Listening to the ever growing number of leftists decry George W. Bush and his cronies as fascists has led me wonder what the leftists consider ‘fascist’. Unfortunately it appears to be anyone who happens to disagree with them. Nowhere is this more evident than when it comes to Bush, the UN, ‘international law’, and Iraq.

Paul Berman illustrates this disconnection between the leftists and the realities of fascism in an article published in the Winter 2004 edition of Dissent Magazine.

In the closing paragraphs of his article he tries so hard to open the eyes of his friend to the foolishness of his declarations that Bush is a fascist, but fails:

My friend said, “I’m for the UN and international law, and I think you’ve become a traitor to the left. A neocon!”

I said, “I’m for overthrowing tyrants, and since when did overthrowing fascism become treason to the left?”

“But isn’t George Bush himself a fascist, more or less? I mean-admit it!”

My own eyes widened. “You haven’t the foggiest idea what fascism is,” I said. “I always figured that a keen awareness of extreme oppression was the deepest trait of a left-wing heart. Mass graves, three hundred thousand missing Iraqis, a population crushed by thirty-five years of Ba’athist boots stomping on their faces-that is what fascism means! And you think that a few corrupt insider contracts with Bush’s cronies at Halliburton and a bit of retrograde Bible-thumping and Bush’s ridiculous tax cuts and his bonanzas for the super-rich are indistinguishable from that?-indistinguishable from fascism? From a politics of slaughter? Leftism is supposed to be a reality principle. Leftism is supposed to embody an ability to take in the big picture. The traitor to the left is you, my friend . . .”

But this made not the slightest sense to him, and there was nothing left to do but to hit each other over the head with our respective drinks.

This shines a light on the problems that many among the left suffer – the inability to understand what is and isn’t so, overusing and misusing words to define opponents that does nothing but demean themselves and cheapen the definitions of what evil really is. They muddy the waters, try to blur the line between right and wrong, good and evil. They have become so obsessed with one person in the government that they’ve come unhinged, willing to say and do things they wouldn’t otherwise consider doing. They become the very thing they claim to be against. They betray their own beliefs.

And they’re blind to it.

Of course, it’s just my opinion. I could be wrong…..

…but in this case, not likely.

(A tip of the hat to Duck Season)

Joe Lieberman got another boost of “Joe-mentum” Thursday from a crucial endorsement:

By Jason Nodler - TCP New Mexico Correspondent

The only political coverage I could watch on TV [Tuesday] night was Nightline. Having spent the last ten years in Houston running an underground theater company and having succeeded sufficiently that it might now be called simply a theater company (not quite so underground as it once was), I decided to move to Albuquerque, New Mexico — partly because of that great Neil Young song and partly, as idealized by that song, because I didn’t know anyone here. I still don’t. That’s the good news. The bad news is I don’t have cable yet, so I watched [Tuesday] night’s results on the internet and on Nightline. Kerry and Dean were both on the program. Having supported Kerry, then Dean (“I can’t believe what Kerry’s saying about him! I’ll never vote for Kerry!”), then wavering between Kerry and Edwards, I am now squarely in the camp of the undecided. Will Saletan’s got a good article on Slate (“Death of a Salesman”) that makes the case that Kerry’s being sold by everyone but himself and that when it comes time for him to personally make the sale he falls flat. Now I didn’t see his speech last night, but on Nightline at least that criticism seemed pretty right on — he spoke in the broad cliches of the front-runner and aimed his attacks at easy targets like ‘special’ and ‘powerful’ interests (can’t anyone on either side do this?), hitting them softly and carefully enough that, had his attacks been darts, they would have fallen out of the board before they could be counted toward his score. The old knock on him lives: publically, at least, he continues to lack passion. He has the issues on his side though and, if the public is much smarter than he or any of the other candidates (on either side) apparently gives it credit for, that should be enough to put him over the top.

I get so sad watching Dean now. He is absolutely the best candidate with the best message and he’s absolutely lost touch with both his message and, it seems, also his interest in it. And when I speak of Dean’s passion I’m not talking about the forced enthusiasm he displayed for his wounded campaign in the famous Iowa speech, but the passion he used to reserve for the core Democratic issues to which the other campaigns only paid lip service. Both Kerry and Dean have suffered from the careful, defensive campaigns that frontrunners inevitably run (“Power corrupts,” as they say. At the least, it deflates.). It never fails and it never fails to disappoint. Dean’s old “anger” is exactly what’s lacking in Kerry, Clark, Edwards and the new and decidedly unimproved Dean. They all talk about taking back America now (I’m sure this slogan’s been around forever, but it was on every single piece of Jerry Brown’s paraphenalia when I ran his Houston campaign and I can’t help but smile when this year’s models use it.), but while each of them makes the intellectual case for the importance of “taking back this country” not one of them displays a personal stake in it. Since Dean, anyway. And if these guys can’t get passionate about the argument for regime change at home, they can hardly expect anyone else to.

This was the Gore problem. Deeply held beliefs badly married with careful campaign strategies. The public wants passion we’re told, so they all start imitating Dean (old Dean). Then Edwards strikes a chord with his “positive” campaigning (which, let’s face it, was the act of a desperate campaign trying to carve out something, anything, to set itself apart from the pack) and now the public wants gentility, so they all imitate Edwards. It’s not specific to Democrats — the “reformer with results” thing was Bush dancing McCain — but it is specific to politics and it’s grossly disappointing. This is why Dean was so refreshing. McCain, too. Dean even had the benefit of being on the right side of the issues. But apparently, as close as Dean got, you can’t be right and win. Not yet anyway. The public (and the establishment, another unfortunate necessity to a successful major party bid), whatever it wants, apparently does not want someone with the strength of his convictions. Or at least they don’t want someone with the gall to display that strength in public. They want humility bordering impotence. They want someone “safe.” They don’t want to “take back this country” and they don’t even know what that means. Don’t believe that line about ‘someone they can have a beer with’ either. They want someone who drinks O’Doul’s, never raises his voice and only breaks a sweat when jogging.

I saw Clark [in New Mexico] today. He wasn’t bad. Of course, he wasn’t good either. He was fine. His campaign aides probably told him he was “just right.” (Jerry Brown got off a great line in one of the 92 debates. Drawing on his Jesuit background he referenced the Bible to say, “You are neither hot nor cold so I vomited you out of my mouth. That’s what I say about moderates.”) As it is with Kerry, Clark’s biographical video upstaged his actual stump speech easily, reminding me again how politics kills any sincere spirit that might have once resided in a candidate. Clark is so much better than he has been even once on the trail. The evidence litters his personal and professional history, but is woefully absent in this campaign. He had some good moments today though. He doesn’t come off half as creepy in person as he does on television, which is a tremendous relief. I hadn’t heard the speech he gave today, so I don’t know if it’s new or old but it was strong enough. He started by listing five or so values he’d picked up in the military. A few were faith, family and inclusion (employed to make the case for affirmative action — one of his better arguments). And then he devoted time to each one, explaining how he (and the party) embodies these values better than Bush and the GOP. One good line was about how his faith teaches to take care of people less fortunate than one’s self. He called that “living your faith” and said that that was one of the main reasons he was proud to be a Democrat. His best stuff was on family values. He talked about how you couldn’t have a family without a job because you couldn’t afford one and followed by characterizing job creation as a family value. He applied the same template to decently crafted arguments for attention to health care, education, the environment, etc. When he let himself roll it was effective, when he didn’t it reminded me why his campaign’s been sagging.

With the TV creepiness out of the way — in public Clark actually does blink on occasion and he apparently doesn’t feel compelled to haul out the fakey, wax figure smile that haunts his television appearances — his main problem was that he still insisted on talking down to his audience. He’s the same in debates and interviews. His painfully measured rhythms, his unnatural pauses and his slow to the point of sing-songy delivery (I swear this is not Southern — it’s specific to him) combine to inspire nothing so much in the listener as restlessness and agitation. There were times his speech — and, dare I say, his passion? — got the better of him and he seemed to forget to speak to us like “ordinary people” (read: benign but dumb or perhaps differently abled children) and instead spoke to us like intellectual equals. Those were his best moments and they both (yes, there were only two) elicited standing ovations.

The thing is, Clark is right on the issues. And Kerry is right and Dean is right and Edwards is right and Gephardt was right and so was Gore. And I believe they believe what they’re saying. But, with the very rare exception, the only one that’s made me want to fight for what they (and I) believe in is Dean. And he hasn’t done it in what feels like a very long while. Every one of these candidates should be locked in a room for a week with nothing to do but watch Gore’s Move On speeches. They have been the best speeches, and the best delivered speeches, of the season. Of course, Gore couldn’t give those speeches when he was a candidate. He had the same problem all these other guys have now. If someone can manage to not only “speak truth to power,” but to speak it truthfully, they will win. And they will deserve to win.

I agree with those who say there is nothing more important to the future of this country than denying a second term to George Bush. Regardless of what the public says it wants though (and let’s face it — they don’t have the first idea what they want until the media tells them), this important mission will be better accomplished by true believers expressing true beliefs than by over-coached tightrope walkers.

Jason Nodler is a New Mexico playwright who ran Jerry Brown’s Houston office in 1992.

[File under humor]

Can I get a HELL YEAH? A fellow New Yorker, Ronnie James Dio is my choice for President of the United States. He is the only one who can take us into the next four years with confidence and righteousness. He has worked in several cabinets, doing time with Ritchie Blackmore and Ozzy Osbourne before striking out on his own to win the hearts and minds of American voters.

Dio on Homeland Security: So, fortune shine your light on me and my clothes Cause we need some security. What he means is that he doesn’t want to have to wear radioactive suits, so he is going to be big on securing the U.S. against terror attacks.

Dio on Crime: Cry out to legions of the brave, time again to save us from the jackals of the street. RJD would send the National Guard out wipe out street crime. Every day, in every state.

Dio on the War on Terror: Ride the tiger/You can see his stripes but you know he’s clean/Oh don’t you see what I mean/Gotta get away/Holy Diver. Basically, you go all religious jihad on us, we’ll go vendetta jihad on your ass.

Dio on legalizing marijuana: And now you can fly/So take your magic carpet ride. Enough said.

Dio on Gay Rights: I was feelin’ rather good/Should’ve touched some wood. Yea, he’s on your side, guys.

As it says on Dio’s election blog:

In fantasy tales, peasants had to worry about dragons coming to take their children away, hoping that their feudal lords would protect them from the marauding dragons with their strength or magic. But those times are long gone, and today’s leaders have lost all their magic. Fortunately, the only thing that regular people need to protect themselves today is the vote — and you’ve got it!

His name is Dio and he dances on the sand. Ronnie James Dio.

Get out the vote.

If the numbers hold up, it looks like Kerry could have another impressive victory in New Hampshire. With 71% of Districts reporting CNN has called the race. Kerry appears to have won by around 15% of the vote. So the question now is who still has a chance and who doesn’t.

Kerry
Okay … so its obvious Kerry is now beyond a shadow of a doubt the “front runner”. But there is still much to be decided.

Dean
The only thing more certain than Kerry’s frontrunner status is Dean lack of status. Dean needed a win in New Hampshire, not just because he lost Iowa, but also because he isn’t really polling well in the states that are to vote in next week’s primaries. Even before tonight he was polling fifth in both South Carolina and Oklahoma, fourth in Arizona. No fresh poll data is available for the other states participating … but I wouldn’t expect much there either. The question mark left for Dean is who will he endorse. Important: Dean technically still has a delegate lead, although that should change very fast as the primaries move on. This is possible because not all delegates are tied to the primary elections. For instance, New Hampshire has 27 total delegates but only 22 tied to tonight’s primary. How these other delegates are assigned is extraordinarily complicated but you can read more here. So even if Dean loses he migth still play an important roll in Boston

Edwards
While Edwards only received about 13% of the New Hampshire vote, he’s still in good position for the long run. He has a respectable 5 point lead in South Carolina with 18% still undecided. He’s running 2nd in Okalahoma, only 5 points behind Clark who will probably maintain that lead due to the state’s proximity to Arkansas. Edwards is also polling pretty well in Arizona. While he may not have the energy to win the nomination, he can certainly rack up enough delegates to be a factor in the nomination.

Clark
While Clark is certainly weakened by his performance in New Hampshire, he’s not dead yet. He’s doing well in South Carolina, Okalahoma and Arizona. He might just be able to hang in long enough to benefit from some infighting between Kerry and Edwards. Yeah, I know they’re both brandishing their happy faces at the moment, but once Dean is beaten (if he isn’t already) they will have to turn on each other. Unless, of course, a backroom deal is struck to secure a Kerry-Edwards ticket.

Lieberman
There isn’t much to say here except … oh, poor Joe. Probably one of the most fair minded of all the candidates, he unfortunately lacks the ability to get voters excited about taking on Bush. Perhaps he lacks the temperament as well. Lieberman can play an important roll on the stump however, if he picks up the banner for either Kerry or Edwards. He would brings an air of establishment support to either. By dropping out sooner and supporting Edwards he might even earn himself a cabinet position, were Edwards to win. But I wouldn’t expect Joe to do anything but what he thinks is right for the party or the country.

Sharpton and Kuncinich
Well … nevermind.

All this being said, I have a feeling that most everyone will hang on until next week at least. Now that delegates are assigned porportionately, any candidate could rack up a hand full of delegates that he could then hang on to until the convention. Doing so keeps them in the process even if not as a viable candidate. If the race turns out to be close going into the convention, those delegates could then be traded for something of value (whatever that means).

The Detroit Free Press’s TV best bets touches (sort of) upon an underreported aspect of this election season: the wrenching weekly conflict for those of us who are both American politics junkies and American Idol junkies!

Who do we watch: Simon, Paula & Randy, or Howard, Wesley & the Johns? This battle royale happened when Iowa voted, it happens again tonight, and it promises to become a weekly, every-Tuesday ritual until the nomination is decided.

The West Coast is safe — New Hampshire’s result will probably be known by 8:00 PM PST, when Idol airs — but back east, Simon will be dissing various “worst singers ever” during prime vote-counting hours. It’s bad in the Central and Mountain time zones, too; my house in Arizona will probably be segregated again into two separate TV-watching “zones.”

Leftist Censorship now Comes With a Free Aggravated Assault

From Little Tiny Lies.

All the idiots who defend Al Franken have a big problem to cope with today. Bigger than the abysmal stupidity they have to cope with in the first place.

Al just flipped out and attacked a heckler at a Dean rally. A LaRouchie was yelling during the festivities. The shrimpy, bespectacled, hobbitlike hack comic jumped him and knocked him to the ground. Al later said he did it out of respect for free speech.

Let’s see. What was the LaRouchie doing when Al went postal on him? Let’s say it together…SPEAKING. So I guess to Al, “freedom” means “the right to be sat on by a third-tier comedy writer.”

Censorship is almost exclusively the tool of the left now. When was the last time anyone on the right even tried to silence someone? John Mitchell couldn’t even make his own wife shut up. But the left does it all the time. They try to get Rush taken off the air. They pass Orwellian, authoritarian rules on college campuses, essentially forbidding anyone to say anything negative about anything the left likes. They throw eggs at Arnold while he campaigns for governor. They barge onstage while President Reagan tries to accept awards. Now they’ve progressed to outright beatings.

I haven’t seen the guy Al took down, but it’s safe to assume he wasn’t a Navy SEAL or a martial arts instructor. I wish some day he’d pull a stunt like that on someone like Ollie North or J.C. Watts. They’d take Al’s little shrimpy body home in three shopping bags and a damp sponge.

Remember, conservatives: free speech isn’t for us. It’s not even for the LaRouchies. It’s for Al and guys who want to photograph crucifixes soaking in urine. So if you want to heckle at a Dean rally, make sure you bring your own bucket of urine to stand in. Then you’re golden. So to speak.

Just when you think idiotarianism has hit its limit, someone steps up and proves you wrong.

First, the good news. In the wake of her remarks that she could imagine herself becoming a suicide bomber, the British Liberal Democratic Party still has enough sense that they’ve asked MP Jenny Tonge to step down as their spokeswoman for children. (Hat Tip: reader Elaine)

Spokeswoman for children. Such times we live in.

When even the often-addled Lib Dems understand the problem, you’d think the issue would be pretty cut and dried. Yet my article’s humourous jabs at both Ms. Tonge and her party’s electoral prospects inspired not one but 2 idiotarian responses. Ross Judson’s reply post reads like a conservative’s parody of bleeding-heart liberals, full of ‘understanding’ for the suicide bombers and refusal to judge. Alas, it’s no parody. The other respondent, Andy, actually believes that it’s perfectly legitimate to blow up grandmothers in the streets - and says so directly.

I wish I was making that up. As you can see, I’m not.

I’ll restrict this post to Ross’ views, however, because I believe we may have enough common ground to make discussion useful. It will also enable me to lay the foundations of an important argument, and show the linkages between a distressingly common worldview and the scandalous moral vacuum of a Ms. Tonge. Andy, in contrast, will be saved for tomorrow’s Idiotarian Watch. By his own words shall ye know him.

Read the Rest…

In the upcoming election, national security and the war on terrorism will be the front and center issue for many voters. It is for this voter. Were it not for President Bush’s leadership in confronting terrorism head on, risking his Presidency to do so, I would stay home this November. Bush’s wild spending and refusal to reign in the cost of the federal government is irresponsible and goes against just about every ideal that conservatives stand for.

However, I will cast my vote for President Bush this November, because they country cannot afford for any of the Democratic nominees, save for Joe Lieberman, to become President.

Oliver Willis weakly attempts to make the case that Democrats are more serious about fighting Al Qaeda than President Bush. He precedes making that statement by listing a bunch of quotes from the wannabes on the Democratic side. John Edwards and John Kerry have very tough words for Saudi Arabia, but how is it that during their tenures as Senators they have never felt to address this issue?

Wesley Clark and Howard Dean in short are repeating the meme that Iraq has become a “distraction” from the war on terror and that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Edwards and Kerry have made similar comments and it is proof positive as to why none of these men should be given the responsibility of leading our nation.

The position that Iraq is a “distraction” from the war on terror is ridiculous. Every day we are reading of Al Qaeda members being captured, as well as Taliban leaders. Two-thirds of Al Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed. Where is the distraction? The recent orange alert was not proof of this either. The alert showed our intelligence community gathering good information and we’re taking steps to prevent any attacks.

As for Oliver’s assertion that Democrats are more serious than GWB in fighting terrorism, the only reference we have for that to determine its’ validity is to look at the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Clinton far more hawkish than either Howard Dean or John Kerry. Yet, his record with regard to fighting terrorism is a disgrace. From 1993 to 2000, there were 5 major terrorist attacks against UN institutions. The World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers, the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and the USS Cole. Aside from criminal conviction the the WTC bombing, we did nothing to fight back. President Clinton ordered a few missile strikes and we bombed an aspiring factory in the Sudan. But other than that, nothing.

Many Democrats have attempted to say that the GOP was to blame because they hamstrung the President in his attempts to pass more terrorism related legislation. However, a recent article by Richard Shultz in the Weekly Standard offers a devastating look at how the Clinton adminstration really handled terrorism. Paul Begala has said that Clinton was ‘obsessed’ with Al Qaeda.

Maybe he was. On paper. President Clinton planned quite a bit, but he didn’t pull the trigger:

These examples, among others, depict an increasingly aggressive, lethal, and preemptive counterterrorist policy. But not one of these operations—all authorized by President Clinton—was ever executed. General Schoomaker’s explanation is devastating. “The presidential directives that were issued,” he said, “and the subsequent findings and authorities, in my view, were done to check off boxes. The president signed things that everybody involved knew full well were never going to happen. You’re checking off boxes, and have all this activity going on, but the fact is that there’s very low probability of it ever coming to fruition. . . .”

To be fair, Shultz also pins quite a bit of the blame on the Pentagon as well, but it starts at the top.

The question is, how would John Kerry and Howard Dean be any better? What concrete proposals and ideas have they offered? The answer is, nothing. They’ve paved their way to the Presidential election by doing nothing but complaining about President Bush. Pretty soon, they are going to have to answer the question: What are you going to do about the war on terrorism?

The answer thus far, has made it clear to me that President Bush deserves a second term. It goes beyond people like me, who are more conservative to begin with. Ed Koch, a lifelong Democrat has already said he will cast his vote for President Bush in November:

I am a lifelong Democrat. I was elected to New York’s City Council, Congress and three terms as mayor of New York City on the Democratic Party line. I believe in the values of the Democratic Party as articulated by Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and by Senators Hubert Humphrey, Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Our philosophy is: “If you need a helping hand, we will provide it.” The Republican Party’s philosophy, on the other hand, can be summed up as: “If I made it on my own, you will have to do the same.”

Nevertheless, I intend to vote in 2004 to reelect President Bush. I will do so despite the fact that I do not agree with him on any major domestic issue, from tax policy to the recently enacted prescription drug law. These issues, however, pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation. President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism.

The Democratic presidential contenders, unfortunately, inspire no such confidence. With the exception of Senator Joseph Lieberman, who has no chance of winning, the Democrats have decided that in order to get their party’s nomination, they must pander to its radical left wing. As a result, the Democratic candidates, even those who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, have attacked the Bush administration for its successful effort to remove a regime that was a sponsor of terrorism and a threat to world peace.

As one famous blogger often says: Indeed.

Sometimes you just have to wonder if the Israeli government is really this obtuse…

HA‘ARETZ: Kerry: Israel can’t provide goods in talks with Palestinians

Israeli officials who analyzed Kerry’s comments said they were, at worst, a misunderstanding. They believe he meant that Israel does not have a partner for talks on the Palestinian side, since the Palestinians are unable to provide the goods.

No, it’s quite possible that the flip-flopping Kerry, his positions as stable as a fried egg sliding on a Pam-covered teflon pan, means exactly what he said this time around.

The Massachusetts senator called for strengthening the Palestinian Authority so that it will be stronger than Hamas.

Would someone who thought that there wasn’t an honest broker among the Palestinian Authority suggest such a thing? Strengthen that which is not trustworthy, and then send Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter to deal with them?

I think not.

Instead of forcing the ambassador to Sweden into retirement, maybe he needs to be promoted to head the Foreign Ministry and start telling it like it is?

From John Kerry’s own website, we see that he’s living in a dreamland:

Prime Minister Qureia must take serious, demonstrable steps to stop the bombings against Israelis and to rein in militant Palestinian groups bent on destroying the peace process. In Kerry’s view, it is critical that our European and Arab allies support this effort aggressively. If Prime Minister Qureia is committed to this course of action, the United States and its allies should provide technical assistance and training to the Palestinian security forces to strengthen their capacity to root out terrorist groups

Puppet-Minister Queria’s already stated, no ifs ands or buts, that he will not use security forces against terrorist groups. His goal instead is to negotiate and use political solutions with them. The only end-result of beefing up Palestinian “security forces” will be is to save the terrorists the effort from smuggling the arms in under Rafah or across the Jordan River in UNICEF crates.

Making the Palestinian Authority (and its offshots, such as Fateh and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) stronger is about as dumb as making the Taliban strong again so it can fight Al-Qaeda.

There’s no need for Bush to send a mission to Mars. Kerry’s so out of touch, his brain is already there.

UPDATE:
HA‘ARETZ: Kerry: I believe Ariel Sharon willing to make peace

“I believe Ariel Sharon is willing to make peace, I really believe it,” leading Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry said to a crowd in Salem, New Hampshire on Monday, in his last public appearance ahead of Tuesday’s primary.

Yes, but after this latest flip-flop, who will believe Kerry?

Oh… wait… he’s looking for the votes of Democrats. Where it’s cold. In the middle of winter.

Those suckers’ll believe anything for a cup of hot cocoa and a few free lift tickets.

This post originated here on the nikita demosthenes blog.

Here is the e-mail to me from Ellen McCarthy of the Washington Post:

- - - - - - -

Hey Nikita, thanks for replying. Basically, what I’m trying to figure out
is what kind of an impact, if any, blogs are having on national issues and
the political scene? i.e., do blogs matter. I’m hearing two theories on
the subject. One is that people who blog mostly read other blogs that
generally agree with their views, so no minds are being changed. The other
is that bloggers have a sort of power-in-numbers effect, so that if a whole
group is blogging about one issue enough, it can be brought to the
forefront and reach mainstream culture. like the trent lott thing. Would
love to know your thoughts. I’m shy by nature myself (though the nature
of the occupation has forced me to overcome it a little), so I understand.

Thanks, Ellen

- - - - - - -

And here’s my response to Ms. McCarthy:

- - - - - - -

Ms. McCarthy:

Thanks for the e-mail. Obviously, I can only tell you about what I’ve observed about bloggers (and my own attitudes) - but different bloggers may have very different responses to your questions.

1. First you ask whether blogs matter. My response is an emphatic yes. There are several reasons why they matter.

a. Sometimes people are uncertain if their views are held by them alone. Blogs help people gain confidence in their views if there are blogs out there with similar views. And blogs will help them refine and re-examine their views in ways that may not have occurred to them otherwise.

b. More important, it seems to me that with the “24-hour news cycle” blogs are increasingly driving the ever-hungry beast of constant TV and radio news. As you know, the whole Monica Lewinsky story first broke on The Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/) (a news site that is kind of the precursor to today’s blogs). Obviously, the Clinton-Lewinsky story mattered (no matter which way you came down on it). Blogs fulfill this role often. (Remember Howard Dean’s recent lukewarm disavowal of a Bush conspiracy theory about knowing about 9-11 in advance? That theory probably started in the blogosphere.)

Bottom line, blogs create a lot of buzz around stories - and that often cause the stories to be repeated in the mainstream press. This is good because, unlike in the past, the “gatekeepers” in the mainstream press can’t just ignore a story and be totally confident that it will “just go away.” (Like Newsweek tried with the Clinton-Lewinsky story.)

Blogs not only create “buzz,” but also make it difficult for people with certain political views in the mainstream press to “sit” on a story that they don’t want to see reported. For example, as you may know, NBC news held the Lisa Meyers interview of Juanita Broaddrick - and refused to run the tape of such interview - until AFTER the impeachment vote in the Senate on President Clinton. Blogs should help prevent mainstream news organizations from “sitting on” an important story like this in the future. This is important because the mainstream press’ decision to report or not report a story can have huge ramifications. Consider whether the U.S. Senate would have voted differently if Juanita Broaddrick’s interview (in which she convincingly recounted how then Attorney General Bill Clinton had raped her) had aired BEFORE the Senate vote. That single “don’t run the story” decision may have saved Bill Clinton from conviction in the Senate (which conviction would have put Al Gore in the White House - and perhaps helped him win the 2000 election as the incumbent). The question then is: why should some executive at NBC have such a huge role in deciding the course of national events? I think most people would agree that such an unelected NBC executive should not have such a huge role. This decision-making - and power - should be distributed (and diluted) among many voices and many decision-makers. To paraphrase how the Supreme Court (once) thought about the subject: the remedy for a bad idea (or bad decision-making) is more speech, not less.

2. Regarding your “two theories” (your first theory is that bloggers only read like-minded blogs and your second theory is that there is strength in numbers): these, of course, are not mutually-exclusive theories. Both have some truth to them - but both have important ways in which they’re not true too.

a. As to the “bloggers just read like-minded bloggers” theory - this is partially true. But I should hasten to add that this is just human nature - and is reflected in every other sphere of life. Making this point is like saying “people around the water-cooler just listen to like-minded people around the water-cooler.” While this may also be partially true, it doesn’t mean nothing valuable is ever said at the water-cooler. Listening to like-minded speakers (or bloggers) is a legitimate way to help hone one’s own arguments about a given subject. But I, and most bloggers I know, also read competing views. As you know, there are many “in your face” blogs out there - which will only reinforce existing views, and rarely change minds. But there are also many thoughtful blogs out there which, I think, do persuade and add to the national debate in every positive sense. See, e.g.:

http://centristcoalition.com/blog/

The bloggers at the Centrist Coalition are - um - centrists. Their blog sometimes criticizes the left, sometimes the right, and often they come up with novel ideas on their own. There are many blogs like this.

So, in short, the answer to your first theory is that it’s partially true. But the “bloggers just read like-minded bloggers” is a mentally-lazy criticism that too many people in the mainstream press lean on. If you are an advocate of free speech - and if you advocate more speech and/or more “voices” in public debate - you almost by definition have to be pro-blog. People often read like-minded blogs just like people often read like-minded newspapers: but both blogs and newspapers are important places that add to the debate of local and national public policy issues.

b. Your second theory is that blogs have power in the “strength in numbers” sense. This is true in at least two ways.

First, the number of bloggers out there increases the number of people who can report on and/or analyze a story. Glenn Reynolds of the heavily-read Instapundit blog (http://www.instapundit.com/) often comments on this as the “hive-mind” aspect of the blogosphere.

Second, as you suggest, the sheer number of blogs that talk about a story can force it into the mainstream press. This is true in the sense of sheer numbers but also in the “boot-strap” sense. That is, if a heavily read blog like, say, Instapundit or Andrew Sullivan or Eschaton (see http://www.instapundit.com/; http://www.andrewsullivan.com/; and http://atrios.blogspot.com/) reports a story, it tends to have a ripple-effect in the blogosphere. An Eschaton or Instapundit story, for example, will be copied, reported, commented on, criticized, or debunked, in probably thousands of blogs over the day or two after the original post. So, not only do blogs tend to bring issues and stories out into the light-of-day for discussion - they also tend to serve as a kind of self-editor where thousands of voices support, dispute, or refine any particular view or argument.

To summarize, I think blogs serve a useful function in precisely the same way that free speech serves a useful function. Both blogs - and free speech generally - help assure that new (and old) ideas are examined critically. This helps to soundly debunk bad ideas - and it helps assure that good ideas “rise to the top” and get heard by more and more people.

I hope the above was helpful.

If you visit my blog…

http://nikita_demosthenes.blogspot.com/

… there are number of blogs in my “blogroll” - the list going down the left margin of my page. These are mainly broken down by geography - but I separate out a few high-quality blogs for special treatment at the top of my blogroll. Also, at the bottom of my blogroll, I list a number of liberal-leaning blogs that I read regularly - although I usually (but not always) disagree with them.

One issue about which the righty and lefty blogosphere usually agree is the need for actual paper receipts - showing how you voted (with copies for the voter and the elections judges) - to accompany the new electronic voting machines. If they can do it at my local Safeway or restaurant (i.e., generate an instant written credit card receipt - for both me and the retailer), they can certainly do it at the voting booth. This would provide a written record for the elections office (and the voter) against which to check the electronic results. Without this, there could be manipulation of electronic results and no one would know. Both the lefty and righty blogosphere correctly feel that this is wrong, that it’s a disaster waiting to happen, and that this is horribly underreported by the press.

Lastly, please note that I post stories at my own blog (http://nikita_demosthenes.blogspot.com/) but also at an excellent, heavily-read group blog, The Command Post:

http://www.command-post.org/

The Command Post does an excellent job of acting like a “hive-mind” (as Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit would say) to report and debate the latest news on Iraq, the 2004 elections, and the Global War on Terror.

Thanks for your e-mail. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Best wishes,

-nikita demosthenes
http://nikita_demosthenes.blogspot.com/
nikita_demosthenes@hotmail.com

P.S. I have posted your questions and my responses on the nikita demosthenes blog (http://nikita_demosthenes.blogspot.com/) and at The Command Post blog (on the Op-Ed page): see http://www.command-post.org/ and then http://www.command-post.org/oped/index.html

- - - - - - -

Is there something else I should have told her? Let me know. Thanks.

[From the Chicago Report]

Kerry’s victory last week was the equivalent of a late inning comeback in the playoffs (something Chicagoans aren’t familiar with). It could also be a considered a second half rally, a pass in the home stretch or upset. In fact, any number of sports analogies will do. Of course these analogies speak to the spectacular fashion in which victory is decided. But there is also a greater analogy between the ways in which the two opposite phenomena are covered in the press. Every four years political reporters begin sounding like sports reporters. They speculate for hours about game plans and strategies about an event, the outcome of which it is impossible to know. They read polls like stat sheets and endorsements like rosters. They even talk “inside baseball”.

This phenomenon is usually criticized as “horse race” journalism. The journalists, it is argued, do not report on the “issues” facing the country, not education and health care. They don’t think, they merely speculate about things they cannot possibly know. In this context it is the “inside” story that becomes premium. The reporter who conducts an interview or can quote a campaign coordinator “off the record” gets the popular byline for twenty-four hours. This is substance free politics.

These critics maybe right in certain respects, we do spend an awful lot of time talking about something that won’t occur for sometime and will have unpredictable effects on our world. In the mean time, there are people already dying in Iraq. There are people already being bureaucratized into absurdity. There are people … well you know the rest. The point is that they have a point.

At the same time the guilty finger is pointed in all the wrong directions, either stupid reporters or greedy corporate fiends and their bigoted advertisers. They fail to see even deeper into the relationship between politics and sports in our national psyche. Why is it that we feel the need to sit around talking about the upcoming Super Bowl ad nauseum? Why did I sit at Wrigley field for five hours last mother’s day, skin burning from 35 mph wind gust and bones frozen by temperatures unseasonable anywhere else, all the while knowing that the game would most likely be called? Because when our team takes the field it is more than just a bunch of athletes in clean jerseys. When they play it isn’t just spirited frolicking. As fans, a part (however insignificant it may be) of our identities is out there on the diamond. Our connection with a sports team is the channeling of little league triumphs and failures, of lost youth of lost parents … and so on and on. The attachment is psychologically powerful, right or wrong, and most of the time not come about rationally … it couldn’t be. It often goes back to a very brief but eminently important moment in our childhood. Mine came courtesy of WGN.

Continue reading…

by Armed Liberal, Winds of Change.NET

So here’s the question for the day:

Are we at war?

It’s important to me, since I’m spending a bunch of time digging into the Democratic field and trying to see if I can support one of them, and if so, who.

Today, I had two ‘blips’ that made me pose this question. A column in the LA Times Opinion section, by one of their military correspondents, and something in our Technorati listing (note the new UI, and that it seems to work consistently now!).

Phaedrus (cool pseudonym, BTW) writes:

Truth is, there isn’t enough real risk to even be asking the question. Truth is, the Bushies are deliberately exaggerating the risk as a means of manipulating the people. They’re psychological terrorists their own damn selves. If right wingers would stop acting like incredibly cowardly wimps, we could get back to trying to act like a democratic nation. I don’t have much hope.

Read the Rest…

Many readers have supported us with donations, which we appreciate. But the best way to support The Post is with traffic. So with the final push in New Hampshire to get out the vote, we ask that you help us “Get Out The Link.”

Support Command Post this Monday by sending the www.command-post.org URL to everyone in your contact list who you think might enjoy the site. We’re not picky: we just want to introduce people to The Command Post, and think the day before the primary is a great day to do so.

So “Get Out The Link” on Monday the 25th, and thanks for reading The Post!

[The following satire was written by Iraq vet Lt. Citizen Smash and is reprinted here with permission of the author]

THE US-LED INVASION of the Fourth Planet was intensified Saturday night, as a second front was opened on the Meridiani Planum.

The new operation, code-named “Opportunity,” was designed to divide the Martian resistance by space-dropping a mechanized unit some 6,600 miles away from the original beachhead at Gusev Crater. According to US officials, the second landing has encountered “minimal resistance.”

French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin immediately issued a statement signaling “profound concern,” for the Martian population, and expressing hope that the invasion could be “brought to an end as swiftly as possible.”

The initial operation, codenamed “Spirit,” had become bogged down Wednesday when the invasion force lost contact with the US command center in Pasadena, California – sparking comparisons to Vietnam and criticism that the invasion had become a “quagmire.”

As of Saturday, however, contact had been re-established, and efforts were underway to recommence offensive operations.

An earlier, British-led effort code-named “Beagle 2” ended in disaster late last December, when the invasion force lost contact with headquarters and was presumed to be captured or destroyed.

President George W. Bush announced the unilateral operation to “liberate” the Red Planet earlier this month, declaring that Martian leader Marvin was secretly developing an Illudium Q36 Explosive Space Modulator in defiance of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1541. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a speech before the UN General Assembly last December, asserted that Marvin intended to use the weapon to destroy Earth because it was “blocking his view of Venus.”

To date, no banned weapons have been found on Mars.

Campaigning in New Hampshire, former Vermont governor Howard Dean issued a statement commending the valiant efforts of “our brave fighting men and women,” but also declared that the invasion of Mars “has not made America safer.”

Back on January 20th, I posted on my blog about a rather unusual endorsement of a Democratic presidential candidate by one of the most conservative newspapers in America.

Joe Lieberman picked up the endorsement of the Union Leader (Manchester, NH), a bastion of conservative thought for many decades. This left Democratic Party liberals aghast. But in an editorial in today’s New Hampshire Sunday News (the Sunday edition of the Union Leader), explains why the newspaper endorsed Joe:

These people have either no understanding of this newspaper’s long history of supporting solid citizens from different political parties or they don’t want Sen. Lieberman to win, or both.

[…]

We look at the person as well as his or her party’s principles. Which is why Joe Lieberman is our choice. We don’t agree with him on a lot of issues but we find his courage, conviction and intellectual depth most admirable and we have been told the same by those who work with him on both sides of the aisle.

While this may seem contradictory to what many liberals may think of the Union Leader, the one thing the newspaper has always supported in any election is a good candidate. Even though it’s a foregone conclusion that the newspaper will endorse George W. Bush for the November presidential election, they, like me, would rather see an election where the two major opposing candidates are likely to be a good president, meaning a close race, rather than a blowout where one of the candidates is so far out of touch with the electorate that they don’t stand a chance. It is my opinion that the first kind of match up leads to a better president than the second, regardless of who wins.

It appears from the the liberal Dems’ reactions that they believe otherwise.

The Drexel University student paper is The Triangle … and here’s their latest Op/Ed: Media Needs to Report Without A Political Bias. In part, Mr. James Mack Jr., opines:

In the season of Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, and eventually the presidential election in November, we, the public, need to be assured that our choices for our candidate are our own and not the choice of what the media decides to feed us with their bias. There is a small problem, though. The media is clearly biased. To a small extent, it is right-wing biased. But the largest and most incontrovertible bias out there is the left-leaning reporting by four out of the five major news networks in the country.

Hmmm … might be a future for this writer at The Command Post …

From National Review and Andrew Sullivan (scroll down):

- - - - - - -

Impromptus

By Jay Nordlinger, Managing Editor
National Review
January 22, 2004, 8:49 a.m.

Davos Journal, Part I

Friends, I’m writing you from the village of Davos, in Switzerland, where the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum is being held. I will report for the next few days, mixing items of some moment with items of a light nature. (How does that differ from the normal Impromptus, huh?)

- - - - - - -

As for Jack Straw, he makes a striking impression. The session begins at 10:45, but Tony Blair’s minister is not there. David Ignatius announces that he’s expected at 11:05. Straw actually arrives at 10:55. The moderator points out that the minister is ahead of schedule, whereupon Straw quips, “Do you want me to go?” So many of the British seem to have quickness and charm in their blood. One does not have to be an Anglophile to recognize this simple fact of life.

When it’s time to make his prepared remarks, Straw says, “As an adherent to the British parliamentary tradition, I find it physiologically difficult to sit and speak at the same time” — but he does so anyway. What he does is deliver a powerful defense of the Coalition invasion and occupation of Iraq. He gives a defiantly upbeat report on the situation now: the Iraqi police is being firmed up; 70 million revised (i.e., de-Saddamized) textbooks have been distributed; vaccines have been made available; electricity and water are improving; etc., etc.

Straw notes that Iraq has established a currency and a central bank with remarkable speed, but that the press has not taken notice — a well-placed shot. He tells his listeners that they have no idea of the “extravagances” in which Saddam and his “ruling clique” indulged — the palaces boggle the mind. The plunder of the Iraqi people wounds the heart.

Also, Iraqis, during the long Baathist tyranny, were kept in deplorable ignorance. But now they have satellite dishes, which were banned under Saddam, and about 200 newspapers, and unfettered access to the Internet — also banned under Saddam. (Banned in Castro’s Cuba, too, by the way. That is not a datum you’re apt to learn in our media.)

The foreign secretary reminds his audience that Saddam Hussein had violated no fewer than 17 U.N. agreements, and that the U.N. had 173 pages’ worth of WMD concerns. He says — as before, I will paraphrase — “I respect the views of those who disagreed with our action in Iraq. But I would ask them to look back and consider what the situation would be if we had allowed Saddam to continue to defy the U.N. I submit that if we had sat on our hands and not acted, the world today would be a much more dangerous place.”

Someone asks whether Iraq will have to be split apart, given the inharmonious peoples. He responds that the territorial integrity of Iraq must be “absolute,” and points out that we are in a country — Switzerland — that is “highly federated” but “still unified.” He also cites Belgium, with its different regions and tongues — “so these models exist.”

Secretary Straw is sort of needled about Iraq contracts flowing to U.S. companies. He says something arresting, from a foreign official: Again, paraphrasing, “The U.S. taxpayer has put an astonishing amount of money in Iraq, through Congress — and that’s democracy, by the way. It’s only natural that they should want some of the money to come back to American firms. But plenty of subcontracts are going to other Coalition partners. I applaud the astounding generosity of the American people, and I would remind you that the ultimate benefit, of course, accrues to the people of Iraq.”

You can live for many days — or years or decades — and not hear such an evaluation of the American people from any foreign leader.

Olivier Roy interjects that it has been demonstrated that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and no link to al Qaeda — therefore, the only reason to have gone into Iraq was to build a stable democracy, and that the Coalition is doing badly.

Straw does not sit on his hands. He again refers to those 173 pages, in which was mentioned “the strong presumption” — the U.N.’s words — that the regime harbored 10,000 liters of anthrax. “Were we to do nothing?” asks Straw. “Nothing?” It is probably the most dramatic moment of the session.

The secretary adds that he has never claimed a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda — although Saddam had his hands in terror generally (e.g., in the Intifada). (I myself always like to point out that Saddam, after all, gave refuge to Abu Abbas — the Achille Lauro mastermind — and Abu Nidal, an Arab Carlos the Jackal, whom Saddam, in all likelihood, wound up killing, for reasons that make for interesting speculation.)

Straw robustly defends our democracy-building efforts in Iraq, then goes on to sing an ode to democracy at large. He comes from a party, he says, “that lost four elections on the trot” (a wonderful Britishism for “in a row”). “We won the last two. That’s called democracy, and sometimes the side you favor doesn’t win.”

He also explains that he doesn’t especially mind religious parties, which dot Europe (even if they do not tend to be especially religious — think the Christian Democrats, in any country). When an Islamic party in Turkey won power, there was “shock, horror,” but everyone now agrees that that government is “a delight to do business with.”

A questioner notes that all of the experts on an earlier panel — all of them, to a man — averred that the Iraq campaign had made the War on Terror harder. Straw snorts this claim out of school, pointing out that, at a minimum, the Coalition has removed Afghanistan and Iraq from the terror business, and can that be counted as nothing?

Another questioner alleges that Britain et al. are “cooking the books” in Iraq — placing their thumbs heavily on any electoral scale. Straw himself describes this as a charge of “a stitch-up job,” then knocks it down, in no uncertain terms. He again avows his special love of democracy: “I have been democratically elected to public office. Who else in this room can say the same? Let me see hands, please. One? Fine. But I don’t care to take lectures on democracy and democratic legitimacy. Elective office in a democracy has been my life.” What’s more, “‘legitimacy’ is an easy word to mouth, but those who question our methods in Iraq should be asked, ‘What would you do that would be an improvement on what we’re doing?’”

That is a question that tends to shut mouths.

A Turkish participant expresses concern that the Kurds are feeling their oats (so to speak), and cites at least one Kurd who has made loud independence noises. Straw (in paraphrase): “People will take positions, ‘twas ever thus. But when Saddam Hussein was in power, people could not take positions, lest they be killed. True, we’ve found fewer WMD than expected, but we’ve found more mass graves. And now, people don’t get shot for expressing their opinion.”

Another participant chides Secretary Straw for putting the judiciary last in his list of recent Iraqi accomplishments. Obviously, says this man, the government of the U.K. can’t care terribly much about the rule of law. Straw, barely patient, responds that he put the judiciary last because it’s most important, not least, “and I say this as a lawyer.”

So that’s that.

I have gone on about this performance simply because it’s not the kind I am accustomed to witnessing. Certainly we don’t often see such things at international conferences, including the Davos Forum. Straw was commanding, unflinching, persuasive, affable, willing, and factual. He was informed to the gills. He proved a superb explainer/defender of all that we are doing, and have done, and will do in Iraq. I dare say that no American official has performed as well — certainly not Straw’s counterpart, Colin Powell. How much good it would do, around the world and at home, for Powell to make such efforts, with such conviction and knowledge! My suspicion is that most people would come around to the Coalition point of view — or at least not be hostile to it — if it were explained sufficiently well. This has been a failure of the post-9/11 period. But Jack Straw, trust me, is up to the job.

I doubt that we will ever, dear Impromptus-ites, find a foreign minister of a socialist government more congenial. Ever.

The same goes for his PM, actually.

- - - - - - -

Heh. Quite right. Indeed, why do we in the U.S. (and especially in the Democratic Party) seem so willing to let appointed officials from other countries and the U.N. - unelected by the public - lecture us about legitimacy?

I want to let folks in on a little secret: my wife is the most important voter in New Hampshire. She must be since every serious Democratic candidate has called my house looking for her (Okay, so it was a campaign worker, but you get the idea). She’s been invited to dinners and meetings and forums and rallies and even a hockey game… the list goes on and on. And she’s not even a Democrat! When we relocated from Massachusetts to New Hampshire we dutifully made our way to City Hall and registered to vote. Both of us were registered Republicans in Massachusetts, but when the time came to check off a box here in the Granite State she chose “unenrolled”.

I didn’t give her a hard time about it- she told me she registered Republican before because it was Massachusetts and “somebody had to do it.” Now that we were in New Hampshire she wanted to avoid all the calls from party hacks and organizers and have a little peace when the election season rolled around.

Poor, naive, deluded woman that I love.

The phone started ringing about a month ago, beginning with soft-voiced school girls from the Dean campaign who seemed incapable of understanding that the woman had a job, and how could an independent thinker like my wife be married to a knuckle-dragging troglodyte of a Republican like me anyhow. Those were the first calls. Others were more conventional, but they were all looking for my wife. Except Kucinich- he never called. Ingrate.

Interestingly enough, a couple of the campaigns were actually willing to chat with me. Me! A GWB fan, through and through. We won’t mention any names, but they both got Big Mo from Iowa last Monday. What came out of those conversations was a firm understanding that everything is very much in play up here in the Granite State. Nobody is conceding anything to anyone.

Which makes the debate beginning as I post this all the more interesting.

CNN.com - Polls: Kerry leads rivals in New Hampshire - Jan. 22, 2004
I'll repeat: Bush is my man, but I'm loving seeing Dean die a slow or quick death [UPDATE: I phrased it this way because I don't know what kind of death it is yet. Dean has a lot of money and a huge ego. He could be around for a while as either a Democrat or independent]. I'm a Republican, but an American first and I want us to have a good President regardless of the general election. Dean isn't it. Not by a long shot.

President Bush has my vote in November, but I'm pulling for Kerry until the Democrats have a nominee.

Sen. John Kerry moved atop the Democratic pack in New Hampshire five days before the state's presidential primary, with a five-point edge over his closest rival, Howard Dean, in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup tracking poll out Thursday.

Kerry, a senator from neighboring Massachusetts, got a boost from his victory in the Iowa caucuses Monday night, and several other polls also showed him at the top of the pack Thursday.

Kerry had the support of 30 percent of likely New Hampshire voters in the three-day poll, conducted Monday through Wednesday. Dean, the former Vermont governor, followed with 25 percent, and retired Gen. Wesley Clark was at 18 percent.

The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who placed second in Monday's Iowa caucuses, won the support of 11 percent of likely voters, while Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut trailed with 8 percent. Rep. Dennis Kucinich weighed in at 4 percent, and civil rights activist Al Sharpton had the support of less than one percent of those surveyed.

Edwards, a trial lawyer, would be near the bottom of my list of preferences, though ahead of Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton. Tort reform is desperately needed and having a trial lawyer in the White House would doom it -- not that it has much chance now due to Democratic filibusters.

Laconia, NH - The campaigning by the Democratic presidential hopefuls has ramped up in New Hampshire and will approach ‘frantic’ by Saturday. While the front runners put a lot of effort into Iowa, two candidates focused their attentions on New Hampshire – Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman. It may be time well spent, particularly in light of Howard Dean’s meltdown.

One difference between Iowa and New Hampshire that will change the dynamics of the campaign is spelled out in an editorial in the Laconia, NH Citizen:

Caucuses are caucuses, but primaries are about people.

[…]

The differences between New Hampshire and Iowa go beyond those of topography. The party faithful gather in caucuses in Iowa. In New Hampshire, nominees are chosen by registered voters — unenrolled, as well enrolled. New Hampshire is where the people speak.

[…]

Watch the Independent voters — the people who are registered, but not declared as either Republicans or Democrats. Many of them will vote in the Democratic primary this year, knowing they can quickly resume their Independent status.

The absence of a contest in the Republican primary will likely [lead] more Independent voters picking up Democratic ballots than would otherwise be the case. They’re the voters on whom the organizations of John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards and Wesley Clark have to focus during the next seven days.

We Granite Staters have always been contrary and independent folk. Here the candidates have to press the flesh. Fancy TV, radio, and newspaper ads won’t cut it, and the smarter candidates know it.

Now let’s see what the line up for next Tuesday looks like:

Though John Kerry is coming out of Iowa with a win, it may not be enough to sway Granite State voters. Because of our proximity to Massachusetts, we have a somewhat better understanding of its junior senator. One thing we expect from our congressional delegation is to be represented – that they actually show up for work and vote on legislation. Kerry’s record is dismal – he’s made only 59% of the votes in the Senate, and that percentage will drop as he spends even more time out campaigning, leaving his constituents high and dry. That’s something that won’t sit well with folks here in New Hampshire – our Congresscritters actually show up and vote and everything!

John Edwards is still something of a cypher despite his good showing in Iowa. He is well spoken and knows how to talk to a crowd without sounding condescending. He’s a good ol’ boy, in the best sense of the word. He has humble beginnings, as does Wesley Clark. It works for him. We’ll see if it’s enough.

Howard Dean is in trouble. Yet another neighbor to New Hampshire, we’ve seen the results of his policies and programs in Vermont. Some have been pretty good. Others have been dismal. Despite his strong start, his campaign is flagging. Some of that is because people are now seeing the real Howard Dean and they aren’t liking what they see. A lot of us in New Hampshire have known what others are just now finding out – what you see isn’t necessarily what you’re getting.

Wes Clark is picking up steam, leading me to believe that he has a pretty good shot at blowing by Dean on Tuesday. He might even be able to humble John Kerry, or at least make him nervous.

Joe Lieberman is trying hard to show that he’s the one everyone should support, a centrist with strong principles who doesn’t change his views because of opinion polls. The problem is that he’s too nice a guy, a little too low key for this campaign. He’d probably make a pretty decent president, but he hasn’t caught on with the voters here in New Hampshire even though some think he has a better chance to beat George W. Bush in November than any of the other candidates. It looks doubtful he’ll get the chance. (Does my bias show?)

What can I say about Dennis Kucinich? Not much. There’s little support for Kucinich in New Hampshire, and what support there is seems to be from those even farther out on the fringe than some of the usual suspects in the Democratic party. A phrase coined by Don Imus comes to mind whenever I think of Kucinich - “jug-eared little Martian.” It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that’s what quite a few New Hampshire voters think as well.

Al Sharpton is another candidate who has managed to stay below the radar so far. While not as far out as Dennis Kucinich, he shows roughly the same poll numbers. Say ‘Goodbye’, Al.

****

This weekend I’ll be running yet another unscientific and not-unbiased Paugus Diner Poll^© and will post the results Sunday afternoon. Maybe we’ll have an even better idea of what New Hampshire voters think about the candidates.

From the Chicago Report
Why is it that we all feel the need to comment on the President’s address? It seems to me that it is purely a ritualistic matter. The President never really says anything specific or substantial. He never says the “state of the union is weak”. Sure the union hasn’t really been weak since the Civil War but do we really expect that the President would admit it if it was … especially in an election year. The importance of the address lies not in what the President says but in the very fact that he is saying it. The founders of this great nation thought it imperative that the executive be accountable to the people’s representatives. The constitution says “He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient”. I think that the important idea is that there is communication between the branches of government, that he shall come before congress. Sometimes it is more important to understand the ritual itself than any particular policy it promotes. Just a thought.

Kerry wins, Edwards gains ground and everyone is talking about Dean.

Let's clear one thing up first. Don't listen to cries of Deanophiles. The media did not make Dean lose. The media did not conjure up the Angry Young Man image (Angry Middle-Aged Man?). It's not the media's fault that every time I would see a photo of Dean, this Billy Joel song popped in my head:

There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He's always at home with his back to the wall.
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost,
And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

Dean created his own image. The press only played on it. And the more the press played on it, the more animated Dean became and the more groupie-like his fans became.

Normally, it takes an AYM a couple of years to go through all the stages we saw Dean run through last night. From passionate to righteous to mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, right into full blown meltdown. All in a matter of hours.

With only the first step in a long, long journey to November taken, Dean has already veered from his path and is going to have to struggle to catch up to Edwards and Kerry. The race is on and Dean has stumbled at the gate. Insert more cliches and metaphors here.

The grass roots/internet movement that has been the hallmark of Dean's campaign turned out last night to be a man-behind-the-curtain scenario. It looked much bigger, stronger and fearsome than it really was. Perhaps his supporters in Iowa were more vocal. Perhaps they knew how to play the press better than the camps of the other candidates. Whatever the reason, Dean's posse came off bigger than life in the weeks leading up to Iowa. And when push came to shove, it turned out not to be about image or a tour bus full of orange hats or a blog. It was about electability.

Sure, Dean has been great for the media. He's a cartoon character with a million expressions. He's the cult of personality all shoved into one package. He's People Powered Howard and he's going to prove that the little guy does make a difference. He shoots lasers with his eyes and speaks in tongues. All that is well and good - it gives one the impression of power and leadership, it plays great on tv and it creates a lasting image - but it doesn't get you the votes. In the end, the people of Iowa decided they wanted to elect a president, not a personality. And most Iowans are probably breathing a sigh of relief today.

Dean's very public meltdown last night will be the subject of jokes, cartoons and a million articles and blog posts today. But don't be fooled by that Linda Blair imitation he did last night. If Dean does not get the Democratic nomination, it will be because of a combination of things; the pandering to the far left, the arrogant visit to the MLK ceremony yesterday, the "we're not any safer" mantra and, in a way, the cult status he has garnered. He is a victim of his own hype right now; the fandom that his followers have created has become a smoke and mirror act and in an odd twist, Dean himself has fallen for the trick.

The whole People Powered Howard thing reminds me very much of the movie Tommy. You remember that song at the end?

Right behind you I see the millions.
On you I see the glory.
From you I get opinions.
From you I get the story.
Listening to you I get the music.
Gazing at you I get the heat.
Following you I climb the mountain.
I get excitement at your feet!

That's replaced the "Angry Young Man" lyrics in my head. Dean's followers have created the fan frenzy and Dean is having a little problem living up that god-like image they've given him. I wonder how many of them cringed when Dean did his voice-changing, red-faced, wild-eyed, evangelical minister impression last night? All he needed was a folding chair and a wrestling wring and he'd be Hulk Hogan, putting on a show for the kids.

So how much of Dean is carnival barker and how much is the real deal? Will his followers climb that mountain with him or will they stay a few feet away and watch him warily? Will he tone down his act and stop shooting daggers out of his eyes? Will the People Powered Howard tour bus drive him to success or forget to put on the brakes and crash and burn at the bottom of the mountain?

All these questions and more may or may not be answered in New Hampshire, the next installment of the continuing saga of On the Road With Howard Dean. Brought to you by the makers of Zoloft(c) - for a kinder, gentler you.

Emailed just now by Taegan D. Goddard, from his Political Wire.

------------------------------

In an initial look at the results in Iowa, it appears that at least three major factors contributed to Howard Dean's plunge from assumed front-runner to disappointed third place finisher.

Dean's "outsider campaign" had trouble assimilating insiders. His plunge
coincided almost perfectly with endorsements from Al Gore, the ultimate insider, and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), the most coveted endorsement in the state.

Negative ads by Dean and Rep. Dick Gephardt worked perfectly in that nearly destroyed each other.

The capture of Saddam Hussein made the pro-war votes by Sen. John Kerry and Sen. John Edwards more palatable to many Democratic voters. In addition, Dean's first reaction to the news raised many eyebrows.

Well, I hate to say it, but I was right. It appears that Dean doesn’t have quite the appeal that everyone thought. Of course the results of the Iowa caucuses do not bear directly on the New Hampshire results, but indirectly they are huge. The Iowa numbers will take a circuitous path this week, through the national punditocracy and into the concerned minds of New Hampshire voters. I know that I am on the record saying Iowa doesn’t matter and it shouldn’t, but Dean made it important and lost. So in anticipation of the ceaseless opining you are sure to hear this week, let’s look at the buzz words you can expect.

Bounce

Kerry and Edwards are sure to get a bounce from this coup and I must say they deserve it. However right I may have been about Dean, I was wrong about Edwards. A month ago I wondered if Edwards shouldn’t start shopping for VP commitments from Dean or Clark. Now it could potentially be the reverse ... although it’s unlikely. If I had to bet Edwards will be VP for either Kerry or Dean; both need help getting through the South.

High-roller

No matter what happens to Kerry from here on out, he gets my respect as the chutzpah candidate of Primary 2004 (Sorry Joe … maybe you’ll get it back). Any man who mortgages his home to fund a campaign that appears to be going nowhere, and then wins, deserves a few grunts of respect. I’d buy him a beer if I could. Kerry has gone from has been to front runner in a week. His New Hampshire poll numbers have been trending upwards all week, from 11% on January 12th to 19% just yesterday. Even if he gets a mere 5% bounce it will at least be a three way dead heat in New Hampshire next week.

Disappointment

Dean will certainly try to spin his way into a marginal victory. “If you had told us a year ago that we would come in third in Iowa …yada, yada, yada”. Dean’s post caucus speech was something to behold, a lesson in not learning lessons. Dean approached the delicate moment with his token pomp and anger. If you come in a close second this might be appropriate when you are 20% behind the winner, you might want to reconsider your approach. Again this is just Iowa. I repeat THIS IS JUST IOWA. But the South was going to be hard enough for Dean to win with a weak Edwards and Iowa and New Hampshire wins under his belt. Now with a devastating disappointment and a stronger Edwards, his southern support, tentative as it was, is sure to evaporate. Furthermore, his main constituency, the anti-war crowd, went for Kerry. This is probably the biggest slap in the face to Dean who had touted himself as the only true anti-war Democrat.

New Hampshire

The nation’s most important primary just became even bigger. Kerry’s big upset in Iowa against one “front-runner” precipitates an even more exciting showdown next week against both. Clark shrewdly skipped Iowa and has had New Hampshire all to himself this week, so he’s got a sort of head start. But the national news this week will be all about Kerry.

Endorsements

Not that it really matters but if this week’s losers fold, they are sure to make endorsements. I expect that Sharpton will endorse Kerry and possibly Gephardt as well. Kucinich will probably endorse Dean; this is probably not going to help much.

Campaign Cash

Who’s got it? Dean has the bigger war chest but Kerry won’t have much difficulty getting more. The key will be whether Kerry’s fundraising machine can adjust quickly to his new status as “front-runner”. If not they may not keep the honor. Dean has about $12.5 million in cash while Kerry has only $8 million. Dean will be willing to spend big because he has to win New Hampshire in order to revitalize his base. Edwards and Clark aren’t broke, but have less cash on hand than Dean and Kerry. Edwards will probably “pass go” due to his Iowa efforts. Keep in mind that Bush has at least $73 million. (These cash numbers are from the FEC website so they might be a little outdated.)

Electability

Dean already had an electability problem. Despite the fact that Iowa is not really a vote, it still confirms most Democrats’ fear. Look for Dean to move to the center … despite his declaration that the center is not in Democratic party’s future.

It will be an exciting week regardless. Now I have to go spend time with my wife instead of my computer. Thanks for tuning in.

[This originally appeared at DanielDrezner.com and is reprinted here with permission of the author]

The latest Des Moines Register poll has the following results: Kerry, 26%; Edwards, 23%; Dean, 20%; Gephardt, 18%.

The latest