JustOneMinute

Wesley Clark in "The Return of the General"

Gen. Wesley Clark's campaign has released an inspirational new biopic to rally the faithful and win converts to his cause. Leading the production effort was old-time Clinton crony Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, joined by the hot new talent of Peter Jackson, so we know it is good.

The story commences with The General in his youth, studying at Rivendell in the House of Elrond, and later at Oxford. He serves his country nobly in Viet Nam and along the borders of the Shire, where he protects the weak from harm.

Skipping past some tedious bits, we fast forward to a day when a great evil threatens the land. Slobodan Milosevic and Saruman unite the forces of darkness and oppression in Serbia, threatening the West, or at least Kosovo. Leading a NATO coalition of Frenchmen, Germans, Ents, and Rohirrim, Gen. Clark triumphantly defeats the foe at Helm's Deep.

But his story does not end there - the victory only hastens the day when the General must face his final foe. Or maybe here. Anyway, he must battle a Great Evil! Can The General find the strength of will to overcome this challenge? Can Isildur's Heir (and Clinton's too!) rally his unlikely alliance to triumph?

We can't wait.

From Pundit To Punchline

Paul Krugman is invoked to provide laughlines, rather than his usual frown lines, on Saturday Night Live.

Perhaps becoming a laughingstock has prompted a bit of reflection by the Earnest Prof, or maybe it is just the holiday season, but his latest columns have been sprinkled with olive branches. We smatter away:

To be fair, the looting is a partly bipartisan affair...

The prevailing theory among grown-up Republicans — yes, they still exist —

Or, on foreign policy:

In short, this week's diplomatic debacle probably reflects an internal power struggle, with hawks using the contracts issue as a way to prevent Republican grown-ups from regaining control of U.S. foreign policy.

Whatever. We are charmed by the effort of the Earnest Prof to reach out to us from the left coast of Dean Island - charmed, but unmoved.

David Brooks Connects The French And The Democrats

David Brooks, explaining the inability of the Dem establishment to Stop Dean:

... Howard Dean has launched a comprehensive assault on his party's leaders. First, he attacked their character, charging that they didn't have the guts to stand up to George Bush. Then, he attacked their power base, building an alternative fund-raising and voter mobilization structure. Now he is attacking their ideas, dismissing the Clinton era as a period of mere damage control.

So how are the Democratic leaders defending themselves? They are responding as any establishment responds when it has lost confidence in itself, when it has lost faith in its ideas, when it has lost the will to fight.

And his Big Finish:

...in the Democratic race, the Dean campaign has all the loathing and the passion.

It is a loathing not only for Bush but also for the Democratic establishment, and contempt for its weakness. Nothing has so vindicated the Dean campaign as the Democratic establishment's pallid response to it.

Oww!

Happy Holidays!

John "The Hawk" Kerry Flies Again

Saddam has been captured, and John "The Hawk" Kerry has been set free! In yet another turnabout, the latest John Kerry is engaging in bitter self-recrimination. I should note that the NY Times reporter, apparrently not a psychologist, observed the scene superficially and concluded that Sen. Kerry was discussing Howard Dean. Look deeper! I have helpfully edited the story as appropriate to reveal the truer meaning:

Kerry Says [He] Lacks Presidential Traits

DES MOINES, Dec. 16 — Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts attacked [himself while looking in the mirror while shaving] on Tuesday as inexperienced, inconsistent and weak on foreign policy.

Americans face a "dual danger," Mr. Kerry declared in a presidential campaign speech at Drake University here: "On one side is President Bush, who has taken America off on a road of unilateralism and ideological pre-emption. On the other side are those in my own party, [such as myself], who threaten to take us down a road of confusion and retreat."

...Mr. Kerry had little new to say by way of policy recommendations. But he gave a scathing [self-assessment] of [his] remarks about Iraq over the last year, saying the [Massachusetts Senator] had been "all over the lot."

..."at other times, [I] said that we should not go into Iraq unless the U.N. Security Council gave us authorization," Mr. Kerry added, calling that a "fundamental misunderstanding" of how a president should protect the nation.

"Perhaps it reflects inexperience," he said, "but for [me] to permit a veto over when America can or cannot act becomes only a little more than a pretext for doing nothing. It cedes our security and presidential responsibility to defend America to someone else, and that is a profound danger for both our national security and global stability."

...Here in Des Moines, Mr. Kerry sought to draw a contrast between [his own] posture and those of earlier Democratic presidents, citing Jimmy Carter's "commitment to human rights" in the same breath as Franklin D. Roosevelt's fight against fascism. "None of them would have ever given others the power to prevent America from defending our interests or our ideals," he said.

"To follow the path that [John Kerry] seems to prefer is to embrace a kind of `Simon says' foreign policy where America only moves if others move first," he said. "And that is just as wrong as George Bush's policy of schoolyard taunts and cowboy swagger."

Asked for evidence of these Kerry flip-flops, the Senator pointed to his Senate floor speech of October 2002, and his recent comments attempting to explain his Senate vote authorizing force against Iraq. We note that the comments of John the Dove preceded Saddam's capture:

“We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort.

And the best way for America to succeed in Iraq now?

“Our best option for success is to go back to the United Nations and leave no doubt that we are prepared to put the United Nations in charge of the reconstruction and governance-building processes. I believe the prospects for success on the ground will be far greater if Ambassador Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority are replaced by a UN Special Representative for Iraq.”

Simon says, drop out of the race. Sen. Lieberman will get credit for consistency, not you.

They Ain't Heavy, They're My Allies

From the CalPundit:

...way too many Americans conveniently forget that France and Germany have contributed heavily in both money and troops to the occupation of Afghanistan.

From the CS Monitor, Dec 9:

...while NATO headquarters has pushed for an expansion of the peacekeeping efforts here, European capitals have been sluggish to commit the necessary forces to make that happen. As a result, it is the availability of NATO forces that will drive the mission in Afghanistan, instead of the other way around.

...So far that amounts to little more than 5,700 troops.

The 18 non-US countries in the alliance have between them a total of 1.5 million regular troops as well as 7,000 helicopters and other air-power capabilities, officials say.

Despite this, ISAF in Kabul currently has only three helicopters, and relies on the US military to provide close air support, medical evacuations, and resupply.

This story says that, as of August 2003, Canada and Germany led the way:

[NATO Secretary-General] Robertson also noted that Canada’s 1,900 ISAF troops and another 1,500 German ISAF troops make those two countries the largest contributors to the UN-mandated force for now. "There are going to be 35 countries as part of this coalition, contributing – in some cases like Canada and Germany – a very large number of force, France with something like 300.

Nick Kristof pointed this out a while back, as did I.

I have no problem with French boosting (although I laugh harder at France-bashing). But reality based boosting is more convincing.

Howard Dean Speaks On Foreign Policy

Prof. Dan Drezner grades his paper. It looks like Howard needs to hit the books over the Christmas break.

And we are smiling at the photo of Howard Dean at the podium, his gravitas enhanced by the looming presence of Warren Christopher. DOes anyone else remember the quip from early in the Clinton Administration - "this would never have happened if Warren Christopher were still alive"?

Put Tim Russert On The Dream Team

I think I am serious. Check this for weirdness:

At a party Saturday night in Washington, NBC Meet the Press host Tim Russert bumped into an unusually upbeat George Tenet.

He told the CIA director that he had dreamt that Saddam Hussein had been captured.

"Have a nice holiday," Tenet said, knowing then what the country would learn in nine hours: The Iraqi dictator had been caught.

On NBC's Today Sunday morning, anchor Tom Brokaw put Russert's dream in perspective, quipping that Russert, a Buffalo Bills fan, had often dreamt about the Bills winning the Super Bowl.

OK, we all know enough not to take this seriously. But my question is, does Osama bin Laden know enough not to take this seriously?

If you harken back, Osama was worried that security would be breached by insecure, unauthorized dreams. From an Osama tape:

Before the attacks, bin Laden said some associates had dreams about tall buildings in the United States.

"At that point, I was worried that maybe the secret would be revealed if everyone starts seeing it in their dream," bin Laden said.

As a psy-ops effort, if the US, or a major news organization, was to announce the formation of a "Dream Team", who knows what the effect on Osama might be? And anything that shook up Osama might also prompt him to make a mistake. Of course, the poor sap who actually announces this initiative will have to deal with ridicule, mockery, and scorn - maybe one of the Dem candidates will take this on, as just one more day in the news cycle.

Besides, unless Tim Russert cannot be believed, it might just work. Maybe a bit outside the box...

Sen. Breaux Of Lousiana To Retire In 2004

He is the fifth Southern Senator to announce his retirement:

Four other Southern Democrats in the Senate have announced plans to retire in states where President Bush (news - web sites) figures to run strongly next year: Bob Graham of Florida; John Edwards of North Carolina, Ernest Hollings of South Carolina and Zell Miller of Georgia.

Maybe Howard can help.

Not Quite Finished On Campaign Finance Reform

We hope to have a big wrap up post on campaign finance reform. Our theme will be, just as generals fight the last war, politicans (and courts) regulate the last election.

As much as I object to the lastest BRCA, changing circumstances will probably render it irrelevant. And there is a silver lining related to the astonishing notion that "special interest groups"such as Planned Parenthood or the NRA must form a PAC and report their contributors to the government if they want to buy broadcast ads criticizing a candidate in election season.

How does this work if your concern is privacy rights? One can imagine the following exchange" "Congressman Smith supports legislation that encroaches on my privacy, and I want to oppose his re-election". "OK, concerned about your loss of privacy, register here".

Well, the silver lining is that my government has achieved a level of drollery I would not normally look for. Yes, there are loopholes, but I worry (with Justice Thomas) that loopholes exist to be closed.

So, the counterattack - many lefties are hopeless as possible recruits, because (I infer) they hope to steer this into the direction of full public funding of elections. Congress will determine the level of funding available to its critics, and the media through which those critics can speak - ahh, the land of the free!

However, there is an offsetting force - many on the left can not speak of President Bush without mentioning John Ashcroft and the erosion of civil liberties. Although we are pessimistic that we will find intellectual consistency, an appeal to such types would be based on the notion that, if you are truly worried that Ashcroft is out to get you, registering your involvement with leftwing groups and candidates might not be something with which you ought to be comfortable. Extending that thought, one might implore citizens concerned about the erosion of their privacy rights to oppose legislation requiring political views to be registered with the government.

Just a thought.

TAPPED fascinates us with their link to this article. The authors propose a voucher system of "Patriot Dollars", were each citizen (of voting age? What about my kids?) gets an allocation, thus empowering the private citizenry to (collectively) have enough cash to outbid even the "special interests".

Very interesting. If I proposed a similar voucher scheme for public schools, I can only imagine the horror. And if I use my "Patriot Dollars" to convert to some Christian Right (or left) group with a political agenda, am I still a patriot? As with the parochial school debate, are tax dollars being used to support the promotion of religious views? Maybe such contributions should not be allowed - hah! Try to rally the votes for that proposal, and listen to the howls.

And I wonder - in the current regime, incumbents provide "constituent services" in part because each constituent is a potential voter, although we all suppose that big donors get a favored treatment.

In this proposed system, everyone will have a donation record. If a particular person has a history of supporting a Congressman's opponents, how much service might he get?

And again, if privacy is really an issue (rather than simply an anti-Bush talking point) do I really want the government to maintain a donations record of each voter?

Will it matter? The Dean Team has had succes with directed donations, encouraging, e.g., Deaniacs to contribute to the campaigns of important Iowans. The NRA and Planned Parenthood may well adopt this tactic as a means of displaying their clout

On to the Big Finish - Mickey linked to the same Everett Ehrlich article, which seems to describe how the internet changes everything.

MORE: Changing circumstances will probably render this post irrelevant. From Drudge:

Frustrated with the lack of domestic support, left-leaning website moveon.org has apparently been reaching beyond American borders to generate cash revenue over the Internet!

The provocative international fundraising strategy threatens to embroil the presidential candidacies of General Wesley Clark and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. Both men are named on international fundraising websites suggesting donations to moveon.org.

Moveon.org, which has been running ads critical of the Bush Administration, has named an "International Campaigns Director."

It is not clear how much money has been raised from foreign sources, but political websites from London to Portugal have been directing their citizens to stop the American president George Bush by donating to moveon.org.

Developing...

Aragorn Casts Down Saruman!

The Return of the King opened early in the US, as we strain (unsuccessfully) to keep perspective on the news of Saddam's cowardly surrender.

Now, was this capture a surprise? Last summer, the blogosphere mooted the merits of a Futures on Terror. One of the active markets mentioned was a British online betting service called "TradeSports", which offers propositions on sports, politics, and current events.

It should be emphasized that participants in these markets are informed (or not) outsiders, not the insiders as contemplated by the designers of the Futures on terror. However, their cumulative betting decisions should reflect some rough consensus of informed observers.

There were contracts available to speculate on whether Saddam Hussein would be captured by a certain date (Dec 31, 2003, and Jan, Mar, and June 2004). The December contract had two weeks to run, and last traded, prior to the news of his capture, at a price reflecting a 3% probability that Saddam would be captured by year end.

The March 2004 contract had shown desultory trading reflecting a probabilty of roughly 20% that Saddam would be captured by March 31, 2004.

Based on either of these contracts, I would say that outside observers were surprised by the news.

Now, what about the effect on the Presidential election? Here, the reaction was muted. Prior to the news, the probability that President Bush would be re-elected was trading at rough 66%. This has been reasonably stable - for example, during the summer, as the President's poll number declined, this probability dropped from the mid 60's to about 58%.

In the initial flurry after the announcment, the probability of Bush re-election was traded up to 71%. However, it seems to have stabilized at about 69%. A modest uptick, but hardly a radical re-evaluation of the President's prospects.

MORE: Quirky and interesting angles from Mickey. He offers "A special award to the first reporter or commentator who argues this is actually good news for Howard Dean."

He picks James Taranto of the WSJ, with respct to the nomination. Mr. Taranto's theme - Dems will figure Bush is now unbeatable, and quit toying with electable but uninspiring centrists like Gen. Clark. Better to lose on your feet than die on your knees!

Well, I nominate Chris Matthews, who speculated that the media coverage of this capture will drown out the attempts of the trailing Dems to be heard, thereby freezing the nomination race. I believe a panelist pointed out the the nation is not exactly riveted on the pronouncements of the various candidates during the holiday season in any case.

Job Security For General Boykin

There is huge coverage of the capture of Saddam at the InstaPundit, and the Corner. However, one seemingly overlooked sidebar is this: the controversial General William (Jerry) Boykin (My Christian god is tougher than Allah!) has probably bought himself a bit of job security. Based on various reports, his group was involved in the capture of Saddam.

We find this in the recent New Yorker, by Seymour Hersh:

The Bush Administration has authorized a major escalation of the Special Forces covert war in Iraq. In interviews over the past month, American officials and former officials said that the main target was a hard-core group of Baathists who are believed to be behind much of the underground insurgency against the soldiers of the United States and its allies. A new Special Forces group, designated Task Force 121, has been assembled from Army Delta Force members, Navy seals, and C.I.A. paramilitary operatives, with many additional personnel ordered to report by January. Its highest priority is the neutralization of the Baathist insurgents, by capture or assassination.

And, after a long skip, we get this:

One of the key planners of the Special Forces offensive is Lieutenant General William (Jerry) Boykin, Cambone’s military assistant. After a meeting with Rumsfeld early last summer—they got along “like two old warriors,” the Pentagon consultant said—Boykin postponed his retirement, which had been planned for June, and took the Pentagon job, which brought him a third star. In that post, the Pentagon adviser told me, Boykin has been “an important piece” of the planned escalation. In October, the Los Angeles Times reported that Boykin, while giving Sunday-morning talks in uniform to church groups, had repeatedly equated the Muslim world with Satan. Last June, according to the paper, he told a congregation in Oregon that “Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army.” Boykin praised President Bush as a “man who prays in the Oval Office,” and declared that Bush was “not elected” President but “appointed by God.” The Muslim world hates America, he said, “because we are a nation of believers.”

There were calls in the press and from Congress for Boykin’s dismissal, but Rumsfeld made it clear that he wanted to keep his man in the job.

Well, if there was any thought of easing him out gracefully, now would be the time - mission accomplished, and good-bye. However, the mission is not accomplished in Iraq - there is still a lot of work to do in battling the Iraqi insurgency, and we still want Osama. I expect the General will be with us for a while, and we hope he can keep up the good work.

P.S. Yes, I am trying very hard not to laugh out loud here.

MORE: NY Times coverage of the intel operation, with a favorable mention of Task Force 11 Squared.

Angry Al Sharpton

Al Sharpton is starting to simmer.

Jonah Goldberg Is An Idiot

I get fed up with lefty bloggers whining that Glenn R. hasn't paid proper attention to their outrage du jour. (I don't know what it is, but they have one every day). Now Jonah joins the "Glenn should cover everything all the time" chorus, this time on the subject of campaign finance reform.

I quote from The Corner: "I COULD HAVE SWORN.... That Instapundit was one of the good guys on this. But the Spoons experience says otherwise..."

For heaven's sake. Glenn was traveling on Thursday, and anyone who needs Glenn to hold their hand and hear him say "Check out Mickey Kaus or the Volokh Conspiracy for coverage" is probably so far behind they will never catch up anyway.

We also note that Messr. Goldberg works for an online mag where many voices are heard. Does Jonah G. write on every topic of importance, or does it count if, for example, Rich Lowry tackles something? Should I march around saying, I thought Jonah was one of the good guys on some damn topic, but since he has not personally opined, I guess he isn't?

I only ask because Glenn R. does not have such help (or if he does, he's not saying.)

Anyway, I have many links to news outlets and blog-analysis in this post. My Spoon link is here. And since these righties are irritating me, I am now thinking that, although I object to this Supreme Court decision, and don't like the direction it may lead, the hyperbole of some of the critics is absurd. I will pick this from Spoons, as an example:

...With today's decision, our Nine Robed Rulers have given their approval to Congress's efforts to make it a felony to criticize them under certain circumstances.

Think about that for just a second. We now live in a country in which someday soon, a man could be sent to federal prison for years for saying, at the wrong time and place, that Hillary Clinton is a bad Senator, or that George Bush shouldn't be reelected. In the United States of America!

Well, that "wrong time and place" would have to be a paid broadcast advertisement, few of which appear by accident (incredible, but true). The speaker could certainly criticize Hillary! (under the law) in a blog, a paid newspaper ad, a newspaper op-ed article, a television interview, or on a street corner. "Saying it" continues to be protected; buying airtime to broadcast it can create problems.

As I said, I don't like the direction this law is headed, and I am deeply disturbed by the process under which the Court is allowing Congress to set the rules under which Congressmen can be criticized. However, let's not go overboard here, with arguments so extreme that our own credibility is put at risk.

And I should note that Jonah G. was the knucklehead here (well, maybe there are two of us now). "Spoons" simply pointed out a glaring error in the Goldberg commentary. More from Spoons here, here, and here (and I smell cover-up; this one seems a bit critical, regardless of the unconvincing disclaimer.)

Misery Loves Company

We presume that confusion loves company as well. The Man Without Full Understanding is puzzled by the recent John Ellis piece describing the strategy behind the Al Gore endorsement of Howard Dean:

I understand that now that Al Gore has endorsed Howard Dean, that if Dr. Dean wins the White House in 2004 then Mr. Gore will be in a good position to claim various goodies. Check.

But I'm having a little trouble with what happens if Dr. Dean steers the Democratic Party into the political equivalent of an airliner collision with Mount Fuji in 2004, losing the White House and more seats in Congress - thereby weakening or eliminating the ability of Senate Democrats to block Republican judicial nominees....

John, explain to me again how by endorsing Dr. Dean and helping cause such a gigantic, historic wreck, Al Gore puts himself in a better position to pick up the pieces and claim the Democratic nomination in 2008. I think I must have missed the explanation the first time.

Hmm. My own puzzlement began a bit sooner in the Ellis article:

...It's a very shrewd move. Start with the least likely outcome. If Governor Dean defeats President Bush in 2004, Al Gore becomes Secretary of State or a Supreme Court Justice or whatever he wants, the day after the election is over. That's how much Dean will owe him.

Supreme Court Justice? After Florida 2000, and "No controlling legal authority"? Hmm, maybe it is a clever ploy to balance the budget by selling tickets to Supreme Court oral arguments - Scalia versus Gore, film at eleven. President Dean could nominate him, but would a Senate with at least forty one Republicans ever let him be confirmed?

And would the public object to a Republican roadblock? Sandra Day O'Connor was a (minor) elected official; Al Gore is known as a visibly partisan politician, not a judge - would the public really want him on the bench, pretending to apply the law impartially?

Ridiculous.

Free To Scuttle from Loophole To Loophole

The Supreme Court has opined on campaign finance reform, and Mickey Kaus fails to reassure me:

Why am I not wildly upset by the Supreme Court's surprise opinion upholding virtually all of the McCain-Feingold law? Because the law turned out to not be as restrictive of speech as most people, including most of its editorial-page supporters, think it is: It doesn't prevent rich (and non-rich) individuals from banding together to spend as much money as they want on "independent" last-minute issue" ads that criticize or praise candidates by name--something that I'd argue is their right. It only bans them if they incorporate. ... I do think they should be able to incorporate (as non-profits) and enjoy the benefits of limited liability without giving up their speech rights. But it's not the end of the world if they can't. We'll soon see lots of unincorporated non-profits (yes, they can exist) springing up as vehicles for independent political advertising.

Against this we have the dissent by Justice Thomas, as excerpted by David Cohen:

It is not difficult to see where this leads. Every law has limits, and there will always be behavior not covered by the law but at its edges; behavior easily characterized as "circumventing" the law's prohibition. Hence, speech regulation will again expand to cover new forms of "circumvention," only to spur supposed circumvention of the new regulations, and so forth. Rather than permit this neverending and self-justifying process, I would require that the Government explain why proposed speech restrictions are needed in light of actual Government interests, and, in particular, why the bribery laws are not sufficient.

Having established and reinforced the concept that Congress can regulate political speech for the purpose of avoiding the appearance of corruption, the logic of the Court seems to point to a day when Congress will vote the level of funding for elections, and the rest of us will be asked to remain respectfully silent.

MORE: Linda Greenhouse of the NY Times; excerpts from the decision; Glen Justice of the NY Times; the WaPo.

MORE: Rick Hasen, author of the "Election Law" blog, has thoughts The Big Picture and 527 Organizatons: The Next Big Question. He also pitches us to Howard Bashman's round-up of reaction.

Howard Dean, The Angry Democrat

Will The Angry Man manage to attract new voters and energize his base with his passion and conviction? Or will centrists peer in confusion at their television screens and wonder, who is this little man yelling at me, and why is his face so red?

Republican strategists are worried, and are finally noticing the obvious:

"He has the biggest potential to go down in flames, but he also has a certain wild-card potential," said former Minnesota Republican representative Vin Weber.

"A slugger's chance" is what they call it in sporting circles.

But, amidst the hype, let us not fail to respect the wisdom of the classics: at some point in the campaign, we should be treated to "Dean is waxing wroth... well, tell Wroth to wax Dean for a while".

Grover Norquist Under Fire?

The InstaPundit is on this. I sat down in front of the Frank Gaffney piece this morning and read for what seemed like two weeks, but I had to quit when I ran out of crystal meth. Now I am patiently waiting for somone at the NRO Online to summarize it for me. However, the soundbite is that Grover Norquist is far too cozy with some evil Islamists, and has persisted in the relationship after being advised as to the true nature of his associates.

I am fascinated (but not enough to snort more crystal meth) because Grover Norquist is the arch-villian of the Krugman Conspiracy.

More Post-Debate Snark

Ms. Moseley-Braun: I am sure you are a lovely woman, and I have no doubt that you would be charmed to be picked as someone's Vice-Presidential candidate, but I'm begging you, stop sucking up to Howard; he is never in this galactic age going to have a strategy which includes you on the ticket.

Earnest Joe: Stop punching the air with your right fist. If you are that intent on showing your energy and passion, punch whoever is standing next to you, or Ted Koppel. Politics is a contact sport! Bring 'em on!

Dennis K: You were flying when you threw Ted Koppel's questions back for being too small. Just don't talk about your plan for cutting and running from Iraq - the crowd cheers, Al Sharpton joins in, and both Gephardt and Lieberman look so stony I think I am seeing Mt. Rushmore (as if!). Incredibly, I missed their responses, but I suspect they were, ahh, wintry, like New Hampshire.

Tall John: A good night, tall fella! And a nice joke about "If I had bad manners, I would tell you [Ted Koppel] where to put those polls" - good laughs, and we even saw Howard Dean applauding. He can be magnanimous now...

The Mysterious Mr. Gephardt - this performance answers the question no one was asking: whatever happened to Al Gore's personal presentation coach? Until tonight, I thought Big Al had a uniquely annoying, stiff, and phony quality, but now I know better.

Howard Dean looked like a winner.

MORE: Real coverage and a real transcript.

STILL NOT SATISFIED? Max Sawicky saw bits and bobs; Will Saletan saw it all.

General Confusion

Some quick snark after watching the debate (until 8:00, when my TiVo flipped to "The Gilmore Girls", at my daughter's behest).

The debate was moderated by Ted Koppel, and General Clark got off to a ghastly start, which I paraphrase thusly:

Koppel: General, how do you feel about the importance of endorsements, and what would you do if Senator or President Clinton offered you their's?

Gen. Clark: Ted, I haven't really thought about that...

Koppel, interupting: Oh, of course you have.

(General laughter at General expense)

OK, being mocked as a dissembler couldn't have been the best way to launch the evening. Later in the first response, the General offered a bit of his vision for a better America, which I again paraphrase:

Gen. Clark: I am going to take back the American flag. It is not just a symbol for Tom Delay and John Ashcroft and George W. Bush, it is a symbol for all Americans...

Indeed it is. In fact, it is a symbol for Howard Dean and John Kerry, but of whom were wearing American flag lapel pins, although the General was not. Presumably, he is going to take that symbol back a bit later.

My suggestion - get a lapel pin, or drop the line. And who is doing the debate prep on this? Look, I am well aware of the problem - amongst the smart Washington set, only Republicans wear the flag. Fine, then drop the silly rhetoric.

David Brooks, Meet David Brooks

David Brooks delivers a fascinating column on the many faces of Howard Dean. However, he seems to go off the rails in attributing Dean's variability to the Internet:

Everybody talks about how the Internet has been key to his fund-raising and organization. Nobody talks about how it has shaped his persona. On the Internet, the long term doesn't matter, as long as you are blunt and forceful at that moment. On the Internet, a new persona is just a click away. On the Internet, everyone is loosely tethered, careless and free. Dean is the Internet man, a string of exhilarating moments and daring accusations.

Huh? I thought even main stream journalists were waking to the realization that the world is subjected to constant fact-checking by means of the Internet. In fact, here is David Brooks himself, in the same column:

There is a parlor game among Washington pundits called How Liberal Is Howard Dean? One group pores over his speeches, picks out the things no liberal could say and argues that he's actually a centrist. Another group picks out the things no centrist could say and argues that he's quite liberal.

Does he really think that game is restricted to Washington pundits? And how does he suppose folks get access to the many Dean speeches and statement - the public library?

Jeff Jarvis and Andrew Sullivan have more.

If You Eliminate The Impossible...

Whatever remains, however improbable, has to be the truth.

Disregard, for a moment, the lovely debunking I recently saw (and now can't find) of that classic Sherlock Holmes quote. In the post below, I wondered about Hillary! Hawk, and speculated that Dick Gephardt was the prime beneficiary of her resolution on Iraq.

In a related (we claim) post, Andrew Sullivan speculates on the significance of the Al Gore endorsement of Howard Dean:

WHO ELSE WINS? Of course, one problem with the Gore-Dean juggernaut is that it makes an anyone-but-Dean candidacy more likely to emerge at some point. Clark was the obvious option, but he's so bad a candidate I can't see him pulling through on a centrist message (especially since he's been getting shriller and shriller on the stump). Kerry ... oh, never mind. Lieberman could have done it, but Gore's knifing him in the front rather knocks that scenario into the delete file. Edwards? He's run by far the most appealing campaign to my eyes, but he cannot hope to compete in the big leagues yet, especially with the kind of flattening momentum Dean now has....

The only major candidate missing from the "Anybody But Dean" contenders list is Dick Gephardt. Andrew does not rule him out! That and a buck gets you a cup of coffee, but still...

Over to the always interesting Dick Morris, also addressing the Gore endorsement:

...The fight we are witnessing is a battle for control of the Democratic Party.

In one corner stand the Clintons, sending contender after contender out to center ring in an effort to stop Dean from taking over their party. First Joe Lieberman came limping back. Then Wesley Clark ran away from the early primaries and forfeited the match. And now John Kerry is so far behind in New Hampshire that he is down for the count.

Well. Other observers pegged John Kerry as the catspaw of the Kennedy machine, but what the f***. Again, notably missing from this list is Dick Gephardt. He may not have started as a Clinton tool, but could he become one?

And how might Mr. Gephardt feel about having Ms. Clinton's implicit or explicit backing? Here is his statement regarding the Gore endorsement, as found in CNN:

"Dick Gephardt fought side-by-side with Al Gore to pass the Clinton economic plan, pass the assault weapons ban and defend against Republican attacks on Medicare and affirmative action. On each of these issues, Howard Dean was on the wrong side," Smith [a campaign press secretary for Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri] said.

Only a slight re-wording puts Ms. Clinton into that mix. Of course, she also may have cost Dick Gephardt his job as House Majority Leader, but that was then, and this is politics.

Suspension Springs Sag On Hillary! Bandwagon

Andrew Sullivan and William Safire add their weight to the Hillary! bandwagon. The InstaPundit was on this last week, and I will take a bow myself.

Let's start with Mr. Safire:

Senator Hillary Clinton, sweeping through the Sunday morning talk shows after her somewhat upstaged Thanksgiving visit to the war zones, startled her conservative detractors by emerging as a congenital hawk. (I used that adjective "congenital," in the sense of "habitual," in derogation of her credibility back when the world was young.)

A column that went unread (but not unnoticed), as he later noted, because it came out during a snowstorm. Odd parallel. He goes on to praise her hawkishness on Iraq, and wonders what it means:

Consider the political meaning of all this. Here is a Democrat who has no regrets for voting for the resolution empowering the president to invade Iraq; who insists repeatedly and resolutely that "failure is not an option"; who is ready to send in a substantially greater U.S. force to avert any such policy failure — and yet whose latest poll ratings show her to be the favorite of 43 percent of Democrats, three times the nomination support given front-runner Howard Dean.

What cooks? One reason is that Hillary stands aloof, hard to get, while all the others are slavering for support. Another could be that most Democrats don't yet realize she's a hard-liner at heart. A third is that her personal appeal to liberals (and apoplectic opposition from conservatives) overwhelms all Democrats' policy differences. A fourth — and don't noise this around — could be that she speaks for the silent majority of centrist Democrats who yearn for the Old Third Way without Mr. Clinton.

Well, he leaves out a choice nicely articulated by one of Andrew Sullivan's readers - she is as phony as a three dollar bill on this issue, and her supporters know it. Hillary! is that special Dem who can strike as many moderate poses as she likes without ever alienating her liberal base (or convincing me). Hmm, if I am going to link to the Sullivan piece, I suppose I should read it, and I see he makes the same point:

Hillary's enormous gift is that the left of the party adores her, almost regardless of what she says or does. She is so hated by the far right that the left adopts her as an ally almost reflexively. So she alone of most Democrats has the ability to campaign from the center, to pose with troops in photo-ops, to out-flank Bush on the right in the war on terror, without endangering her base.

Well. Messrs. Safire and Sullivan disappoint by not puzzling over the question of whether Ms. Clinton has some deeper strategy than simple positioning for 2008. Who for example, benefits by the covering fire she lays down as an Iraqi hawk unrepentant for her votes on the war, and in support of the $87 Billion reconstruction? Not John Kerry - whoever thought he would f*** up his own repentance so totally?

The Conventional Wisdom is that Dick Gephardt, unrepentant Iraqi hawk, is emerging as the Anybody But Dean choice of the Dem Establishment. And why not, Missouri is a border state, so Mr. Gephardt may lose the South with a grace and style that far surpasses anything Howard Dean could muster, thereby providing useful help down-ticket. Now we see Ms. Clinton backing the Gephardt position on the war. Very interesting.

MORE: And Gore comes out for Dean! A subtle stop-Dean ploy by the Dem Establishment - "Here, Howard, catch this sack of cement"? Or a simple, one angry populist supporting another?

It's never simple! Mickey sends us to TNR. I like this:

...what Gore gets out of an early Dean endorsement could be a claim to being heir to the Dean wing of the party--a claim that could pay dividends should Dean embarrass himself next year. Gore wasn't going to beat Hillary and the Clinton wing in 2008 without a wing of his own. Now he's got a shot at one.

I Feel Like These Two Have A Point

Glenn Reynolds and James Harrigan are in harmony on "Feelings".

Aside to Mr. Harrigan - when the LA County people get involved with plumbing supplies and see all the "male" and "female" parts, their jaws will drop.

A Foolish Consistency Is The Hobgoblin Of Little Minds…

And not even his fiercest critics have suggested that Prof. Krugman has a little mind. Well, the Man Without Simplifications is trying to take away the Earnest Prof's John Bates Clark Medal and his crystal ball, but that is not what I am talking about.

No, I refer to the post-Thanskgiving attempt by the Earnest Prof to find some good in the world. His theme - export led growth has tremendously improved the economic quality of life for billions of third-worlders since 1975.

Now, he might have risen his flag to salute Roe versus Wade, and the creation, by judicial fiat, of a woman's right to choose. Am I being sarcastic? Not really, I am trying to think like a lefty, and perhaps I am making as hash of it. Personally, I might have plumped for Berlin 1989, but the success of free trade is an admirable, defensible, and related choice - I doubt it was a coincidence that the failings of one economic system were made even less tolerable by the success of another.

Hang on, we are meandering to our final shore. My puzzlement is a follows - if free trade has done so much good for the world, wouldn't one expect the Earnest Prof to support the political party more likely to promote free trade? George Bush has been far from stalwart on this issue, and has taken criticism from his own party as a result.

However, a couple of points are worth noting - Bill Clinton is not on the ballot in 2004; NAFTA was a Reagan/Bush initiative inherited by Clinton, and which passed the House in 1993 with many more Republican than Democratic votes; and finally, Clinton's attempts to drag his party into the twentieth century and remodel it as champions of free trade has failed.

The Man Without Fast Track Authority rounds up the free-trade views of the current crop of Dem Presidential aspirants. If you are worried about the economic development of the third world, you should be worried about these characters.

[Sorry - link-free until random dropping by ISP abates]

We Will See Who F***ed Up Badly

John Kerry knows a lot about this.

(Links when my ISP stops the random dropping)

If You Want Something Right Away…

Are you an ASAPirant?

Rock Like An Egyptian

Another Saturday night with Matt Drudge.

Tough News Day For The General

From the NY Times:

Clark Says He Has Plan for Iraq, but Will Not Offer Details

By Edward Wyatt

NASHUA, N.H., Dec. 4 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark assured a crowd at a college campus here on Thursday that he had a strategy to secure Iraq and bring American soldiers home, criticizing the Bush administration for not producing a timeline to withdraw troops.

But General Clark later refused to specify when he would bring troops home or how many more soldiers might be needed to stabilize Iraq.

"I'm not going to produce a political answer that doesn't have the basis underneath it to be justified," General Clark, who is retired from the Army, said in a contentious exchange with reporters after a town hall meeting at Daniel Webster College. "That's not right. So don't ask me to do it. You know, you say, How long will we be there? Let me go over there and look at it and talk to the people and I'll work that."

He said: "You say, Exactly how many troops do you need? It depends what the mission is. I need to see all the facts."

It was a day on which the Clark campaign sought to contrast the military and foreign policy expertise of the candidate, a former NATO supreme allied commander, with that of President Bush. General Clark said that Mr. Bush had "instituted the most arrogant, unctuous foreign policy in this country's history."

"When I go to Iraq, it won't be to deliver turkey," he said, referring to the president's surprise visit to Baghdad on Thanksgiving Day.

General Clark had previously praised President Bush for visiting the troops. But on Thursday, he said that if he were to make such a trip as president, "I'll actually be going over there to have consultations with the people that are there."...

First, the Steely Eyed General's basic position is logical, defensible, and reeks of BS. His message: with the resources of the Executive Branch at my disposal, I would develop a plan, which Bush has failed to do. Well, fine. However, this amounts to saying, my plan for fixing Iraq is to get elected and develop a plan, which is somewhat different from the "I have a stragegy, where is Bush's timetable?" rhetoric described in the opening paragraph.

Who's right? Who cares? My point is, given his late start, the General needs to mimic John McCain's Straight Talk Express of 2000, and let an adoring media carry him to exposure and victory. This story describes a "contentious exchange with reporters", and gives the impression that Clark is on the "Straight Down the Tubes" Express.

As a bonus, the now-contentious reporter describes Clark's pandering, deceptive flip-flop on the burning issue of Bush and the Baghdad turkey. The General praised the trip earlier, and is now criticizing it? And even casual news readers know that Bush met with senior US and Iraqi officials while over there, so what's up with "I'll actually be going over there to have consultations with the people that are there."?

Not good. Fortunately, this was buried in the want-ads on page A34, so maybe no one will notice.

MORE: Kinder, gentler coverage from the AP.

UPDATE: Mickey has an interesting slant on what happens after the surging Clark passes the fading Kerry in New Hampshire polls:

Dean, Clark, Hope for Sparks: The more I think about it, a turning point in the Democratic presidential campaign has to come with the first N.H. poll showing Clark ahead of Kerry and in second place. It could come any day now. Clark's only three points behind in one poll and only two in another. .... 2) The #1 versus #2, Dean versus Clark match up will get lots of play in the press because Clark's strengths are Dean's weaknesses, yielding a story line that is simple and compelling: "Peacenik McGgovern II versus Electable Military Man. Which will the Democrats Choose?" ... 3) Clark will get a lot of favorable treatment in this new round of coverage--in part because the press feels guilty about giving Dean (as The Note notes) a relatively easy time so far, in part because the press wants a close race.

Hmm. But the NY Times hates Clark, as does the New Yorker. Physicists eagerly await the impending collision of press biases, and hope to gain new insight into matter/anti-matter/does it matter.

"If I Could Give You Back Your Anonymity..."

Ambassador Joseph Wilson reluctantly appears with his former mistress, the notorious Valerie Plame, in a photo shoot for the January Vanity Fair.

MORE: Alex Parker is worried.

STILL MORE: Glenn Reynolds ponders the Ambassador's conduct and tells us that "I'M OFFICIALLY PRONOUNCING THE PLAME SCANDAL BOGUS".

Well, I declared the Ambassador bogus quite some time ago, but the scandal does have a life independent of his hysteria and hype.

Not much of a life, judging from the media silence, and guessing from the leaked "politicize the intel" memo, but a life nontheless.

UPDATE: Tim Noah of Slate has one of the photos, and is scathing:

Chatterbox spares Plame Whopper status, possibly on grounds of misplaced gallantry. But Plame's extended striptease, enthusiastically barked by her husband, now has Chatterbox wondering how much of Wilson's story to believe. (It also has Chatterbox wondering when the couple will start renting themselves out for birthday parties.) Regardless of the merits, this photograph will surely give the Bush Justice Department whatever slim justification it seeks in dropping its Plamegate investigation.

I told him so. Hah! And thanks to the Hammer for the tip-off.

More On Dean

We continue to ponder the Howard Dean appearance on Hardball. On terror:

MATTHEWS: Is there any way to reduce the hostility between East and West, the hatred that’s growing toward us from the East?

DEAN: Yes, treat people with respect and they will treat you with respect. And that’s in short commodity.

The Brother Judd has a long post addressing this view of humanity. Soundbite:

Libertarians share with liberals the utopian delusion that Man in the state of Nature is essentially a peaceful creature and that only the rise of governance--of some men having authority over others--causes the disfigurements of this essentially pastoral human nature. Thus, the Left assumes that but for kings, the aristocracy, corporations, or whoever, we'd all sit around singing Kumbaya and share whatever each of us has. Libertarians, on the other hand, assume we'd all be content to leave one another alone and behave our own selves.

Christianity in general and Christian conservatism in particular finds such notions utter hogwash...

Curt Schilling Helps George Bush

Seriously. The re-election effort of New York City Mayor John Lindsay was given a boost by the Miracle Mets in 1969. If Curt Schilling can help the Red Sox lift the Curse next October, all will be sweetness and light in Red Sox Nation. Howard Dean won't be able to attract an angry following in New England, and incumbents like Bush will benefit from an "all's well with the world" afterglow.

The opposite phenomenon will be occurring in New York, but those soon-to-be shell-shocked teeth-gnashers were probably going Democratic anyway.

UPDATE: Do the Yankees play in a ball park, or Jurassic Park? The current rumor: Exile Weaver to the Dodgers for the aging Kevin Brown as a replacement for the aged Roger Clemens.

Thank Heaven Bush Didn't Say It

Andrew Sullivan points out Howard Dean's problem with Russian history. In a very tepid defense of Mr. Dean, we note that much earlier in the interview, he mentioned the "former Soviet Union", although no one is pretending that Mr. Dean is unaware of Russia. [More from Andrew S.]

However, the Hardball appearance also brought forth Howard Dean, Federalist, on the subject of gay marriage:

DEAN: As president, no. As president-first of all, marriage none of the federal government’s business. Marriage is a state issue. We chose not to do gay marriage in our state. California chose to do domestic partnerships. As president of the United States, if a state chooses to do gay marriage, that is their business. That is not the federal government’s business. Equality under the law is what’s important. How states get to that is their business, not the federal government’s business. What I have said...

Chris Matthews was skeptical:

It Just Gets Better

Nader Raising Money for Possible Campaign

An announcement is expected by early next Happy New Year. If Nader runs and the Dems nominate Dean, we can watch Bush's opponents try to divvy up the "Hate Bush" faction.

Did Any McCain-Feingold Critic Fail To Predict This?

From the WSJ:

A Hard Sell on 'Soft Money'

'Shadow Democrats' Work Around
Ban on Unlimited Donations

By JEANNE CUMMINGS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON-- The Mccain-Feingold law's ban on unlimited donations to political parties was barely three weeks old last November when liberal operatives started plotting ways around it.

The result will be a shadow Democratic Party -- an alliance of nonprofit groups that hopes to raise $200 million to mobilize voters and run ads slamming Republicans. It took months of struggle for the Democrats' allies to figure out how to coordinate the left's efforts, while abiding by the new law and not offending the party's unruly constituencies. The story illustrates the difficulties Democrats face as the 2004 campaign heats up.

Democratic leaders in Congress relentlessly fought to ban so-called "soft money" donations for years, scoring points by depicting Republicans as captives of fat-cat contributors. Many liberals privately opposed the ban, however, rightly predicting that it would exacerbate the Democrats' financial disadvantage because Republicans have a huge lead in "hard money" donations that fall under federal limits on size and source. Now outside activists are trying to make sure that the unrestricted "soft money" from corporations and wealthy individuals that the party can no longer accept keeps flowing into pro-Democrat efforts -- a strategy that has the tacit approval of party leaders who backed the ban.

"It could make a mockery of the reform law," says David Magleby, a money-and-politics expert at Brigham Young University.

We continue with shockingly extensive fair-use excerpts below.