (some believing their voting card would entitle them to benefits or food rations), and masks regional variation in the figures, including data from some southern provinces showing that less than 10 percent of those registered are women. Several election officials in Kabul acknowledged to Human Rights Watch in late September that the number of Afghans expected to vote on October 9 could range as low as 5 to 7 million.

Which brings me to the swing voters. (I'm sorry, I'm not even trying to make a proper segue.)

I could understand the concept of an undecided voter in October of 2000. Everything was shiny, people had jobs, the government was flush, and it didn't seem to really matter that much who was presiding over it all. The biggest issue was whether or not we could trust our Fearless Leader not to get nookie in the Oval O. Good times.

But come on now, people. You have a collected 24 years of political history between these two men on which to base your decision. How can anything that happens in the next month possibly affect your vote? November 2nd, as well as being Election Day, will mark the year-and-a-half anniversary of the official end of "major combat operations in Iraq." If Iraq's the issue most important to you, you've got an endlessly simple question to ask yourself: Do I like the way things have gone in Iraq over the last year-and-a-half, or do I think things could have been better-executed? If health care's the most important issue, you've got two vastly different plans to choose from. Taxes? Take your pick between Taxy McTaxalot and Supply Side International. Abortion? Gay marriage? Over the last 4 and 20 years respectively, Bush and Kerry have made their minds clear on all these matters. Over and over and over again. What on God's green earth can you people be waiting for???!

The Daily Show, of course, says this much, much better than I ever could.

October 1, 2004

Last Thoughts on Debate #1

All right, now that I've been saturated in the radioactive glow of post-debate media analysis, a few more thoughts.

First, read the Slate analyses. Dem guys always do a good job. Except Mickey Kaus. No link fa you.

Also, do catch Tim's comment on last night's post, where he makes the point that Kerry actually got much better as the night went on, and Bush got worse. And other points of salty goodness.

Looking over the transcript of last night's tête-à-tête lets me actually speak to the substance of what the two men said. It also confirmed a lot of what I thought the first time I was watching, while the rhetoric was flying by (or, in our President's case, kind of lurching and shuffling by despondently).

Kerry has clearly been coached. Up the wazoo. According to some reports I've heard, the coaches used buzzers. I mean, dang. It came across, both in the fact that he did a great job, and in the fact that there are words he was obviously not allowed to say (see "lie," "Vietnam," below):

KERRY: First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections.

In fact, he first didn't even want to do that. And it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said you've got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind -- his campaign has a word for that -- and went to the United Nations.

He sho' NUFF wasn't allowed to say "flip-flop."

But whatever circumlocutions he and his coaches devised to get around using those words, they worked. He got his message across.

As for Bush, I have to return again to what it seems was the crux of his offensive last night -- No one who criticizes my mistakes is fit to fix them.

There's just no logic in that formulation, no matter how you look at it. I mean, he's saying, in effect, The only one that can get us out of this mess is the one that got us into it. That is insane.

Then this, another criticism of Kerry along the same lines: "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap. Anyway, that's for another debate." In short, we can't pay for homeland security investments because we don't have the money. Who spent all that money? Who tax-cutted it away?

Even after 12 hours, my mind can't begin to wrap itself around this logic. Bush admits, several times, that our strategies aren't working, that we're out of room in the budget (and the deficit). Out of one side of his mouth, he says that we've got a strong coalition of countries helping in Iraq. Out of the other, he says it's impossible to amass a strong coalition of countries, especially if you're sending "mixed messages."

If the foreign policy debate was supposed to be President Bush's strongest, I really, really don't want to see the domestic policy debates. Especially if Senator Kerry's staff has the good sense to reproduce some of the promises of 2000, back when phrases like "budget surplus" were still around, and ones like "nation-building" were strictly out of vogue.

September 30, 2004

Debate Blogging! Whoo-hoo!

OK, after a few technical difficulties, I'm up and ready for the blogging of the debate. By the way, nothing in the debate is going to match Jim Lehrer on the pre-debate C-SPAN feed telling the audience he's going to break out the whoop-ass if they make a squeak. And then doing a Mickey Mouse impression.

9:10 p.m.: First mention of Osama bin Laden by John Kerry. One shot!

9:11 p.m.: Wait a second, Dwight Eisenhower endorsed Kerry from beyond the grave? "Just yesterday, General Eisenhower endorsed me." Ohhhh, John Eisenhower. Wait. Who?

9:13 p.m.: Oh snap. G-dub just pulled out the "my opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at" line. OK, but wait, all of a sudden, "Saddam Hussein was never going to disarm." He was armed? Fossilized vials of sarin gas from when Iraq was called Mesopotamia don't count.

9:25 p.m.: Uh-oh. Lehrer just asked the "when would you be ready to leave Iraq" question, and Dubs just had several very painful moments of sputtering consonants, scrambling to find an answer (which, btw, he didn't). He looked as though he were in actual pain during this one.

9:30 p.m.: Umm, Senator Kerry, sir. You're allowed to listen to the question before you answer. Lehrer just asked something to the effect of, "Are soldiers dying in Iraq right now for a mistake?" Before he could finish, Kerry cut him off with "No." Soooo ... Iraq's not a mistake now? This is why you confuse people, John.

9:32 p.m.: My opponent says we don't have allies in this war, says Dubs, what's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Aleksander Kwasniewski, of Poland? Sorry, G, when you have to specify the country, you get no coalition-of-the-willing points.

9:36 p.m.: Awwww, G sounds so earnest! "And there's going to be a summit! And -- and -- Mr. Annan's helping!"

9:39 p.m.: Behind the scenes at Kerry's debate coaching... "OK, see, Mr. Kerry, sir, you can't actually ever say the word 'lying.' You may use 'beguile,' 'dissemble,' 'misrepresent,' 'forswear,' and 'prevaricate.' But you may not use 'lie,' or any form of the verb thereof."

Jim Lehrer in a question said STTEO (something to the effect of, for future reference), "Mr. Kerry, you've accused Bush of lying about Iraq." Kerr-Kerr actually said, "Well, I never used the Harshest Word, as you just did." The "Harshest Word." The man is whupped.

9:46 p.m.: Behind the scenes at Kerry's debate coaching... "OK, umm, Mr. Kerry, sir, the word 'Vietnam' is verboten. A no-no. You may refer to it as 'The War in which I fought,' 'The conflagration that took place in the nation-state abutting the nation formerly known as Campuchea,' or, even, 'The War that continues to justify my political career,' if you want to be candid about it. But never 'Vietnam.'"

9:48 p.m.: Prez-by's refrain this entire debate so far is, "You can't say _____ when you're the Commander-in-Chief! The troops will be demoralized!" As in, "You can't criticize the actions of the Commander-in-Chief when you're the Commander-in-Chief! The troops will be demoralized!" See, it doesn't work that way, G. I imagine, were Kerry to become President, he'd probably be much less inclined to call into question the actions of the President. Which debate coach came up with this line of argument?

9:54 p.m.: Wow. Bush. SSTEO: "I never wanted to commit troops, and when I had the debate in 2000, I never thought I'd have to. But the enemy attacked us!" What? These words in this order make no sense in our language.

9:58 p.m.: Kevin Drum, I am your DADDY.

10:03 p.m.: OMG. President Bush is doing. So. Badly. He's had several severe sputtering moments, total deer-in-headlights madness. Sample Prez-by response (thanks, WaPo!):

LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes. You have said there was a, quote, "miscalculation," of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?

BUSH: No, what I said was that, because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. I mean, we thought we'd whip more of them going in. But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operation, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought they would stay and fight, but they didn't. And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work.

I mean ... WHAT?!

In order to simulate his actual response, you have to insert a lot of faltering moments of dawning realization that these sentences, when strung together, miraculously lose all meaning. Prez-by also seems very kind of sad and stressed and tired.

10:09 p.m.: Kerry's doing an excellent job of keeping this a referendum on Bush, I would say. As long as the President has to stay on defense, I think Kerry's succeeding.

But the President is really almost worryingly inarticulate tonight. He is actually having trouble getting words out. Every time he speaks, I'm thinking, "Is he going to make it through this?"

10:15 p.m.: "I fully agree that one should shift tactics. And we will, in Iraq." First debate acknowledgment by Bush so far that the current tactic in Iraq iis wrong? And when exactly does that tactic shift happen? I mean, it's been a year-and-a-half.

10:17 p.m.: Kerry says G-Dub has secured less nuclear material in the two years since 9/11 than we had secured in the two prior. That's one I hadn't heard, but a great sound byte, if it's as it seems. I want to see more reporting on this. From somewhere other than ChronWatch.

10:22 p.m.: Dubs is totally on a first-name basis with Vladimir Putin. I don't know what that means exactly; it's definitely neither positive nor negative, it's just so weird to hear.

10:26 p.m.: Kerry's closing statement. "I believe our best days are ahead of us. Because I believe our future lies in freedom, not in fear." Meh. Could have been better.

10:28 p.m.: Bush's closing statement. "If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy." "We've climbed the mountain, and I've seen the valley below and it's a valley of peace." (Don't metaphorical mountains typically symbolize success, and valleys typically signify defeat?)

My immediate impressions, pre-media spin: Before this debate, I was highly skeptical of the theories James Fallows cited in the Atlantic that President Bush has actually developed some neurological handicap that increasingly prevents him from speaking with articulation. Now, I could almost be convinced. I'll rewind and transcribe one of his answers as accurately as I can, with pauses, falters, and hesitations. Each ellipsis is a pause of approximately a second, sometimes more.

Uhh actually we've increased uhhh funding for ... umm ... uh ... f-for uhh ... dealing with nuclear proliferation. By about 35% since I've been the President. And secondly, uhh, we've s-set up what's called the ... well, first of all, I agreed with the ... my opponent that the ... biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network. And that's why ... we've ... put proliferation as the ... one of the centerpieces of a multi-prong strategy to make the country safer. Umm ... My administration started what's called the Proliferation Security Initiative-ves-s. Over 60 nations involved with ... disrupting ... umm ... the trans-shipment of information and/or ... uh ... weapons of mass destruction materials.

Listen for yourself, if you'd like. That was a typical sample of his speech quality the entire night. The transcription would be entirely invalid if not for the fact that if I attempted a similar transcription on Kerry, it would be entirely free of ellipses, logically structured, and generally near-flawless.

An argument could be made that any normal person would have had the exact same difficulties. I mean, I definitely sound more like that than like Kerry when I talk in public. But I've never been coached on this stuff, and I'm not the President of the United States of America.

It was almost difficult to pay attention to the substance of what each person was saying, after being completely distracted by the contrast between Kerry's dead-on, pauseless diction and Bush's shuffling rhetorical catastrophe.

But on the matters of substance, I'll stand by what I said before. Bush was kept on the defensive the entire evening. Kerry deftly swatted aside the one criticism Bush predictably and ceaselessly kept making -- that he flip-flopped on the war -- essentially only answering it once, toward the end of the debate. And given the good quality of the answer he gave, it was the only time he needed to.

Get Your Debate On

First, excellent:

(from the New Yorker's "Rules of Engagement")

Paragraph Seventeen A: Bodily fluids-Perspiration.

Debate sponsors shall make every effort to maintain comfortable temperature onstage. Candidates shall make reasonable use of underarm deodorant and other antiperspirant measures, subject to review by Secret Service, before the debates. In the event that perspiration is unavoidable, candidates may deploy one plain white cotton handkerchief measuring eight inches square. Handkerchief may not be used to suggest that opponent wants to surrender in global war on terrorism.

Second, sad:

(from NPR's "Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates")

(5.) All members of the studio audience must be certified as "soft" supporters of Bush and Kerry, under selection procedures they approve.

"It's not enough to rig the debate -- they have to rig the audience, too? The contract reads: 'The debate will take place before a live audience of between 100 and 150 persons who... describe themselves as likely voters who are soft Bush supporters or soft Kerry supporters.' We should crash this charade and jump up in the middle to declare ourselves hard opponents of this Kabuki dance."

(4.) These "soft" audience members must "observe in silence."

"Soft and silent... In what I'm calling the Silence of the Lambs Clause of this absurd contract, the audience may not move, speak, gesture, cough or otherwise show that they are alive and thinking."

Third, sniff:

(from Slate's article, "Daydreaming about Dean")

A Dean general-election campaign would have contrasted Dean's record with Bush's in three ways: Dean being against the war versus Bush being for it; Dean's record of balancing the Vermont budget while providing health care versus Bush's largest deficits in history with no health care; and a new wrinkle that was only hinted at during the primaries, Dean's mysterious, infrequently mentioned "tax reform" vs. Bush's irresponsible tax cuts. Yes, Dean would have repealed the entire Bush tax cut, the senior adviser said, but he would have proposed replacing it with some Dean tax cuts, including the elimination of payroll taxes on the first $20,000 of income. The message: Bush cuts taxes from the top down, but Dean cuts them from the bottom up. Why didn't Dean introduce this during the primaries, when his tax-hiking ways made some Democrats think he would be an electoral disaster, the second coming of Walter Mondale, in the fall? He wanted to wait until after the Feb. 3 primaries because "he didn't want people to think he was pandering," the adviser said.

... Read more ....

September 14, 2004

July 8, 2004

First Date

As Florida goes, so goes the nation!

Your faithful Snarkorrespondent (natch!) was on hand see Johns Kerry and Edwards whip up a crowd at The Coliseum in St. Petersburg this evening.

Snap judgments:

Kerry: Actually really fun and funny when he's speaking off the cuff! But then he gets rolling into his stump speech, and zzz.

Edwards: No mojo. I tell you, it's a myth.

Teresa Heinz Kerry: Best speaker of the evening. Invoked deep themes with grace.

Kerry/Edwards combo: It works, because they're like your two uncles: the nice, nerdy one and the cool, slightly-too-smooth one. Yeah, I like that, because then Elizabeth Edwards gets to be your nice aunt and Teresa Heinz Kerry gets to be your weird mystery aunt. (The one that always gives you a bizarre but ultimately entertaining board game, purchased in Germany, for Christmas.)

Can John Edwards Really Be Over 50?! Clearly not. Another myth.

Best 'Line' of the Night: "We have a better sense of right and wrong and what's fair," said Kerry, "and we have better hair!"

Best Line of the Night: "This is the most important election of our lifetimes," said Kerry. Cue wild applause.

Most Unexpected Cue for Wild Applause: When Kerry mentioned... stem-cell research? Apparently a crowd-pleaser!

Most Human Moment: Your weird aunt Teresa totally falling asleep onstage -- stifling yawns, fighting back those looong blinks. I think at one point she was pinching her hand to keep herself alert.

Oh Yeah, And: There were approximately a gazillion people there! No, seriously: Several thousand waited in line, I estimate (using my preternatural gift for crowd appraisal), and less than half got into The Coliseum before the fire marshal closed the doors. Kerry said he'd go outside to greet those who couldn't make it in.

But by the time that happened, your weary Snarkorrespondent was scooting home through the darkened streets of St. Petersburg.

Blurry digital picture of one or more politicians TK. Done!

Update: St. Pete Times on the rally.

July 7, 2004

Just Who IS John Edwards?

Let's ask the Republican National Committee.

O-ho! It seems Edwards is not only disingenuous, he's also unaccomplished!! And, worst of all, folks, prepare yourselves, shield your children's eyes and ears ... Edwards is also a friend to personal injury trial lawyers!!! A friend!! The very thought!

Come now, surely they could have done better than that against Edwards. Especially given that they clearly had the site at the ready (ahem, KerryPicksGephardt.com, KerryPicksVilsack.com, KerryPicksBayh.com, KerryPicksClark.com, KerryPicksBiden.com).

The DNC site is a bit less worse. (At least it includes no really crummy Flash movies, as far as I can tell.)

If you're going to unleash a fabled $200 million war chest on somebody, why not at least do it in style? Joshua Green attempts an explanation in this month's Atlantic Monthly, but the guy whose ads he chooses as examples of sophisticated, clever marketing sounds neither sophisticated nor clever:

On a giant-screen television Brabender first played "Waste," which he created for Rick Santorum's successful 1994 challenge to Senator Harris Wofford, of Pennsylvania. It opens with a hand daintily snipping a sliver of paper with red kiddie scissors. "This is how serious Harris Wofford is about cutting government waste," begins a gentle voice, over the lilt of chamber music. Cut to another pair of hands as a chain saw tears through an enormous stack of paper. The voice becomes a bellow fit for a monster-truck-show announcer: "And this is how serious Rick Santorum is! In the last term of Congress he introduced more original bills cutting government waste than anyone else! Join the fight!"—a boxing glove smashes through the screen—"Santorum for Senate!"

It's not like it costs that much to make a decent ad. I mean, how much could it have taken for MoveOn.org political ad contestant Christopher Fink to have made this? And even though the ad's slickness means Charlie Fisher probably threw some money and experience into this, it can't have been as much as John Kerry probably paid for this.

March 29, 2004

March 24, 2004

A Dean Post-Mortem Worth Reading

We haven't heard the last of the final analyses of Dean's rise and fall, I'm sure, but we've probably gotten the last of the ones you should read, if you're interested in what happened. This is an early-bird edition of an article that will be in May's Atlantic Monthly, and it's written by Dean's own pollster, Paul Maslin.

Maslin writes clearly and evocatively. He takes you through the excitement and the drama of a campaign as well as any journalist I've seen. There's strong foreshadowing, fleshy, warm characters with real flaws, vivid dialogue, structure, you name it.

And what does the article say? Everything that our newspapers probably don't have enough time or access to present: that there was no single, simple reason for Dean's rise and fall. Any campaign is a walk along a greased tightrope, a constant play of gambles and negotiations. Dean's campaign especially was a movement with dense variables swinging every which way -- his Internet base, his volatile campaign manager, the other candidates, Dean himself.

The next thing I'm looking for is Howard Dean's own account of the experience, but I won't hold my breath. Although he speaks his mind constantly, he seems to withhold his feelings. And if his article in Vanity Fair was any indication, he's not much of an absorbing writer. But what a character.

March 14, 2004

More Lofty Presidential Discourse

I ought to start tracking the your-mother jokes being tossed back and forth in the Presidential election. Here's one from The Washington Post:

"SEN. JOHN KERRY's Economic Policies Would Cost Jobs in Ohio," a headline on the Bush campaign Web site asserts. "The most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen," Mr. Kerry says of his Republican adversaries. "Sen. Kerry Flip-Flops on Israel," says the Bush campaign. "Once again, George Bush is misleading America," a Kerry advertisement charges. "So's your mom," says -- no, wait. We haven't seen that one yet.

March 10, 2004

March 1, 2004

"Breck Girl" Explained

Have you, like me, been baffled by the constant references to John Edwards as "Breck girl"? It's probably something from before my time. Anyway, these are the Breck girls:

February 17, 2004

Megacaucuses

OK, this should be filed under something that's more like Election 3028, but whatever. Inspired by this asstastic idea, Robin and I were discussing our own pie-in-the-sky visions of electoral utopia tonight.

We agree that our current political system, in practice, does not reflect America at all. Our politicians are, for the most part, rich and homogenous. We've been debating strategies on how best to turn the country into a truly excellent representative democracy.

Here's one idea we had:

First off, Election Day should be a holiday. I could stop right there. Why isn't it a holiday? Really, we take days off for some of the most arbitrary things. The single calendar day arguably most rationally suited to being a holiday is not. What gives with that? I'm making it part of my Personal Life Crusade to get at least this plank of our plan enacted.

[/digression]

On Election Day, everyone eligible to vote gathers in geographically divided groups of 20. They spend all day trading words, talking ideas, deliberative polling, all the good civic stuff. Then, they elect a representative for the group, ostensibly the smartest and savviest member.

Then those representatives gather in groups of 20, and do the same.

Now it's Wednesday, and we've got 500,000 representatives, who gather in groups of 20, and pick 25,000 representatives, who gather on Thursday in groups of 20 and pick 1,250 representatives. Who gather on Friday and choose a legislature.

That's the gist of it. Thoughts?

February 4, 2004

January 28, 2004

Just Two Short Months Ago

Sigh. I sort of miss the days when we could just daydream possibilities, entirely unperturbed by things like "primaries" or "votes" or any other little reverie-ruining nasties like that. Reality has this uncanny way of biting you on the ass.

William Safire is playing fairy godpundit to conservatives, complete with random Hillary Clinton reference.

Honestly, I don't understand all the excitement among Dems about the prospect of a brokered convention. Yes, it's nice for the candidates to have an exciting three-way (possibly four-way, but I can't see Clark going too much further) political race going on, but after March, it would get real old, real fast. The more these three candidates are mired in the need to beat each other, the more they polarize their supporters among each other. Already, bitter-but-defeated Dean supporters have decided they just can't support John Kerry, so they'll probably be sitting this one out. I imagine a good number of Kerry's supporters feel the same way, or will, by the end of an even rougher nomination battle. Whoever emerges from such a bloody fight can't be in good shape to take on the incumbent President. Can they?

I mean, I know our national attention span is short, but are the months between July and November long enough for Dean/Kerry/Edwards/Clark supporters to forgive and forget their grievances, and rally behind the nominee?

At any rate, Robin was right that the expectations game cuts like a knife. A week ago, Dean was absolutely finished. Then on Thursday, things began turning around, and he had to take second in order to hang on. Anything less than second, and he was done. By Monday, his poll numbers were trending up, and he had to take a solid second to remain competitive, not just edge out a Mo-powered Edwards or Clark. Now, the story is apparently that although his second placing was solid, it wasn't close enough to Kerry to count as a victory of any sort. Remarkable.

January 20, 2004

January 12, 2004

Debating The New Republic

What is going on over at TNR?

Last week, they announced the guffaw-inducing endorsement of Joe Lieberman for the Democratic candidacy. "Only Lieberman--the supposed candidate of appeasement--is challenging his party, enduring boos at event after event, to articulate a different, better vision of what it means to be a Democrat," the editors wrote.

Only Lieberman has the strength of character to draw boos from his own party!

"If you've lost The New Republic," goes Howard Kurtz's quote, prominently displayed at the top of the "TNR Primary" main page, "you've dug yourself a hole in the Democratic primaries." And they said irony was dead.

Not content to merely consign the magazine to irrelevance for the remainder of the primary cycle, however, someone had the bright idea to make this "point-counterpoint" about the endorsement into a centerpiece article.

Only it's more of a "point-point," seeing as how the authors don't actually disagree. They're both arguing that the endorsement was a really, really crackheaded idea.

And they're right. But we've already established that the endorsement had about as much of an effect on electoral politics as Britney's marriage (when you've lost the New Haven Register, you've dug yourself a hole blah blah blah...). How do they expect someone to care about this excruciating metacoverage of an article no one cared about in the first place? Or is Peter Beinart just seriously into self-torture?

Answers, please, anyone...

January 11, 2004

January 5, 2004

January 3, 2004

December 30, 2003

If the Label Don't Fit...

... apply it to Howard Dean anyway.

A few days ago, I dismissed this New Republic article as an evidence-lacking, context-destroying, Pickler-esque, and pretty-much-instantly-debunked attempt at creating a new DeanMeme™. Jonathan Chait, however, is not ready to let Foer's article go, even in the wake of Dean's rebuttal. In fact, he's revised his earlier assessment of the article up from "blockbuster" to "masterful" in his latest blog item.

Foer disparaged Dean by asserting he was not "openly religious" enough to be President, selectively quoting comments such as "[I] don't go to church very often" and "My religion doesn't inform my public policy" to advance the argument that Dean is areligious. (More of what Dean actually said: "I'm a nice, New England Congregationalist, I pray every night, and don't go to church very often... My religion does not inform my public policy, but it does inform my values.")

So Dean went to the Boston Globe two days after the article was published to be more "openly religious."

Now, Chait declares it's "too little, too late," for two reasons. First, because of all those hostile comments that Dean's made against religion, of which Franklin Foer managed to cite exactly none. Second, because "it's pretty obvious that religiosity is not natural" for Dean.

To this I say, first of all, obvious to whom? Second of all, this is a clear example of damned if you do, damned if you don't, damned if you're Dean. Third, if this is what passes for "masterful" in The New New Republic, they maybe oughtta give some thought to putting that Glass fellow back on the payroll.

December 27, 2003

Label Howard Dean!

Is it just me, or have our top political journalists been competing to see who can pin the longest-lasting label to the Dean campaign?

First, Dean was too liberal. Then, he was too Northern and/or elitist (He's from Vermont! Vermont's not the real America! or He grew up in New York, completely detached from the corn-fed youth of the real America!). Too politically uncalculating. Too forthright. Too angry.

The Bush reelection team got into the game last week.

But my favorite so far is Franklin Foer's, from The New Republic: He's too secular.

You've gotta love any article that starts with an essentially unproveable thesis -- "Howard Dean is one of the most secular candidates to run for president in modern history" -- and then attempts to back it up with a steaming pile of lack-of-proof. When Foer makes an assertion accompanied by the word "often" or "generally," expect him to offer one shabby out-of-context quote as evidence, e.g.:

When Dean talks about organized religion, it is often in a negative context. "I don't want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore," he shouted at the California Democratic Convention in March. And, when he discusses spirituality, it is generally divorced from any mention of God or church. "We are not cogs in a corporate machine," he preached last month in Iowa. "We are human, spiritual beings who deserve better consideration as human beings than we're getting from this administration."

A quarter of Foer's treatise is devoted to explaining how Dean's religion just isn't quite religious enough. Another quarter of the article details how Dean's mainstream Democratic positions fail to endear him to fundamentalist Christians (whom, by the way, Foer insists on confusing with evangelical Christians).

Ah well, no matter. Dean, seeing a new media label in the making, seems to have put out a foot to squash this one early.

What label do you think they'll come up with next?? I've got one idea...

... Read more ....

December 22, 2003

December 16, 2003

December 15, 2003

More News You Missed

Mr. John Edwards also gave his foreign policy speech today. Thankfully, instead of posting the whole, high-fallutin'-rhetoric-having speech on his website, he presented it in a nutritious little bite-size five-part morsel. But Edwards' and Dean's ideas are basically parallel. His five planks, in brief:

1) Global Nuclear Compact: Everyone get together and non-proliferate!

2) UN Resolution: Criminalize terrorism-sponsoring and nuke-developing countries.

3) Secure Loose Nukes: Triple the amount we spend on threat reduction programs. To do this, we'd severely cut back our own nuke-developing efforts.

4) Homeland Intelligence Agency: This new government wing would take over the terrorist-tracking duties of the FBI. We'd also hire more intelligence folks.

5) Non-Proliferation Director: A new high-level administration position.

Dean's outline was broader; he includes more money for non-proliferation efforts and assorted goodies like $30 billion to combat AIDS. But where does he plan to get these billions from? Edwards' plan may be more realistic.

Of course, if the Dems lose Congress, neither plan will have much traction now, will it?

News You Missed

While the L.A. Times was running 19 pages of Saddam coverage (thanks, Kevin Drum), Dean was giving his major foreign policy address. Like all such speeches, it was long on rhetoric and short on specifics, but here's the broad outline:

Saddam in custody is nice and all, but it don't change much.

There are three parts to Dean's terrorism-wrasslin', mass-destruction-avertin' plan:

1) Grant more resources to military and intelligence agencies, but less on nuclear weapons development and testing.

2) Rebuild our shattered alliances, giving special consideration to a NATO role in Iraq and foreign affairs in general, as well as to Latin America.

3) Focus the fight against terror by making it a global thing, and building up our homeland security institutions (bringing the National Guard back home, for example).

Extra goodies:

· More funding for the Nunn-Lugar nuclear disarmament program, specifically $30 billion over 10 years to combat nuclear proliferation. We'll also our allies to match this sum, for a total of $60 billion worldwide devoted to nuclear disarmament.
· Play nice with the Muslims.
· $30 billion in the fight against AIDS by 2008.

Also: Dean's consulting Ashton Kutcher for foreign policy advice???!

... Read more ....

December 8, 2003

Gore Endorses Dean

Josh Marshall is stunned.

Bloggers everywhere are agog.

At CalPundit and at Daily Kos, armchair pundits (much like myself) read elaborate Machiavellian intentions and ramifications into the move.

In case you don't know what I'm talking about, Al Gore has apparently decided to endorse Howard Dean tomorrow.

To me, this is unexpected, but not mystifying or nonsensical, by any stretch. Over and over again these past few months, Gore has indicated a desire to reach the exact same demographic that is currently falling all over itself for the good doctor -- the young, tech-savvy, anti-war types that continue to make people stand up and notice Dean's campaign. Gore's and Dean's most prized audiences align almost perfectly; it seems like a perfect fit to me.

Why all the shock?

November 28, 2003

The Dean/Clark Question

Dean/Clark.

Dean/Clark.

Quite the intriguing ticket. The combination has almost a dramatic potency. Dean, whichever way you slice it, has a record of actually accomplishing his prioritized goals against political odds, rare in recent Democratic observance. And of course his campaign itself is a phenomenon. Clark is, quite simply, an übermensch. Every time I hear his list of honors, achievements, and accolades, I think, "Good Lord, is this a real person?"

It's just kind of exciting. The intellectual capacity to generate big ideas (Clark) combined with the executive tenacity necessary to achieve them (Dean). A doctor's healing paired with a general's might. North and South. Change. Insurgency. Revolution.

Even Andrew Sullivan gets a bit turned on by the idea.

We've been hearing murmurs about Dean/Clark for a long while now from the blogosphere and the media.

What are the chances? What are the permutations? What are the drawbacks? (Assorted randomness follows.)

... Read more ....

November 20, 2003

November 13, 2003

That Damned Dean

I understand the establishment Democrats (registration req'd.) are frightened about Howard Dean possibly becoming the Democratic nominee in 2004. And I agree, there's a very real chance he could be nominated and get completely Punk'd by Karl Rove, Destroyer of Worlds, eventually dying friendless and alone in a Shaker commune, clutching his Joe Trippi doll.

But come now.

Marvel at the rhetorical contortionism some columnists demonstrate in portraying Howard Dean as the True Emerging Evil of the 2004 elections.

... Read more ....

November 5, 2003

Old-School Howard Dean

OK, say you're the average not-from-Vermonter. Four years ago, Howard Dean completely did not exist. I mean, honestly, had someone approached you four years ago talking about "Howard Dean," could your face have been anything but blank at that moment?

Today, if you don't know who Howard Dean is, you pretty much need to put down Snarkmarket and pick up a newspaper clue.

And your cred is dodgy at best if you've never heard of Zephyr Teachout.

Well, so, my eventual point is that we ostensibly know all about Howard Dean, the presidential candidate. But most of us know precious little about Howard Dean, actual former governor of Vermont. And there's a way to change all that, if you're interested.

... Read more ....

An Aging Audience

Little did I realize what a dramatic distinction Gore & Co. are making by aiming a news channel at young people.

In an Atlanta Journal-Constitution story about last night's Democratic debate on CNN, Caroline Wilbert notes that the median age of CNN's audience is... 61! Furthermore:

CNN is not the only cable network with gray hair. The median age of Fox News' viewers is 60. And MSNBC, despite launching with a slick techie style during the dot-com boom, isn't much different. The average age is 58.

Well, this completely freaks me out. It suddenly seems like the news channels are all operating in a parallel dimension. A dimension... where everyone is old.

Speaking of the Democratic debate: Anderson Cooper is clearly a synthetic newsdroid sent from the future to change the past. Whether it's for good or for ill remains to be seen.